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 March 31, 2011
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.
(An Ohio Corporation)
76 South Main Street
Akron, OH 44308
Telephone (800)736-3402
|
|
34-1843785 |
|
|
|
|
|
000-53742
|
|
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
(An Ohio Corporation)
c/o FirstEnergy Corp.
76 South Main Street
Akron, OH 44308
Telephone (800)736-3402
|
|
31-1560186 |
|
|
|
|
|
1-2578
|
|
OHIO EDISON COMPANY
(An Ohio Corporation)
c/o FirstEnergy Corp.
76 South Main Street
Akron, OH 44308
Telephone (800)736-3402
|
|
34-0437786 |
|
|
|
|
|
1-2323
|
|
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY
(An Ohio Corporation)
c/o FirstEnergy Corp.
76 South Main Street
Akron, OH 44308
Telephone (800)736-3402
|
|
34-0150020 |
|
|
|
|
|
1-3583
|
|
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY
(An Ohio Corporation)
c/o FirstEnergy Corp.
76 South Main Street
Akron, OH 44308
Telephone (800)736-3402
|
|
34-4375005 |
|
|
|
|
|
1-3141
|
|
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
(A New Jersey Corporation)
c/o FirstEnergy Corp.
76 South Main Street
Akron, OH 44308
Telephone (800)736-3402
|
|
21-0485010 |
|
|
|
|
|
1-446
|
|
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
(A Pennsylvania Corporation)
c/o FirstEnergy Corp.
76 South Main Street
Akron, OH 44308
Telephone (800)736-3402
|
|
23-0870160 |
|
|
|
|
|
1-3522
|
|
PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
(A Pennsylvania Corporation)
c/o FirstEnergy Corp.
76 South Main Street
Akron, OH 44308
Telephone (800)736-3402
|
|
25-0718085 |
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 April 29, 2011 |
|
FirstEnergy Corp., $.10 par value |
|
|
418,216,437 |
|
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 |
|
|
740,905 |
|
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 FirstEnergys Internet web site and recognize FirstEnergys Internet web site as 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 Internet 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. |
|
|
The impact of the regulatory process on the pending matters in the various states in which
we do business including, but not limited to, matters related to rates. |
|
|
The status of the PATH project in light of PJMs direction to suspend work on the project
pending review of its planning process, its re-evaluation of the need for the project and the
uncertainty of the timing and amounts of any related capital expenditures. |
|
|
Business and regulatory impacts from ATSIs realignment into PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. |
|
|
Economic or weather conditions affecting future sales and margins. |
|
|
Changes in markets for energy services. |
|
|
Changing energy and commodity market prices and availability. |
|
|
Financial derivative reforms that could increase our liquidity needs and collateral costs. |
|
|
Replacement power costs being higher than anticipated or inadequately hedged. |
|
|
The continued ability of FirstEnergys regulated utilities to collect transition and other
costs. |
|
|
Operation and maintenance costs being higher than anticipated. |
|
|
Other legislative and regulatory changes, and revised environmental requirements, including
possible GHG emission, water intake and coal combustion residual regulations, the potential
impacts of any laws, rules or regulations that ultimately replace CAIR and the effects of the
EPAs recently released MACT proposal to establish certain mercury and other emission
standards for electric generating units. |
|
|
The uncertainty of the timing and amounts of the capital expenditures that may arise in
connection with any NSR litigation or potential regulatory initiatives or rulemakings
(including that such expenditures could result in our decision to shut down or idle certain
generating units). |
|
|
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, including as a
result of the incident at Japans Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant. |
|
|
Adverse legal decisions and outcomes related to Met-Eds and Penelecs transmission service
charge appeal at the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. |
|
|
The continuing availability of generating units and changes in their ability to operate at
or near full capacity. |
|
|
The ability to comply with applicable state and federal reliability standards and energy
efficiency mandates. |
|
|
Changes in customers demand for power, including but not limited to, changes resulting
from the implementation of state and federal energy efficiency mandates. |
|
|
The ability to accomplish or realize anticipated benefits from strategic goals. |
|
|
Efforts and our ability to improve electric commodity margins and the impact of, among
other factors, the increased cost of coal and coal transportation on such margins. |
|
|
The ability 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, the cost of such capital and overall condition
of the capital and credit markets affecting the registrants and other FirstEnergy
subsidiaries. |
|
|
Changes in general economic conditions affecting the registrants and other FirstEnergy
subsidiaries. |
|
|
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 continuing uncertainty of the national and regional economy and its impact on the
registrants major industrial and commercial customers and those of other FirstEnergy
subsidiaries. |
|
|
Issues concerning the soundness of financial institutions and counterparties with which the
registrants and FirstEnergys other subsidiaries do business. |
|
|
Issues arising from the recently completed merger of FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy, Inc.
and the ongoing coordination of their combined operations including FirstEnergys 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. |
Dividends declared from time to time on FirstEnergys common stock during any annual period may in
aggregate vary from the indicated amount due to circumstances considered by FirstEnergys Board of
Directors at the time of the actual declarations. A security rating is not a recommendation to buy,
or hold securities and is subject to revision or withdrawal at any time by the assigning rating
agency. Each rating should be evaluated independently of any other rating.
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. 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iii-v |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohio Edison Company |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Toledo Edison Company |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jersey Central Power & Light Company |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Metropolitan Edison Company |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pennsylvania Electric Company |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25 |
|
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Contd)
ii
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
The following abbreviations and acronyms are used in this report to identify FirstEnergy Corp. and
its current and former subsidiaries:
|
|
|
AE
|
|
Allegheny Energy, Inc., a Maryland utility holding company that merged with a subsidiary of
FirstEnergy on February 25, 2011 |
AESC
|
|
Allegheny Energy Service Corporation, a subsidiary of AE |
AE Supply
|
|
Allegheny Energy Supply Company LLC, an unregulated generation subsidiary of AE |
AGC
|
|
Allegheny Generating Company, a generation subsidiary of AE |
Allegheny
|
|
Allegheny Energy, Inc., together with its consolidated subsidiaries |
AVE
|
|
Allegheny Ventures, Inc. |
ATSI
|
|
American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, which owns and operates transmission facilities |
CEI
|
|
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, an Ohio electric utility operating subsidiary |
FENOC
|
|
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, which operates nuclear generating facilities |
FES
|
|
FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., which provides energy-related products and services |
FESC
|
|
FirstEnergy Service Company, which provides legal, financial and other corporate support services |
FEV
|
|
FirstEnergy Ventures Corp., which invests in certain unregulated enterprises and business
ventures |
FGCO
|
|
FirstEnergy Generation Corp., which owns and operates non-nuclear generating facilities |
FirstEnergy
|
|
FirstEnergy Corp., a public utility holding company |
Global Rail
|
|
A joint venture between FEV and WMB Loan Ventures II LLC, that owns coal transportation
operations near Roundup, Montana |
GPU
|
|
GPU, Inc., former parent of JCP&L, Met-Ed and Penelec, that 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 |
MP
|
|
Monongahela Power Company, a West Virginia electric utility operating subsidiary of AE |
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 |
PATH
|
|
Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline LLC, a joint venture between Allegheny and a
subsidiary of American Electric Power Company, Inc. |
PATH-VA
|
|
PATH Allegheny Virginia Transmission Corporation
|
PE
|
|
The Potomac Edison Company, a Maryland electric operating subsidiary of AE |
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, Penn and WP |
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 FEV and WMB Loan Ventures LLC, that owns mining operations near Roundup,
Montana |
TE
|
|
The Toledo Edison Company, an Ohio electric utility operating subsidiary |
TrAIL
|
|
Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company |
Utilities
|
|
OE, CEI, TE, Penn, JCP&L, Met-Ed, Penelec, MP, PE and WP |
Utility Registrants
|
|
OE, CEI, TE, JCP&L, Met-Ed and Penelec |
WP
|
|
West Penn Power Company, a Pennsylvania electric utility operating subsidiary of AE |
The following abbreviations and acronyms are used to identify frequently used terms in this report:
|
|
|
ALJ
|
|
Administrative Law Judge |
AOCL
|
|
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss |
AEP
|
|
American Electric Power |
AQC
|
|
Air Quality Control |
ARO
|
|
Asset Retirement Obligation |
BGS
|
|
Basic Generation Service |
CAA
|
|
Clean Air Act |
CAIR
|
|
Clean Air Interstate Rule |
CAMR
|
|
Clean Air Mercury Rule |
CATR
|
|
Clean Air Transport Rule |
CBP
|
|
Competitive Bid Process |
CDWR
|
|
California Department of Water Resources |
CO2
|
|
Carbon Dioxide |
CTC
|
|
Competitive Transition Charge |
iii
GLOSSARY OF TERMS, Contd.
|
|
|
DCPD
|
|
Deferred Compensation Plan for Outside Directors |
DOE
|
|
United States Department of Energy |
DOJ
|
|
United States Department of Justice |
DPA
|
|
Department of the Public Advocate, Division of Rate Counsel (New Jersey) |
DSP
|
|
Default Service Plan |
EDCP
|
|
Executive Deferred Compensation Plan |
EE&C
|
|
Energy Efficiency and Conservation |
EIS
|
|
Energy Insurance Services, Inc. |
EMP
|
|
Energy Master Plan |
ENEC
|
|
Expanded Net Energy Cost |
EPA
|
|
United States Environmental Protection Agency |
ESOP
|
|
Employee Stock Ownership Plan |
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 |
FTRs
|
|
Financial Transmission Rights |
GAAP
|
|
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the United States |
RGGI
|
|
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative |
GHG
|
|
Greenhouse Gases |
IRS
|
|
Internal Revenue Service |
JOA
|
|
Joint Operating Agreement |
kV
|
|
Kilovolt |
KWH
|
|
Kilowatt-hours |
LED
|
|
Light-Emitting Diode |
LOC
|
|
Letter of Credit |
LTIP
|
|
Long-Term Incentive Plan |
MACT
|
|
Maximum Achievable Control Technology |
MDPSC
|
|
Maryland Public Service Commission |
MEIUG
|
|
Met-Ed Industrial Users Group |
MISO
|
|
Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. |
Moodys
|
|
Moodys Investors Service, Inc. |
MRO
|
|
Market Rate Offer |
MSHA
|
|
Mine Safety and Health Administration |
MTEP
|
|
MISO Regional Transmission Expansion Plan |
MW
|
|
Megawatts |
MWH
|
|
Megawatt-hours |
NAAQS
|
|
National Ambient Air Quality Standards |
NDT
|
|
Nuclear Decommissioning Trusts |
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 |
NYSEG
|
|
New York State Electric and Gas |
OCC
|
|
Ohio Consumers Counsel |
OCI
|
|
Other Comprehensive Income |
OPEB
|
|
Other Post-Employment Benefits |
OVEC
|
|
Ohio Valley Electric Corporation |
PADEP
|
|
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection |
PCRB
|
|
Pollution Control Revenue Bond |
PICA
|
|
Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority |
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 |
iv
GLOSSARY OF TERMS, Contd.
|
|
|
PSCWV
|
|
Public Service Commission of West Virginia |
PSA
|
|
Power Supply Agreement |
PSD
|
|
Prevention of Significant Deterioration |
PUCO
|
|
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio |
PURPA
|
|
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 |
RECs
|
|
Renewable Energy Credits |
RFP
|
|
Request for Proposal |
RGGI
|
|
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative |
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 |
SEC
|
|
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission |
SIP
|
|
State Implementation Plan(s) Under the Clean Air Act |
SMIP
|
|
Smart Meter Implementation Plan |
SNCR
|
|
Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction |
SO2
|
|
Sulfur Dioxide |
SOS
|
|
Standard Offer Service |
TBC
|
|
Transition Bond Charge |
TDS
|
|
Total Dissolved Solid |
TMDL
|
|
Total Maximum Daily Load |
TMI-2
|
|
Three Mile Island Unit 2 |
TSC
|
|
Transmission Service Charge |
VIE
|
|
Variable Interest Entity |
VSCC
|
|
Virginia State Corporation Commission |
WVDEP
|
|
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection |
WVPSC
|
|
Public Service Commission of West Virginia |
v
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31 |
|
In millions, except per share amounts |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric utilities |
|
$ |
2,332 |
|
|
$ |
2,543 |
|
Unregulated businesses |
|
|
1,244 |
|
|
|
756 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues* |
|
|
3,576 |
|
|
|
3,299 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
453 |
|
|
|
334 |
|
Purchased power |
|
|
1,186 |
|
|
|
1,238 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
1,033 |
|
|
|
701 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
220 |
|
|
|
193 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
132 |
|
|
|
212 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
237 |
|
|
|
205 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
3,261 |
|
|
|
2,883 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
315 |
|
|
|
416 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(231 |
) |
|
|
(213 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(192 |
) |
|
|
(156 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
260 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
149 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EARNINGS AVAILABLE TO FIRSTENERGY CORP. |
|
$ |
50 |
|
|
$ |
155 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK |
|
$ |
0.15 |
|
|
$ |
0.51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF BASIC SHARES OUTSTANDING |
|
|
342 |
|
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK |
|
$ |
0.15 |
|
|
$ |
0.51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF DILUTED SHARES OUTSTANDING |
|
|
343 |
|
|
|
306 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DIVIDENDS DECLARED PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK |
|
$ |
0.55 |
|
|
$ |
0.55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Includes $119 and $109 million of excise tax collections in the three months ended March 31,
2011 and 2010, 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 Ended |
|
|
|
March 31 |
|
(In millions) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
45 |
|
|
$ |
149 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative hedges |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
4 |
|
Change in unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income |
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
Income tax expense related to other comprehensive income |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income, net of tax |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
165 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE LOSS ATTRIBUTABLE TO NONCONTROLLING INTEREST |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME AVAILABLE TO FIRSTENERGY CORP. |
|
$ |
71 |
|
|
$ |
171 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part
of these financial statements.
2
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(In millions) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
1,101 |
|
|
$ |
1,019 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers, net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $38 in 2011 and $36 in 2010 |
|
|
1,636 |
|
|
|
1,392 |
|
Other, net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $10 in 2011 and $8 in 2010 |
|
|
229 |
|
|
|
176 |
|
Materials and supplies |
|
|
852 |
|
|
|
638 |
|
Prepaid taxes |
|
|
241 |
|
|
|
199 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
377 |
|
|
|
182 |
|
Other |
|
|
210 |
|
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,646 |
|
|
|
3,698 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
38,168 |
|
|
|
29,451 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
11,345 |
|
|
|
11,180 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26,823 |
|
|
|
18,271 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
2,322 |
|
|
|
1,517 |
|
Property, plant and equipment held for sale, net |
|
|
490 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,635 |
|
|
|
19,788 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
2,018 |
|
|
|
1,973 |
|
Investments in lease obligation bonds |
|
|
422 |
|
|
|
476 |
|
Nuclear fuel disposal trust |
|
|
207 |
|
|
|
208 |
|
Other |
|
|
434 |
|
|
|
345 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,081 |
|
|
|
3,002 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
6,527 |
|
|
|
5,575 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
2,084 |
|
|
|
1,826 |
|
Intangible assets |
|
|
1,075 |
|
|
|
256 |
|
Other |
|
|
818 |
|
|
|
660 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,504 |
|
|
|
8,317 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
47,866 |
|
|
$ |
34,805 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
1,385 |
|
|
$ |
1,486 |
|
Short-term borrowings |
|
|
486 |
|
|
|
700 |
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
1,080 |
|
|
|
872 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
412 |
|
|
|
326 |
|
Accrued compensation and benefits |
|
|
312 |
|
|
|
315 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
425 |
|
|
|
266 |
|
Other |
|
|
1,062 |
|
|
|
733 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,162 |
|
|
|
4,698 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $0.10 par value, authorized 490,000,000 shares-
418,216,437 shares outstanding |
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
Other paid-in capital |
|
|
9,779 |
|
|
|
5,444 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(1,518 |
) |
|
|
(1,539 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
4,426 |
|
|
|
4,609 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
12,729 |
|
|
|
8,545 |
|
Noncontrolling interest |
|
|
(40 |
) |
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity |
|
|
12,689 |
|
|
|
8,513 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
17,535 |
|
|
|
12,579 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,224 |
|
|
|
21,092 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
4,832 |
|
|
|
2,879 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
2,313 |
|
|
|
1,868 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
1,443 |
|
|
|
1,407 |
|
Deferred gain on sale and leaseback transaction |
|
|
951 |
|
|
|
959 |
|
Power purchase contract liability |
|
|
606 |
|
|
|
466 |
|
Other |
|
|
2,335 |
|
|
|
1,436 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,480 |
|
|
|
9,015 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
47,866 |
|
|
$ |
34,805 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31 |
|
(In millions) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
45 |
|
|
$ |
149 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
220 |
|
|
|
193 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
132 |
|
|
|
212 |
|
Nuclear fuel and lease amortization |
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
Deferred purchased power and other costs |
|
|
(58 |
) |
|
|
(77 |
) |
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
171 |
|
|
|
59 |
|
Deferred rents and lease market valuation liability |
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
(17 |
) |
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
(81 |
) |
Commodity derivative transactions, net |
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
33 |
|
Pension trust contribution |
|
|
(157 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Asset impairments |
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
Cash collateral paid |
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
(46 |
) |
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
164 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
Materials and supplies |
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
(42 |
) |
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
118 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
(90 |
) |
|
|
(57 |
) |
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(182 |
) |
|
|
7 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
66 |
|
Other |
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from operating activities |
|
|
491 |
|
|
|
506 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
217 |
|
|
|
|
|
Redemptions and repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(359 |
) |
|
|
(109 |
) |
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
(214 |
) |
|
|
(295 |
) |
Common stock dividend payments |
|
|
(190 |
) |
|
|
(168 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for financing activities |
|
|
(550 |
) |
|
|
(594 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(449 |
) |
|
|
(508 |
) |
Proceeds from asset sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
114 |
|
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
969 |
|
|
|
733 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(993 |
) |
|
|
(755 |
) |
Customer acquisition costs |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(101 |
) |
Cash investments |
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
49 |
|
Cash received in Allegheny merger |
|
|
590 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities |
|
|
141 |
|
|
|
(476 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
(564 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
1,019 |
|
|
|
874 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
1,101 |
|
|
$ |
310 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUPPLEMENTAL CASH FLOW INFORMATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-cash transaction: merger with Allegheny, common stock issued |
|
$ |
4,354 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
March 31 |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales to non-affiliates |
|
$ |
1,044,490 |
|
|
$ |
668,685 |
|
Electric sales to affiliates |
|
|
260,874 |
|
|
|
607,302 |
|
Other |
|
|
85,724 |
|
|
|
112,106 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
1,391,088 |
|
|
|
1,388,093 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
343,109 |
|
|
|
328,221 |
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
68,743 |
|
|
|
60,953 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
296,938 |
|
|
|
450,216 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
495,935 |
|
|
|
304,510 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
68,452 |
|
|
|
62,918 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
29,105 |
|
|
|
26,746 |
|
Impairment of long-lived assets |
|
|
13,800 |
|
|
|
1,833 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
1,316,082 |
|
|
|
1,235,397 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
75,006 |
|
|
|
152,696 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
5,861 |
|
|
|
717 |
|
Miscellaneous income |
|
|
19,241 |
|
|
|
3,143 |
|
Interest expense affiliates |
|
|
(1,017 |
) |
|
|
(2,305 |
) |
Interest expense other |
|
|
(52,960 |
) |
|
|
(49,644 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
9,919 |
|
|
|
19,690 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(18,956 |
) |
|
|
(28,399 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
56,050 |
|
|
|
124,297 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
20,116 |
|
|
|
44,371 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
|
35,934 |
|
|
|
79,926 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
(76 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EARNINGS AVAILABLE TO PARENT |
|
$ |
36,010 |
|
|
$ |
79,926 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
35,934 |
|
|
$ |
79,926 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
1,512 |
|
|
|
(9,834 |
) |
Unrealized gain (loss) on derivative hedges |
|
|
(8,879 |
) |
|
|
1,274 |
|
Change in unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities |
|
|
7,807 |
|
|
|
5,028 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss) |
|
|
440 |
|
|
|
(3,532 |
) |
Income tax benefit related to other comprehensive income |
|
|
(2,362 |
) |
|
|
(1,340 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax |
|
|
2,802 |
|
|
|
(2,192 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
38,736 |
|
|
|
77,734 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE LOSS ATTRIBUTABLE TO NONCONTROLLING INTEREST |
|
|
(76 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO PARENT |
|
$ |
38,812 |
|
|
$ |
77,734 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
6,839 |
|
|
$ |
9,281 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers, net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $18,636 in 2011 and
$16,591 in 2010 |
|
|
388,951 |
|
|
|
365,758 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
533,280 |
|
|
|
477,565 |
|
Other, net of allowances for uncollectible accounts of $6,702 in 2011 and
$6,765 in 2010 |
|
|
86,711 |
|
|
|
89,550 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
478,418 |
|
|
|
396,770 |
|
Materials and supplies, at average cost |
|
|
488,997 |
|
|
|
545,342 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
328,156 |
|
|
|
181,660 |
|
Prepayments and other |
|
|
50,938 |
|
|
|
60,171 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,362,290 |
|
|
|
2,126,097 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
11,239,565 |
|
|
|
11,321,318 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
4,107,542 |
|
|
|
4,024,280 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,132,023 |
|
|
|
7,297,038 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
756,305 |
|
|
|
1,062,744 |
|
Property, plant and equipment held for sale, net |
|
|
476,602 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,364,930 |
|
|
|
8,359,782 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
1,159,903 |
|
|
|
1,145,846 |
|
Other |
|
|
9,744 |
|
|
|
11,704 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,169,647 |
|
|
|
1,157,550 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customer intangibles |
|
|
131,870 |
|
|
|
133,968 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
24,248 |
|
|
|
24,248 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
41,112 |
|
|
|
41,112 |
|
Unamortized sale and leaseback costs |
|
|
90,803 |
|
|
|
73,386 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
211,223 |
|
|
|
97,603 |
|
Other |
|
|
53,057 |
|
|
|
48,689 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
552,313 |
|
|
|
419,006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
12,449,180 |
|
|
$ |
12,062,435 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
986,863 |
|
|
$ |
1,132,135 |
|
Short-term borrowings- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
360,543 |
|
|
|
11,561 |
|
Other |
|
|
661 |
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
499,936 |
|
|
|
466,623 |
|
Other |
|
|
189,144 |
|
|
|
241,191 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
66,493 |
|
|
|
70,129 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
380,744 |
|
|
|
266,411 |
|
Other |
|
|
224,525 |
|
|
|
251,671 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,708,909 |
|
|
|
2,439,721 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, without par value, authorized 750 shares-
7 shares outstanding |
|
|
1,487,565 |
|
|
|
1,490,082 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(117,612 |
) |
|
|
(120,414 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
2,454,587 |
|
|
|
2,418,577 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
3,824,540 |
|
|
|
3,788,245 |
|
Noncontrolling interest |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
(504 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity |
|
|
3,824,556 |
|
|
|
3,787,741 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
3,144,997 |
|
|
|
3,180,875 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,969,553 |
|
|
|
6,968,616 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred gain on sale and leaseback transaction |
|
|
950,726 |
|
|
|
959,154 |
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
117,503 |
|
|
|
57,595 |
|
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits |
|
|
53,181 |
|
|
|
54,224 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
866,643 |
|
|
|
892,051 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
289,285 |
|
|
|
285,160 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
41,112 |
|
|
|
41,112 |
|
Lease market valuation liability |
|
|
205,366 |
|
|
|
216,695 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
168,409 |
|
|
|
81,393 |
|
Other |
|
|
78,493 |
|
|
|
66,714 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,770,718 |
|
|
|
2,654,098 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
12,449,180 |
|
|
$ |
12,062,435 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31 |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
35,934 |
|
|
$ |
79,926 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
68,452 |
|
|
|
62,918 |
|
Nuclear fuel and lease amortization |
|
|
46,653 |
|
|
|
42,118 |
|
Deferred rents and lease market valuation liability |
|
|
(38,759 |
) |
|
|
(40,869 |
) |
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
61,268 |
|
|
|
37,773 |
|
Asset impairments |
|
|
18,791 |
|
|
|
11,439 |
|
Commodity derivative transactions, net |
|
|
(35,293 |
) |
|
|
32,900 |
|
Cash collateral paid |
|
|
(27,063 |
) |
|
|
(21,411 |
) |
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
(76,069 |
) |
|
|
(158,288 |
) |
Materials and supplies |
|
|
60,633 |
|
|
|
(8,700 |
) |
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
8,728 |
|
|
|
13,516 |
|
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
(18,734 |
) |
|
|
(41,057 |
) |
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(3,164 |
) |
|
|
(16,300 |
) |
Accrued interest |
|
|
(11,845 |
) |
|
|
(14,930 |
) |
Other |
|
|
4,093 |
|
|
|
12,069 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) operating activities |
|
|
93,625 |
|
|
|
(8,896 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
150,190 |
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
349,643 |
|
|
|
|
|
Redemptions and repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(331,428 |
) |
|
|
(1,278 |
) |
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9,237 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(1,017 |
) |
|
|
(731 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) financing activities |
|
|
167,388 |
|
|
|
(11,246 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(159,006 |
) |
|
|
(301,603 |
) |
Proceeds from asset sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
114,272 |
|
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
215,620 |
|
|
|
272,094 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(230,912 |
) |
|
|
(284,888 |
) |
Loans from (to) associated companies, net |
|
|
(81,647 |
) |
|
|
321,680 |
|
Customer acquisition costs |
|
|
(1,103 |
) |
|
|
(100,615 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(6,407 |
) |
|
|
(799 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities |
|
|
(263,455 |
) |
|
|
20,141 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(2,442 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
9,281 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
6,839 |
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
March 31 |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales |
|
$ |
363,831 |
|
|
$ |
479,925 |
|
Excise and gross receipts tax collections |
|
|
28,195 |
|
|
|
28,475 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
392,026 |
|
|
|
508,400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
93,262 |
|
|
|
153,677 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
60,379 |
|
|
|
94,231 |
|
Other operating costs |
|
|
101,462 |
|
|
|
88,855 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
21,876 |
|
|
|
21,880 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
774 |
|
|
|
29,345 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
49,426 |
|
|
|
47,492 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
327,179 |
|
|
|
435,480 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
64,847 |
|
|
|
72,920 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
4,308 |
|
|
|
5,244 |
|
Miscellaneous income (expense) |
|
|
290 |
|
|
|
(292 |
) |
Interest expense |
|
|
(22,145 |
) |
|
|
(22,310 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
331 |
|
|
|
208 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(17,216 |
) |
|
|
(17,150 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
47,631 |
|
|
|
55,770 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
17,491 |
|
|
|
19,609 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
|
30,140 |
|
|
|
36,161 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
132 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EARNINGS AVAILABLE TO PARENT |
|
$ |
30,024 |
|
|
$ |
36,029 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
30,140 |
|
|
$ |
36,161 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
339 |
|
|
|
4,015 |
|
Change in unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities |
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
291 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income |
|
|
317 |
|
|
|
4,306 |
|
Income tax expense (benefit) related to other comprehensive income |
|
|
(1,496 |
) |
|
|
693 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income, net of tax |
|
|
1,813 |
|
|
|
3,613 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
31,953 |
|
|
|
39,774 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO NONCONTROLLING INTEREST |
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
132 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME AVAILABLE TO PARENT |
|
$ |
31,837 |
|
|
$ |
39,642 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
345,030 |
|
|
$ |
420,489 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers (net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $3,774 in 2011
and $4,086 in 2010) |
|
|
158,146 |
|
|
|
176,591 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
74,125 |
|
|
|
118,135 |
|
Other |
|
|
17,290 |
|
|
|
12,232 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
16,762 |
|
|
|
16,957 |
|
Prepayments and other |
|
|
29,366 |
|
|
|
6,393 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
640,719 |
|
|
|
750,797 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UTILITY PLANT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
3,156,648 |
|
|
|
3,136,623 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
1,217,827 |
|
|
|
1,207,745 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,938,821 |
|
|
|
1,928,878 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
48,302 |
|
|
|
45,103 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,987,123 |
|
|
|
1,973,981 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in lease obligation bonds |
|
|
190,340 |
|
|
|
190,420 |
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
126,826 |
|
|
|
127,017 |
|
Other |
|
|
94,604 |
|
|
|
95,563 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
411,770 |
|
|
|
413,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
385,005 |
|
|
|
400,322 |
|
Pension assets |
|
|
59,104 |
|
|
|
28,596 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
71,331 |
|
|
|
71,331 |
|
Unamortized sale and leaseback costs |
|
|
28,877 |
|
|
|
30,126 |
|
Other |
|
|
16,007 |
|
|
|
17,634 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
560,324 |
|
|
|
548,009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,599,936 |
|
|
$ |
3,685,787 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
1,424 |
|
|
$ |
1,419 |
|
Short-term borrowings- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
103,071 |
|
|
|
142,116 |
|
Other |
|
|
320 |
|
|
|
320 |
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
96,003 |
|
|
|
99,421 |
|
Other |
|
|
25,515 |
|
|
|
29,639 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
68,415 |
|
|
|
78,707 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
25,334 |
|
|
|
25,382 |
|
Other |
|
|
105,315 |
|
|
|
74,947 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
425,397 |
|
|
|
451,951 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, without par value, authorized 175,000,000 shares-
60 shares outstanding |
|
|
951,802 |
|
|
|
951,866 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(177,263 |
) |
|
|
(179,076 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
71,645 |
|
|
|
141,621 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
846,184 |
|
|
|
914,411 |
|
Noncontrolling interest |
|
|
5,796 |
|
|
|
5,680 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity |
|
|
851,980 |
|
|
|
920,091 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
1,152,171 |
|
|
|
1,152,134 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,004,151 |
|
|
|
2,072,225 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
719,979 |
|
|
|
696,410 |
|
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits |
|
|
9,799 |
|
|
|
10,159 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
182,461 |
|
|
|
183,712 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
69,793 |
|
|
|
74,456 |
|
Other |
|
|
188,356 |
|
|
|
196,874 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,170,388 |
|
|
|
1,161,611 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,599,936 |
|
|
$ |
3,685,787 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31 |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
30,140 |
|
|
$ |
36,161 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
21,876 |
|
|
|
21,880 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
774 |
|
|
|
29,345 |
|
Purchased power cost recovery reconciliation |
|
|
(4,926 |
) |
|
|
(5,908 |
) |
Amortization of lease costs |
|
|
32,933 |
|
|
|
32,934 |
|
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
26,682 |
|
|
|
(2,489 |
) |
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
(7,944 |
) |
|
|
(12,160 |
) |
Pension trust contribution |
|
|
(27,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
82,291 |
|
|
|
65,141 |
|
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
(22,973 |
) |
|
|
(21,802 |
) |
Decrease in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
(19,625 |
) |
|
|
(35,461 |
) |
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(10,305 |
) |
|
|
(15,849 |
) |
Accrued interest |
|
|
(48 |
) |
|
|
(226 |
) |
Other |
|
|
2,438 |
|
|
|
9,647 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from operating activities |
|
|
104,313 |
|
|
|
101,213 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redemptions and repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(110 |
) |
|
|
(1,363 |
) |
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
(39,045 |
) |
|
|
(92,863 |
) |
Common stock dividend payments |
|
|
(100,000 |
) |
|
|
(250,000 |
) |
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(113 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for financing activities |
|
|
(139,155 |
) |
|
|
(344,339 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(37,651 |
) |
|
|
(35,680 |
) |
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
7,972 |
|
|
|
2,424 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(8,896 |
) |
|
|
(2,971 |
) |
Loan repayments from associated companies, net |
|
|
195 |
|
|
|
14,469 |
|
Cash investments |
|
|
(136 |
) |
|
|
(384 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(2,101 |
) |
|
|
1,773 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for investing activities |
|
|
(40,617 |
) |
|
|
(20,369 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(75,459 |
) |
|
|
(263,495 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
420,489 |
|
|
|
324,175 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
345,030 |
|
|
$ |
60,680 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
March 31 |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales |
|
$ |
206,742 |
|
|
$ |
312,497 |
|
Excise tax collections |
|
|
18,145 |
|
|
|
17,573 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
224,887 |
|
|
|
330,070 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
46,168 |
|
|
|
109,393 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
18,220 |
|
|
|
37,398 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
35,036 |
|
|
|
31,235 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
18,426 |
|
|
|
18,111 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
23,370 |
|
|
|
45,139 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
40,212 |
|
|
|
38,489 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
181,432 |
|
|
|
279,765 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
43,455 |
|
|
|
50,305 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
6,597 |
|
|
|
7,547 |
|
Miscellaneous income |
|
|
636 |
|
|
|
581 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(33,078 |
) |
|
|
(33,621 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(25,818 |
) |
|
|
(25,467 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
17,637 |
|
|
|
24,838 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
4,436 |
|
|
|
10,843 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
|
13,201 |
|
|
|
13,995 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
366 |
|
|
|
419 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EARNINGS AVAILABLE TO PARENT |
|
$ |
12,835 |
|
|
$ |
13,576 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
13,201 |
|
|
$ |
13,995 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
2,967 |
|
|
|
(22,585 |
) |
Income tax benefit related to other comprehensive income |
|
|
(462 |
) |
|
|
(8,277 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax |
|
|
3,429 |
|
|
|
(14,308 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS) |
|
|
16,630 |
|
|
|
(313 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO NONCONTROLLING INTEREST |
|
|
366 |
|
|
|
419 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS) AVAILABLE TO PARENT |
|
$ |
16,264 |
|
|
$ |
(732 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
30,244 |
|
|
$ |
238 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers (less allowance for doubtful accounts of $3,018 in 2011 and
$4,589 in 2010, respectively) |
|
|
107,418 |
|
|
|
183,744 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
34,819 |
|
|
|
77,047 |
|
Other |
|
|
4,848 |
|
|
|
11,544 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
22,704 |
|
|
|
23,236 |
|
Prepayments and other |
|
|
13,894 |
|
|
|
3,656 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
213,927 |
|
|
|
299,465 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UTILITY PLANT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
2,407,827 |
|
|
|
2,396,893 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
937,105 |
|
|
|
932,246 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,470,722 |
|
|
|
1,464,647 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
48,572 |
|
|
|
38,610 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,519,294 |
|
|
|
1,503,257 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in lessor notes |
|
|
286,747 |
|
|
|
340,029 |
|
Other |
|
|
10,035 |
|
|
|
10,074 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
296,782 |
|
|
|
350,103 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
1,688,521 |
|
|
|
1,688,521 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
337,189 |
|
|
|
370,403 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
80,614 |
|
|
|
80,614 |
|
Other |
|
|
11,176 |
|
|
|
11,486 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,117,500 |
|
|
|
2,151,024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
4,147,503 |
|
|
$ |
4,303,849 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
174 |
|
|
$ |
161 |
|
Short-term borrowings- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
23,303 |
|
|
|
105,996 |
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
43,564 |
|
|
|
32,020 |
|
Other |
|
|
8,811 |
|
|
|
14,947 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
75,771 |
|
|
|
84,668 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
39,256 |
|
|
|
18,555 |
|
Other |
|
|
40,862 |
|
|
|
44,569 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
231,741 |
|
|
|
300,916 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, without par value, authorized 105,000,000 shares-
67,930,743 shares outstanding |
|
|
886,995 |
|
|
|
887,087 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(149,758 |
) |
|
|
(153,187 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
531,741 |
|
|
|
568,906 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
1,268,978 |
|
|
|
1,302,806 |
|
Noncontrolling interest |
|
|
14,886 |
|
|
|
18,017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity |
|
|
1,283,864 |
|
|
|
1,320,823 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
1,831,011 |
|
|
|
1,852,530 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,114,875 |
|
|
|
3,173,353 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
631,507 |
|
|
|
622,771 |
|
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits |
|
|
10,784 |
|
|
|
10,994 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
60,682 |
|
|
|
95,654 |
|
Other |
|
|
97,914 |
|
|
|
100,161 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
800,887 |
|
|
|
829,580 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
4,147,503 |
|
|
$ |
4,303,849 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31 |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
13,201 |
|
|
$ |
13,995 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
18,426 |
|
|
|
18,111 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
23,370 |
|
|
|
45,139 |
|
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
4,140 |
|
|
|
(13,627 |
) |
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
2,158 |
|
|
|
2,282 |
|
Accrued regulatory obligations |
|
|
(863 |
) |
|
|
(26 |
) |
Pension trust contribution |
|
|
(35,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
136,887 |
|
|
|
70,633 |
|
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
(10,236 |
) |
|
|
(9,133 |
) |
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
5,408 |
|
|
|
(14,387 |
) |
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(8,898 |
) |
|
|
(16,616 |
) |
Accrued interest |
|
|
20,701 |
|
|
|
20,795 |
|
Other |
|
|
(3,870 |
) |
|
|
(2,636 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from operating activities |
|
|
165,424 |
|
|
|
114,530 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redemptions and repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(36 |
) |
|
|
(26 |
) |
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
(104,228 |
) |
|
|
(126,334 |
) |
Common stock dividend payments |
|
|
(50,000 |
) |
|
|
(100,000 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(3,497 |
) |
|
|
(3,365 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for financing activities |
|
|
(157,761 |
) |
|
|
(229,725 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(29,334 |
) |
|
|
(19,735 |
) |
Loans to associated companies, net |
|
|
532 |
|
|
|
1,426 |
|
Redemptions of lessor notes |
|
|
53,282 |
|
|
|
48,606 |
|
Other |
|
|
(2,137 |
) |
|
|
(1,085 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from investing activities |
|
|
22,343 |
|
|
|
29,212 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
30,006 |
|
|
|
(85,983 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
238 |
|
|
|
86,230 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
30,244 |
|
|
$ |
247 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
March 31 |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales |
|
$ |
106,325 |
|
|
$ |
125,431 |
|
Excise tax collections |
|
|
7,302 |
|
|
|
7,041 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
113,627 |
|
|
|
132,472 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
35,517 |
|
|
|
54,618 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
13,988 |
|
|
|
18,491 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
36,587 |
|
|
|
25,545 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
7,931 |
|
|
|
7,950 |
|
Deferral of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(11,478 |
) |
|
|
(8,499 |
) |
General taxes |
|
|
14,452 |
|
|
|
13,461 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
96,997 |
|
|
|
111,566 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
16,630 |
|
|
|
20,906 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
2,922 |
|
|
|
3,800 |
|
Miscellaneous expense |
|
|
(1,629 |
) |
|
|
(1,406 |
) |
Interest expense |
|
|
(10,443 |
) |
|
|
(10,487 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
102 |
|
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(9,048 |
) |
|
|
(8,015 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
7,582 |
|
|
|
12,891 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
1,735 |
|
|
|
5,382 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
|
5,847 |
|
|
|
7,509 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EARNINGS AVAILABLE TO PARENT |
|
$ |
5,845 |
|
|
$ |
7,506 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
5,847 |
|
|
$ |
7,509 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
592 |
|
|
|
296 |
|
Change in unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities |
|
|
1,305 |
|
|
|
369 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income |
|
|
1,897 |
|
|
|
665 |
|
Income tax expense related to other comprehensive income |
|
|
334 |
|
|
|
170 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income, net of tax |
|
|
1,563 |
|
|
|
495 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
7,410 |
|
|
|
8,004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO NONCONTROLLING INTEREST |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME AVAILABLE TO PARENT |
|
$ |
7,408 |
|
|
$ |
8,001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
150,014 |
|
|
$ |
149,262 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers (net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $1,209 in 2011
and $1 in 2010) |
|
|
45,749 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
56,913 |
|
|
|
31,777 |
|
Other (net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $343 in 2011
and $330 in 2010) |
|
|
18,752 |
|
|
|
18,464 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
35,489 |
|
|
|
96,765 |
|
Prepayments and other |
|
|
8,302 |
|
|
|
2,306 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
315,219 |
|
|
|
298,603 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UTILITY PLANT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
952,874 |
|
|
|
947,203 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
449,791 |
|
|
|
446,401 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
503,083 |
|
|
|
500,802 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
12,647 |
|
|
|
12,604 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
515,730 |
|
|
|
513,406 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in lessor notes |
|
|
82,133 |
|
|
|
103,872 |
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
77,141 |
|
|
|
75,558 |
|
Other |
|
|
1,469 |
|
|
|
1,492 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
160,743 |
|
|
|
180,922 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
500,576 |
|
|
|
500,576 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
83,544 |
|
|
|
72,059 |
|
Pension assets |
|
|
24,427 |
|
|
|
|
|
Property taxes |
|
|
24,990 |
|
|
|
24,990 |
|
Other |
|
|
36,167 |
|
|
|
23,750 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
669,704 |
|
|
|
621,375 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,661,396 |
|
|
$ |
1,614,306 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
191 |
|
|
$ |
199 |
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
36,055 |
|
|
|
17,168 |
|
Other |
|
|
5,238 |
|
|
|
7,351 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
23,043 |
|
|
|
24,401 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
15,983 |
|
|
|
5,931 |
|
Lease market valuation liability |
|
|
36,900 |
|
|
|
36,900 |
|
Other |
|
|
54,905 |
|
|
|
23,145 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
172,315 |
|
|
|
115,095 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
178,122 |
|
|
|
178,182 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(47,620 |
) |
|
|
(49,183 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
108,379 |
|
|
|
117,534 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
385,891 |
|
|
|
393,543 |
|
Noncontrolling interest |
|
|
2,591 |
|
|
|
2,589 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity |
|
|
388,482 |
|
|
|
396,132 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
600,508 |
|
|
|
600,493 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
988,990 |
|
|
|
996,625 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
157,797 |
|
|
|
132,019 |
|
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits |
|
|
5,822 |
|
|
|
5,930 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
51,253 |
|
|
|
71,486 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
29,245 |
|
|
|
28,762 |
|
Lease market valuation liability |
|
|
190,075 |
|
|
|
199,300 |
|
Other |
|
|
65,899 |
|
|
|
65,089 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
500,091 |
|
|
|
502,586 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,661,396 |
|
|
$ |
1,614,306 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31 |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
5,847 |
|
|
$ |
7,509 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
7,931 |
|
|
|
7,950 |
|
Deferral of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(11,478 |
) |
|
|
(8,499 |
) |
Deferred rents and lease market valuation liability |
|
|
6,141 |
|
|
|
6,141 |
|
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
25,046 |
|
|
|
11,287 |
|
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
(142 |
) |
|
|
837 |
|
Pension trust contribution |
|
|
(45,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
(70,694 |
) |
|
|
45,376 |
|
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
(5,996 |
) |
|
|
(4,569 |
) |
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
16,774 |
|
|
|
(35,414 |
) |
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(1,358 |
) |
|
|
(4,933 |
) |
Accrued interest |
|
|
10,052 |
|
|
|
10,050 |
|
Other |
|
|
6,098 |
|
|
|
(4,578 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) operating activities |
|
|
(56,779 |
) |
|
|
31,157 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redemptions and repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(56 |
) |
|
|
(56 |
) |
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(225,975 |
) |
Common stock dividend payments |
|
|
(15,000 |
) |
|
|
(130,000 |
) |
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for financing activities |
|
|
(15,056 |
) |
|
|
(356,033 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(9,507 |
) |
|
|
(9,597 |
) |
Loan repayments from (loans to) associated companies, net |
|
|
61,276 |
|
|
|
(33,587 |
) |
Redemptions of lessor notes |
|
|
21,739 |
|
|
|
20,509 |
|
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
13,883 |
|
|
|
31,067 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(14,338 |
) |
|
|
(31,705 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(466 |
) |
|
|
(1,227 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities |
|
|
72,587 |
|
|
|
(24,540 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
752 |
|
|
|
(349,416 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
149,262 |
|
|
|
436,712 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
150,014 |
|
|
$ |
87,296 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
March 31 |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales |
|
$ |
634,023 |
|
|
$ |
691,392 |
|
Excise tax collections |
|
|
12,487 |
|
|
|
12,352 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
646,510 |
|
|
|
703,744 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power |
|
|
370,168 |
|
|
|
414,016 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
86,079 |
|
|
|
95,660 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
25,314 |
|
|
|
27,971 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
81,587 |
|
|
|
69,448 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
17,411 |
|
|
|
16,436 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
580,559 |
|
|
|
623,531 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
65,951 |
|
|
|
80,213 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Miscellaneous income |
|
|
1,910 |
|
|
|
1,833 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(30,657 |
) |
|
|
(29,423 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
427 |
|
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(28,320 |
) |
|
|
(27,457 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
37,631 |
|
|
|
52,756 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
18,078 |
|
|
|
23,530 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
19,553 |
|
|
$ |
29,226 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
19,553 |
|
|
$ |
29,226 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
4,221 |
|
|
|
15,928 |
|
Unrealized gain on derivative hedges |
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income |
|
|
4,290 |
|
|
|
15,997 |
|
Income tax expense related to other comprehensive income |
|
|
1,590 |
|
|
|
6,558 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income, net of tax |
|
|
2,700 |
|
|
|
9,439 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
$ |
22,253 |
|
|
$ |
38,665 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers (net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $3,842 in 2011
and $3,769 in 2010) |
|
|
268,171 |
|
|
|
323,044 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
27,144 |
|
|
|
53,780 |
|
Other |
|
|
21,269 |
|
|
|
26,119 |
|
Notes receivable associated companies |
|
|
298,274 |
|
|
|
177,228 |
|
Prepaid taxes |
|
|
10,968 |
|
|
|
10,889 |
|
Other |
|
|
16,357 |
|
|
|
12,654 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
642,184 |
|
|
|
603,718 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UTILITY PLANT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
4,579,753 |
|
|
|
4,562,781 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
1,667,017 |
|
|
|
1,656,939 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,912,736 |
|
|
|
2,905,842 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
78,819 |
|
|
|
63,535 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,991,555 |
|
|
|
2,969,377 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear fuel disposal trust |
|
|
206,833 |
|
|
|
207,561 |
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
190,424 |
|
|
|
181,851 |
|
Other |
|
|
2,111 |
|
|
|
2,104 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
399,368 |
|
|
|
391,516 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
1,810,936 |
|
|
|
1,810,936 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
460,156 |
|
|
|
513,395 |
|
Other |
|
|
25,243 |
|
|
|
27,938 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,296,335 |
|
|
|
2,352,269 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6,329,442 |
|
|
$ |
6,316,880 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
32,855 |
|
|
$ |
32,402 |
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
16,983 |
|
|
|
28,571 |
|
Other |
|
|
123,814 |
|
|
|
158,442 |
|
Accrued compensation and benefits |
|
|
33,415 |
|
|
|
35,232 |
|
Customer deposits |
|
|
23,494 |
|
|
|
23,385 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
15,142 |
|
|
|
2,509 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
29,926 |
|
|
|
18,111 |
|
Other |
|
|
25,663 |
|
|
|
22,263 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
301,292 |
|
|
|
320,915 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
2,508,754 |
|
|
|
2,508,874 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(250,842 |
) |
|
|
(253,542 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
246,723 |
|
|
|
227,170 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
2,640,919 |
|
|
|
2,618,786 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
1,762,365 |
|
|
|
1,769,849 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,403,284 |
|
|
|
4,388,635 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
729,478 |
|
|
|
715,527 |
|
Power purchase contract liability |
|
|
238,677 |
|
|
|
233,492 |
|
Nuclear fuel disposal costs |
|
|
196,843 |
|
|
|
196,768 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
175,175 |
|
|
|
182,364 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
110,050 |
|
|
|
108,297 |
|
Other |
|
|
174,643 |
|
|
|
170,882 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,624,866 |
|
|
|
1,607,330 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6,329,442 |
|
|
$ |
6,316,880 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31 |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
19,553 |
|
|
$ |
29,226 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
25,314 |
|
|
|
27,971 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
81,587 |
|
|
|
69,448 |
|
Deferred purchased power and other costs |
|
|
(26,516 |
) |
|
|
(32,775 |
) |
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
25,560 |
|
|
|
(2,082 |
) |
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
(4,776 |
) |
|
|
(5,847 |
) |
Cash collateral returned to suppliers |
|
|
(250 |
) |
|
|
(23,400 |
) |
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
86,359 |
|
|
|
33,257 |
|
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
(1,687 |
) |
|
|
16,472 |
|
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
(61,612 |
) |
|
|
(40,992 |
) |
Accrued taxes |
|
|
12,631 |
|
|
|
50,857 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
11,815 |
|
|
|
11,816 |
|
Tax collections payable |
|
|
7,084 |
|
|
|
14,544 |
|
Other |
|
|
7,448 |
|
|
|
466 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from operating activities |
|
|
182,510 |
|
|
|
148,961 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redemptions and repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(7,190 |
) |
|
|
(6,773 |
) |
Common stock dividend payments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(90,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for financing activities |
|
|
(7,190 |
) |
|
|
(96,773 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(47,604 |
) |
|
|
(37,338 |
) |
Loans to associated companies, net |
|
|
(121,046 |
) |
|
|
(7,620 |
) |
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
217,103 |
|
|
|
190,198 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(221,695 |
) |
|
|
(194,748 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(2,081 |
) |
|
|
(2,706 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for investing activities |
|
|
(175,323 |
) |
|
|
(52,214 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(26 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
March 31 |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales |
|
$ |
338,416 |
|
|
$ |
451,560 |
|
Gross receipts tax collections |
|
|
18,800 |
|
|
|
21,567 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
357,216 |
|
|
|
473,127 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
49,889 |
|
|
|
161,080 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
153,043 |
|
|
|
91,928 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
47,232 |
|
|
|
101,983 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
12,423 |
|
|
|
12,758 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
32,094 |
|
|
|
48,800 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
22,150 |
|
|
|
21,740 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
316,831 |
|
|
|
438,289 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
40,385 |
|
|
|
34,838 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income |
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
1,217 |
|
Miscellaneous income |
|
|
970 |
|
|
|
2,173 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(13,057 |
) |
|
|
(13,773 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
147 |
|
|
|
126 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(11,847 |
) |
|
|
(10,257 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
28,538 |
|
|
|
24,581 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
5,951 |
|
|
|
12,266 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
22,587 |
|
|
$ |
12,315 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
22,587 |
|
|
$ |
12,315 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
1,963 |
|
|
|
9,709 |
|
Unrealized gain on derivative hedges |
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income |
|
|
2,047 |
|
|
|
9,793 |
|
Income tax expense related to other comprehensive income |
|
|
763 |
|
|
|
4,177 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income, net of tax |
|
|
1,284 |
|
|
|
5,616 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
$ |
23,871 |
|
|
$ |
17,931 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
117 |
|
|
$ |
243,220 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers (less allowance for doubtful accounts of $3,841 in 2011 and
$3,868 in 2010, respectively) |
|
|
159,801 |
|
|
|
178,522 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
23,110 |
|
|
|
24,920 |
|
Other |
|
|
16,836 |
|
|
|
13,007 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
9,542 |
|
|
|
11,028 |
|
Prepaid taxes |
|
|
40,883 |
|
|
|
343 |
|
Other |
|
|
1,973 |
|
|
|
2,289 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
252,262 |
|
|
|
473,329 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UTILITY PLANT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
2,260,156 |
|
|
|
2,247,853 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
852,326 |
|
|
|
846,003 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,407,830 |
|
|
|
1,401,850 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
27,714 |
|
|
|
23,663 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,435,544 |
|
|
|
1,425,513 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
303,906 |
|
|
|
289,328 |
|
Other |
|
|
881 |
|
|
|
884 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
304,787 |
|
|
|
290,212 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
416,499 |
|
|
|
416,499 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
285,300 |
|
|
|
295,856 |
|
Power purchase contract asset |
|
|
107,055 |
|
|
|
111,562 |
|
Other |
|
|
51,939 |
|
|
|
31,699 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
860,793 |
|
|
|
855,616 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,853,386 |
|
|
$ |
3,044,670 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
42,450 |
|
|
$ |
28,760 |
|
Short-term borrowings- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
109,709 |
|
|
|
124,079 |
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
35,758 |
|
|
|
33,942 |
|
Other |
|
|
47,450 |
|
|
|
29,862 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
14,514 |
|
|
|
60,856 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
11,738 |
|
|
|
16,114 |
|
Other |
|
|
29,543 |
|
|
|
29,278 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
291,162 |
|
|
|
322,891 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, without par value, authorized 900,000 shares-
740,905 shares outstanding |
|
|
1,046,970 |
|
|
|
1,197,076 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(141,099 |
) |
|
|
(142,383 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
29,994 |
|
|
|
32,406 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
935,865 |
|
|
|
1,087,099 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
705,125 |
|
|
|
718,860 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,640,990 |
|
|
|
1,805,959 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
481,530 |
|
|
|
473,009 |
|
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits |
|
|
6,761 |
|
|
|
6,866 |
|
Nuclear fuel disposal costs |
|
|
44,465 |
|
|
|
44,449 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
195,883 |
|
|
|
192,659 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
22,405 |
|
|
|
29,121 |
|
Power purchase contract liability |
|
|
118,123 |
|
|
|
116,027 |
|
Other |
|
|
52,067 |
|
|
|
53,689 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
921,234 |
|
|
|
915,820 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,853,386 |
|
|
$ |
3,044,670 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31 |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
22,587 |
|
|
$ |
12,315 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
12,423 |
|
|
|
12,758 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
32,094 |
|
|
|
48,800 |
|
Deferred costs recoverable as regulatory assets |
|
|
(12,082 |
) |
|
|
(18,276 |
) |
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
1,304 |
|
|
|
(10,308 |
) |
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
(1,433 |
) |
|
|
(2,527 |
) |
Cash collateral returned from (paid to) suppliers |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
|
(700 |
) |
Pension trust contributions |
|
|
(35,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
16,702 |
|
|
|
(5,083 |
) |
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
(40,225 |
) |
|
|
(52,040 |
) |
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
15,749 |
|
|
|
(7,279 |
) |
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(46,006 |
) |
|
|
19,960 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
(4,376 |
) |
|
|
(5,674 |
) |
Other |
|
|
6,337 |
|
|
|
2,373 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for operating activities |
|
|
(30,926 |
) |
|
|
(5,681 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
48,793 |
|
Redemptions and repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(100,000 |
) |
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
(14,369 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Common stock |
|
|
(150,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Common stock dividend payments |
|
|
(25,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for financing activities |
|
|
(189,369 |
) |
|
|
(51,207 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(21,126 |
) |
|
|
(25,526 |
) |
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
335,860 |
|
|
|
143,713 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(337,632 |
) |
|
|
(146,056 |
) |
Loans repayments from associated companies, net |
|
|
1,486 |
|
|
|
85,383 |
|
Other |
|
|
(1,396 |
) |
|
|
(618 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities |
|
|
(22,808 |
) |
|
|
56,896 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(243,103 |
) |
|
|
8 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
243,220 |
|
|
|
120 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
117 |
|
|
$ |
128 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
March 31 |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales |
|
$ |
308,316 |
|
|
$ |
385,936 |
|
Gross receipts tax collections |
|
|
16,529 |
|
|
|
17,524 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
324,845 |
|
|
|
403,460 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
47,484 |
|
|
|
168,400 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
141,436 |
|
|
|
91,423 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
41,328 |
|
|
|
72,394 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
14,573 |
|
|
|
14,682 |
|
Amortization (deferral) of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
13,007 |
|
|
|
(9,966 |
) |
General taxes |
|
|
20,736 |
|
|
|
16,534 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
278,564 |
|
|
|
353,467 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
46,281 |
|
|
|
49,993 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Miscellaneous income |
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
1,613 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(17,234 |
) |
|
|
(17,290 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
140 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(17,187 |
) |
|
|
(15,537 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
29,094 |
|
|
|
34,456 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
11,788 |
|
|
|
17,157 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
17,306 |
|
|
$ |
17,299 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
17,306 |
|
|
$ |
17,299 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
1,585 |
|
|
|
8,547 |
|
Unrealized gain on derivative hedges |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income |
|
|
1,601 |
|
|
|
8,563 |
|
Income tax expense related to other comprehensive income |
|
|
555 |
|
|
|
3,284 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income, net of tax |
|
|
1,046 |
|
|
|
5,279 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
$ |
18,352 |
|
|
$ |
22,578 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers (net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $3,395 in 2011
and $3,369 in 2010) |
|
|
139,058 |
|
|
|
148,864 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
16,921 |
|
|
|
54,052 |
|
Other |
|
|
12,142 |
|
|
|
11,314 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
12,334 |
|
|
|
14,404 |
|
Prepaid taxes |
|
|
47,126 |
|
|
|
14,026 |
|
Other |
|
|
1,843 |
|
|
|
1,592 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
229,427 |
|
|
|
244,257 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UTILITY PLANT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
2,545,211 |
|
|
|
2,532,629 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
939,247 |
|
|
|
935,259 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,605,964 |
|
|
|
1,597,370 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
40,799 |
|
|
|
30,505 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,646,763 |
|
|
|
1,627,875 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
159,999 |
|
|
|
152,928 |
|
Non-utility generation trusts |
|
|
80,275 |
|
|
|
80,244 |
|
Other |
|
|
294 |
|
|
|
297 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
240,568 |
|
|
|
233,469 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
768,628 |
|
|
|
768,628 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
179,092 |
|
|
|
163,407 |
|
Power purchase contract asset |
|
|
4,169 |
|
|
|
5,746 |
|
Other |
|
|
15,140 |
|
|
|
19,287 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
967,029 |
|
|
|
957,068 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,083,787 |
|
|
$ |
3,062,669 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
45,000 |
|
|
$ |
45,000 |
|
Short-term borrowings- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
90,363 |
|
|
|
101,338 |
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
41,231 |
|
|
|
35,626 |
|
Other |
|
|
33,125 |
|
|
|
41,420 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
4,262 |
|
|
|
5,075 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
24,069 |
|
|
|
17,378 |
|
Other |
|
|
23,467 |
|
|
|
22,541 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
261,517 |
|
|
|
268,378 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
913,439 |
|
|
|
913,519 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(162,480 |
) |
|
|
(163,526 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
58,299 |
|
|
|
60,993 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
897,810 |
|
|
|
899,538 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
1,072,339 |
|
|
|
1,072,262 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,970,149 |
|
|
|
1,971,800 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
393,088 |
|
|
|
371,877 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
187,888 |
|
|
|
187,621 |
|
Power purchase contract liability |
|
|
121,558 |
|
|
|
116,972 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
99,773 |
|
|
|
98,132 |
|
Other |
|
|
49,814 |
|
|
|
47,889 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
852,121 |
|
|
|
822,491 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,083,787 |
|
|
$ |
3,062,669 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31 |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
17,306 |
|
|
$ |
17,299 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
14,573 |
|
|
|
14,682 |
|
Amortization (deferral) of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
13,007 |
|
|
|
(9,966 |
) |
Deferred costs recoverable as regulatory assets |
|
|
(17,771 |
) |
|
|
(20,461 |
) |
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
16,648 |
|
|
|
21,772 |
|
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
1,551 |
|
|
|
(169 |
) |
Cash collateral paid, net |
|
|
(2,124 |
) |
|
|
(400 |
) |
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
46,100 |
|
|
|
(4,641 |
) |
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
(33,350 |
) |
|
|
(50,186 |
) |
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
(8,534 |
) |
|
|
(1,348 |
) |
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(813 |
) |
|
|
(2,142 |
) |
Accrued interest |
|
|
6,691 |
|
|
|
6,882 |
|
Other |
|
|
10,204 |
|
|
|
7,162 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) operating activities |
|
|
63,488 |
|
|
|
(21,516 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
51,334 |
|
Redemptions and repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
(10,975 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Common stock dividend payments |
|
|
(20,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) financing activities |
|
|
(30,949 |
) |
|
|
51,328 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(31,128 |
) |
|
|
(27,388 |
) |
Loan repayments from associated companies, net |
|
|
2,070 |
|
|
|
279 |
|
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
178,927 |
|
|
|
93,057 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(180,411 |
) |
|
|
(94,464 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(1,999 |
) |
|
|
(1,298 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for investing activities |
|
|
(32,541 |
) |
|
|
(29,814 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, AE and its principal subsidiaries (AE
Supply, AGC, MP, PE, WP and TrAIL Company), FES and its subsidiaries FGCO and NGC, and FESC. AE
merged with a subsidiary of FirstEnergy on February 25, 2011, with AE remaining as the surviving
corporation and becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy (See Note 2, Merger).
FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries follow GAAP and comply with the regulations, orders, policies and
practices prescribed by the SEC, the FERC, the NERC and, as applicable, the PUCO, the PPUC, the
MDPSC, the NYPSC, the WVPSC 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, 2010 for FirstEnergy, FES
and the Utility Registrants, as applicable, and the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by FirstEnergy
on February 25, 2011, as amended on April 19, 2011. The consolidated unaudited financial statements
of FirstEnergy, FES and each of the Utility Registrants 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 7, Variable
Interest Entities). Investments in affiliates over which FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries have the
ability to exercise significant influence, but with respect to which 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. MERGER
Merger
On February 25, 2011, the merger between FirstEnergy and Allegheny closed. Pursuant to the terms of
the Agreement and Plan of Merger among FirstEnergy, Element Merger Sub, Inc., a Maryland
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy (Merger Sub), and AE, Merger Sub merged
with and into AE, with AE continuing as the surviving corporation and becoming a wholly-owned
subsidiary of FirstEnergy. As part of the merger, AE shareholders received 0.667 of a share of
FirstEnergy common stock for each share of AE common stock outstanding as of the date the merger
was completed, and all outstanding AE equity-based employee compensation awards were converted into
FirstEnergy equity-based awards on the same basis.
The merger created a combined company with increased scale and scope and greater diversification
in energy delivery, generation and transmission. The combined company is the largest
U.S. diversified electric utility by customers and operates one of the largest unregulated power
generation fleets in the United States with FirstEnergys total current capacity of approximately
23,000 MW, which includes approximately 3,000 MW of regulated generation.
26
The total consideration in the merger was based on the closing price of a share of FirstEnergy
common stock on February 24, 2011, the day prior to the date the merger was completed, and was
calculated as follows (in millions, except per share data):
|
|
|
|
|
Shares of Allegheny common stock outstanding on February 24, 2011 |
|
|
170 |
|
Exchange ratio |
|
|
0.667 |
|
|
|
|
|
Number of shares of FirstEnergy common stock issued |
|
|
113 |
|
Closing price of FirstEnergy common stock on February 24, 2011 |
|
$ |
38.16 |
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of shares issued by FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
4,327 |
|
Fair value of replacement share-based compensation awards relating to pre-merger service |
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total consideration transferred |
|
$ |
4,354 |
|
|
|
|
|
The preliminary allocation of the total consideration transferred to the assets acquired and
liabilities assumed includes adjustments for the fair value of coal contracts, energy supply
contracts, emission allowances, unregulated property, plant and equipment, derivative instruments,
goodwill, intangible assets, long-term debt and deferred income taxes. The preliminary allocation
of the purchase price is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preliminary |
|
|
|
Purchase Price |
|
(In millions) |
|
Allocation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets |
|
$ |
1,509 |
|
Property, plant and equipment |
|
|
9,656 |
|
Investments |
|
|
138 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
952 |
|
Other noncurrent assets |
|
|
1,262 |
|
Current liabilities |
|
|
(714 |
) |
Noncurrent liabilities |
|
|
(3,453 |
) |
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
(4,996 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
4,354 |
|
|
|
|
|
Assumptions and estimates underlying the fair value adjustments are subject to change pending
further review of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed.
The excess of the purchase price over the estimated fair values of the assets acquired and
liabilities assumed was recognized as goodwill. The Allegheny delivery, transmission and generation
businesses have been assigned to the Regulated Distribution, Regulated Independent Transmission and
Competitive Energy Services segments, respectively. The preliminary estimate of goodwill from the
merger of $952 million was assigned entirely to the Competitive Energy Services segment based on
expected synergies from the merger. The goodwill is not deductible for tax purposes.
Total goodwill recognized by segment in FirstEnergys Consolidated Balance Sheet is as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Competitive |
|
|
Regulated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Independent |
|
|
Other/ |
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Distribution |
|
|
Services |
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
Corporate |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2010 |
|
$ |
5,551 |
|
|
$ |
24 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
5,575 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Merger with Allegheny |
|
|
|
|
|
|
952 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
952 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at March 31, 2011 |
|
$ |
5,551 |
|
|
$ |
976 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
6,527 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27
The preliminary valuation of the additional intangible assets and liabilities recorded as
result of the merger is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preliminary |
|
|
Weighted Average |
|
(In millions) |
|
Valuation |
|
|
Amortization Period |
|
Above market contracts: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy supply contracts |
|
$ |
189 |
|
|
10 years |
NUG contracts |
|
|
124 |
|
|
25 years |
Coal supply contracts |
|
|
525 |
|
|
8 years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
838 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Below market contracts: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NUG contracts |
|
|
143 |
|
|
13 years |
Coal supply contracts |
|
|
86 |
|
|
7 years |
Transportation contract |
|
|
35 |
|
|
8 years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
264 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
574 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fair value measurements of intangible assets and liabilities were primarily based on
significant unobservable inputs and thus represent level 3 measurements as defined in accounting
guidance for fair value measurements.
The fair value of Alleghenys energy, NUG and gas transportation contracts, both above-market and
below-market, were estimated based on the present value of the above/below market cash flows
attributable to the contracts based on the contract type, discounted by a current market interest
rate consistent with the overall credit quality of the portfolio. The above/below market cash flows
were estimated by comparing the expected cash flow based on existing contracted prices and expected
volumes with the cash flows from estimated current market contract prices for the same expected
volumes. The estimated current market contract prices were derived considering current market
prices, such as the price of energy and transmission, miscellaneous fees and a normal profit
margin. The weighted average amortization period was determined based on the expected volumes to be
delivered over the life of the contract.
The fair value of coal supply contracts was determined in a similar manner based on the present
value of the above/below market cash flows attributable to the contracts. The fair value of these
contracts will be amortized based on expected deliveries under each contract.
Total intangible assets recorded on FirstEnergys Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2011
are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intangible |
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
Purchase contract assets |
|
|
|
|
NUG |
|
$ |
241 |
|
OVEC |
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
293 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intangible assets |
|
|
|
|
Coal contracts |
|
|
520 |
|
FES customer intangible assets |
|
|
132 |
|
Energy contracts |
|
|
130 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
782 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,075 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other intangible assets acquired in the Allegheny merger include land easements and software,
having a fair value of $126 million, are included in Property, plant and equipment on
FirstEnergys Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2011.
In connection with the merger, FirstEnergy recorded approximately $82 million ($68 million net of
tax) and $14 million ($10 million net of tax) of merger transaction costs during the first quarter
of 2011 and 2010, respectively. These costs are included in Other operating expenses in the
Consolidated Statement of Income. Merger transaction costs recognized in the first quarter of 2011
include $56 million ($47 net of tax) of change in control and other benefit payments to AE
executives.
28
FirstEnergy also recorded approximately $75 million in merger integration costs during the first
quarter of 2011, including an inventory valuation adjustment. In connection with the
merger, FirstEnergy reviewed its inventory levels as a result of combining the inventory of both
companies. Following this review FirstEnergy management determined the combined inventory stock
contained excess and duplicative items. FirstEnergy management also adopted a consistent excess and
obsolete inventory practice for the combined entity. Application of the revised practice, in
conjunction with those items identified as excess and duplicative, resulted in an inventory
valuation adjustment of $67 million ($42 million net of tax).
The amounts of revenue and earnings of Allegheny since the merger date included in FirstEnergys
Consolidated Statement of Income for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
February 26 - |
|
(In millions, except per share amounts) |
|
March 31, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
$ |
437 |
|
Net Income(1) |
|
|
(46 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Basic Earnings Per Share |
|
$ |
(0.13 |
) |
Diluted Earnings Per Share |
|
$ |
(0.13 |
) |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes Alleghenys
after-tax merger costs of $52 million. |
Pro Forma Financial Information
The following unaudited pro forma financial information reflects the consolidated results of
operations of FirstEnergy as if the merger with Allegheny had taken place on January 1, 2010. The
unaudited pro forma information has been calculated after applying FirstEnergys accounting
policies and adjusting Alleghenys results to reflect the depreciation and amortization that would
have been charged assuming fair value adjustments to property, plant and equipment, debt and
intangible assets had been applied on January 1, 2010, together with the consequential tax effects.
FirstEnergy and Allegheny both incurred non-recurring costs directly related to the merger that
have been included in the pro forma earnings presented below. Approximately $83 million and $27
million of combined pre-tax transaction costs were incurred in the three months ended March 31,
2011 and March 31, 2010, respectively. In addition, in the three months ended March 31, 2011, $75
million of pre-tax merger integration costs and $24 million of charges from merger settlements
approved by regulatory agencies have been recognized. Charges resulting from merger settlements are
not expected to be material in future periods.
The unaudited pro forma financial information has been presented for illustrative purposes only and
is not necessarily indicative of results of operations that would have been achieved had the pro
forma events taken place on the dates indicated, or the future consolidated results of operations
of the combined company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31 |
|
(Pro forma amounts in millions, except per share amounts) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues |
|
$ |
4,786 |
|
|
$ |
4,685 |
|
Net income attributable to FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
137 |
|
|
$ |
255 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic Earnings Per Share |
|
$ |
0.33 |
|
|
$ |
0.61 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted Earnings Per Share |
|
$ |
0.33 |
|
|
$ |
0.61 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29
3. EARNINGS PER SHARE
Basic earnings per share of common stock are computed using the weighted average of actual common
shares outstanding during the relevant 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 would be issued 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 Ended |
|
Reconciliation of Basic and Diluted |
|
March 31 |
|
Earnings per Share of Common Stock |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
(In millions, except per |
|
|
|
share amounts) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
$ |
50 |
|
|
$ |
155 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average number of basic shares outstanding(1) |
|
|
342 |
|
|
|
304 |
|
Assumed exercise of dilutive stock options and awards |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average number of diluted shares outstanding(1) |
|
|
343 |
|
|
|
306 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings per share of common stock |
|
$ |
0.15 |
|
|
$ |
0.51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted earnings per share of common stock |
|
$ |
0.15 |
|
|
$ |
0.51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes 113 million shares issued to AE stockholders for the period subsequent to
the merger date. (See Note 2, Merger) |
4. 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 March 31, 2011 and December 31 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2011 |
|
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
Value |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Value |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
FirstEnergy(1) |
|
$ |
18,743 |
|
|
$ |
19,776 |
|
|
$ |
13,928 |
|
|
$ |
14,845 |
|
FES |
|
|
4,099 |
|
|
|
4,227 |
|
|
|
4,279 |
|
|
|
4,403 |
|
OE |
|
|
1,159 |
|
|
|
1,334 |
|
|
|
1,159 |
|
|
|
1,321 |
|
CEI |
|
|
1,831 |
|
|
|
2,035 |
|
|
|
1,853 |
|
|
|
2,035 |
|
TE |
|
|
600 |
|
|
|
666 |
|
|
|
600 |
|
|
|
653 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
1,802 |
|
|
|
1,980 |
|
|
|
1,810 |
|
|
|
1,962 |
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
742 |
|
|
|
826 |
|
|
|
742 |
|
|
|
821 |
|
Penelec |
|
|
1,120 |
|
|
|
1,190 |
|
|
|
1,120 |
|
|
|
1,189 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes debt assumed in the Allegheny merger (See Note 2) with a carrying value and
a fair value as of March 31, 2011 of $4,995 million and $5,004 million, respectively. |
The fair values of long-term debt and other long-term obligations reflect the present value of
the cash outflows relating to those obligations 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 debt with similar characteristics offered by corporations with credit
ratings similar to those of FirstEnergy, FES, the Utilities and other subsidiaries.
(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.
30
FES and the Utilities periodically evaluate their investments for other-than-temporary impairment.
They first consider their intent and ability to hold an equity investment until recovery and then
consider, among other factors, the duration and the extent to which the securitys fair value has
been less than cost and the near-term financial prospects of the security issuer when evaluating an
investment for impairment. For debt securities, FES and the Utilities consider their intent to hold
the security, the likelihood that they will be required to sell the security before recovery of
their cost basis, and the likelihood of recovery of the securitys entire amortized cost basis.
Available-For-Sale Securities
FES and the Utilities hold debt and equity securities within their nuclear decommissioning trusts,
nuclear fuel disposal trusts and NUG trusts. These trust investments are considered as
available-for-sale at fair market value. FES and the Utilities have no securities held for trading
purposes.
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 March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2011(1) |
|
|
December 31, 2010(2) |
|
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
Basis |
|
|
Gains |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Basis |
|
|
Gains |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Value |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
1,985 |
|
|
$ |
32 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2,017 |
|
|
$ |
1,699 |
|
|
$ |
31 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,730 |
|
FES |
|
|
1,012 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,030 |
|
|
|
980 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
993 |
|
OE |
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
125 |
|
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
124 |
|
TE |
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
358 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
365 |
|
|
|
281 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
290 |
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
240 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
244 |
|
|
|
127 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
131 |
|
Penelec |
|
|
200 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
202 |
|
|
|
145 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
149 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
186 |
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
193 |
|
|
$ |
268 |
|
|
$ |
69 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
337 |
|
FES |
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TE |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JCP&L |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
97 |
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
125 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
160 |
|
Penelec |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes cash investments, receivables, payables, deferred taxes and accrued
income: FirstEnergy $97 million; FES $37 million; OE $2 million; TE $1 million;
JCP&L $12 million; Met-Ed $27 million and Penelec $18 million. |
|
(2) |
|
Excludes cash investments, receivables, payables, deferred taxes and accrued
income: FirstEnergy $193 million; FES $153 million; OE $3 million; TE $34 million;
JCP&L $3 million; Met-Ed $(3) million and Penelec $4 million. |
31
Proceeds from the sale of investments in available-for-sale securities, realized gains and
losses on those sales net of adjustments recorded, and interest and dividend income for the three
months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest and |
|
March 31, 2011 |
|
Sales Proceeds |
|
|
Realized Gains |
|
|
Realized Losses |
|
|
Dividend Income |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
970 |
|
|
$ |
100 |
|
|
$ |
(29 |
) |
|
$ |
24 |
|
FES |
|
|
216 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
15 |
|
OE |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
TE |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
217 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
4 |
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
336 |
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
Penelec |
|
|
179 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest and |
|
March 31, 2010 |
|
Sales Proceeds |
|
|
Realized Gains |
|
|
Realized Losses |
|
|
Dividend Income |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
733 |
|
|
$ |
37 |
|
|
$ |
(51 |
) |
|
$ |
22 |
|
FES |
|
|
272 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
13 |
|
OE |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
TE |
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
190 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
4 |
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
144 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
Penelec |
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
Unrealized gains applicable to the decommissioning trusts of FES, OE and TE are recognized in
OCI because fluctuations in fair value will eventually impact earnings. The decommissioning trusts
of JCP&L, Met-Ed and Penelec are subject to regulatory accounting. Net unrealized gains and losses
are recorded as regulatory assets or liabilities because the difference between investments held in
trust and the decommissioning liabilities will be recovered from or refunded to customers.
The investment policy for the nuclear decommissioning trust funds restricts or limits the plans ability
to hold certain types of assets including private or direct placements, warrants, securities of
FirstEnergy, investments in companies owning nuclear power plants, financial derivatives, preferred
stocks, securities convertible into common stock and securities of the trust funds custodian or
managers and their parents or subsidiaries.
FirstEnergy recognized $3 million and $11 million of net realized losses for the three-month period
ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, resulting from the sale of securities held in nuclear
decommissioning trusts.
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 March 31, 2011 and December 31,
2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2011 |
|
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
Basis |
|
|
Gains |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Basis |
|
|
Gains |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Value |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Debt Securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
422 |
|
|
$ |
79 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
501 |
|
|
$ |
476 |
|
|
$ |
91 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
567 |
|
OE |
|
|
190 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
235 |
|
|
|
190 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
241 |
|
CEI |
|
|
287 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
320 |
|
|
|
340 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
381 |
|
Investments in emission allowances, employee benefits and cost and equity method investments
totaling $345 million as of March 31, 2011 and $259 million as of December 31, 2010 are not
required to be disclosed and are excluded from the amounts reported above.
32
Notes Receivable
The table below provides the approximate fair value and related carrying amounts of notes
receivable as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010. 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. The maturity dates
range from 2013 to 2021.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2011 |
|
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
Value |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Value |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Notes Receivable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
TE |
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
118 |
|
(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 in which transactions for the asset or liability occur
in sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing information on an ongoing basis.
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. 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 may include
non-exchange-traded derivatives such as forwards and certain interest rate swaps.
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.
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 determination of the 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.
The following tables set forth financial assets and liabilities that are accounted for at fair
value by level within the fair value hierarchy as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010. 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. The fair value of financial
assets and liabilities as of March 31, 2011 assumed in the merger with Allegheny totaled $52 million and $51 million,
respectively. There were no significant transfers between Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 as of March
31, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
33
FirstEnergy Corp.
The following tables summarize assets and liabilities recorded on FirstEnergys Consolidated
Balance Sheets at fair value as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2011 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
877 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
877 |
|
Derivative assets commodity contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
524 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
524 |
|
Derivative assets FTRs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
Derivative assets interest rate swaps |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
Derivative assets NUG contracts(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
117 |
|
|
|
117 |
|
Equity securities(2) |
|
|
194 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
194 |
|
Foreign government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
150 |
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
681 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
681 |
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
297 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
297 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other(4) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
194 |
|
|
$ |
2,681 |
|
|
$ |
118 |
|
|
$ |
2,993 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative
liabilities commodity contracts |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(583 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(583 |
) |
Derivative
liabilities FTRs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
Derivative
liabilities interest rate swaps |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative
liabilities NUG contracts(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(478 |
) |
|
|
(478 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(588 |
) |
|
$ |
(490 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,078 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets (liabilities)(3) |
|
$ |
194 |
|
|
$ |
2,093 |
|
|
$ |
(372 |
) |
|
$ |
1,915 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
597 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
597 |
|
Derivative assets commodity contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
250 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
250 |
|
Derivative assets NUG contracts(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
122 |
|
|
|
122 |
|
Equity securities(2) |
|
|
338 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
338 |
|
Foreign government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
149 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
149 |
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
595 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
595 |
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
379 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
379 |
|
Other(4) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
219 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
219 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
338 |
|
|
$ |
2,189 |
|
|
$ |
122 |
|
|
$ |
2,649 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative
liabilities commodity contracts |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(348 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(348 |
) |
Derivative
liabilities NUG contracts(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(466 |
) |
|
|
(466 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(348 |
) |
|
$ |
(466 |
) |
|
$ |
(814 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets (liabilities)(3) |
|
$ |
338 |
|
|
$ |
1,841 |
|
|
$ |
(344 |
) |
|
$ |
1,835 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
NUG contracts are subject to regulatory accounting and do not impact earnings. |
|
(2) |
|
NDT funds hold equity portfolios the performance of which is benchmarked against
the S&P 500 Index or Russell 3000 Index. |
|
(3) |
|
Excludes $(31) million and $(7) million as of March 31, 2011 and December 31,
2010, respectively, of receivables, payables, deferred taxes and accrued income associated
with the financial instruments reflected within the fair value table. |
|
(4) |
|
Primarily consists of cash and cash equivalents. |
34
Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements
The following table provides a reconciliation of changes in the fair value of NUG contracts held by
the Utilities and FTRs held by FirstEnergy and classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy
for the periods ending March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative Asset(1) |
|
|
Derivative Liability(1) |
|
|
Net(1) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
January 1, 2011 Balance |
|
$ |
122 |
|
|
$ |
(466 |
) |
|
$ |
(344 |
) |
Realized gain (loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(89 |
) |
|
|
(90 |
) |
Purchases |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuances |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Settlements |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
74 |
|
Transfers in (out) of Level 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2011 Balance |
|
$ |
118 |
|
|
$ |
(490 |
) |
|
$ |
(372 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2010 Balance |
|
$ |
200 |
|
|
$ |
(643 |
) |
|
$ |
(443 |
) |
Realized gain (loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) |
|
|
(71 |
) |
|
|
(110 |
) |
|
|
(181 |
) |
Purchases |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuances |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Settlements |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
287 |
|
|
|
280 |
|
Transfers in (out) of Level 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010 Balance |
|
$ |
122 |
|
|
$ |
(466 |
) |
|
$ |
(344 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Changes in the fair value of NUG contracts are subject to regulatory
accounting and do not impact earnings. |
FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.
The following tables summarize assets and liabilities recorded on FES Consolidated Balance Sheets
at fair value as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2011 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
567 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
567 |
|
Derivative assets commodity contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
476 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
476 |
|
Derivative assets FTRs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
Equity securities(3) |
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
93 |
|
Foreign government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
148 |
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
Other(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
93 |
|
|
$ |
1,546 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
1,640 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative
liabilities commodity contracts |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(549 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(549 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(549 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(549 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets (liabilities)(1) |
|
$ |
93 |
|
|
$ |
997 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
1,091 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
528 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
528 |
|
Derivative assets commodity contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
241 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
241 |
|
Foreign government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
147 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
147 |
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
308 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
308 |
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
Other(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,378 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,378 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative liabilities commodity contracts |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(348 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(348 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(348 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(348 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets (liabilities)(1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,030 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,030 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes $(3) million and $7 million as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010,
respectively, of receivables, payables, deferred taxes and accrued income associated with
the financial instruments reflected within the fair value table. |
|
(2) |
|
Primarily consists of cash and cash equivalents. |
|
(3) |
|
NDT funds hold equity portfolios the performance of which is benchmarked against
the S&P 500 Index or Russell 3000 Index. |
Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements
The following table provides a reconciliation of changes in the fair value of FTRs held by FES and
classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the period ending March 31, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative Asset |
|
|
Derivative Liability |
|
|
Net |
|
|
|
FTRs |
|
|
FTRs |
|
|
FTRs |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
January 1, 2011 Balance |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Realized gain (loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
Purchases |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuances |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Settlements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transfers in (out) of Level 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2011 Balance |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohio Edison Company
The following tables summarize assets and liabilities recorded on OEs Consolidated Balance Sheets
at fair value as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2011 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
125 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
125 |
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets(1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
131 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
131 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
124 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
124 |
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets(1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
126 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
126 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes $(3) million and $1 million as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010
of receivables, payables, deferred taxes and accrued income associated with the financial
instruments reflected within the fair value table. |
36
Toledo Edison Company
The following tables summarize assets and liabilities recorded on TEs Consolidated Balance Sheets
at fair value as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2011 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
16 |
|
Equity securities(3) |
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25 |
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32 |
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Other(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets(1) |
|
$ |
25 |
|
|
$ |
53 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
78 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33 |
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
Other(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets(1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
76 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes $(1) million and $2 million as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010
of receivables, payables, deferred taxes and accrued income associated with the financial
instruments reflected within the fair value table. |
|
(2) |
|
Primarily consists of cash and cash equivalents. |
|
(3) |
|
NDT funds hold equity portfolios the performance of which is benchmarked against
the S&P 500 Index or Russell 3000 Index. |
Jersey Central Power & Light Company
The following tables summarize assets and liabilities recorded on JCP&Ls Consolidated Balance
Sheets at fair value as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2011 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
92 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
92 |
|
Derivative assets commodity contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative assets NUG contracts(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
Equity securities(2) |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
|
Foreign government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60 |
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
214 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
214 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
21 |
|
|
$ |
383 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
410 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative liabilities NUG contracts(1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(239 |
) |
|
$ |
(239 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(239 |
) |
|
$ |
(239 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets (liabilities)(3) |
|
$ |
21 |
|
|
$ |
383 |
|
|
$ |
(233 |
) |
|
$ |
171 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
23 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
23 |
|
Derivative assets commodity contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Derivative assets NUG contracts(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
Equity securities(2) |
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96 |
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33 |
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
236 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
236 |
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
96 |
|
|
$ |
298 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative liabilities NUG contracts(1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(233 |
) |
|
$ |
(233 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(233 |
) |
|
$ |
(233 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets (liabilities)(3) |
|
$ |
96 |
|
|
$ |
298 |
|
|
$ |
(227 |
) |
|
$ |
167 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
NUG contracts are subject to regulatory accounting and do not impact earnings. |
|
(2) |
|
NDT funds hold equity portfolios the performance of which is benchmarked against
the S&P 500 Index or Russell 3000 Index.
|
|
(3) |
|
Excludes $(8) million and $(3) million as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010
of receivables, payables, deferred taxes and accrued income associated with the financial
instruments reflected within the fair value table.
|
Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements
The following table provides a reconciliation of changes in the fair value of NUG contracts held by
JCP&L and classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the periods ending March 31, 2011
and December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative Asset |
|
|
Derivative Liability |
|
|
Net |
|
|
|
NUG Contracts(1) |
|
|
NUG Contracts(1) |
|
|
NUG Contracts(1) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
January 1, 2011 Balance |
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
(233 |
) |
|
$ |
(227 |
) |
Realized gain (loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(42 |
) |
|
|
(42 |
) |
Purchases |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuances |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Settlements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
Transfers in (out) of Level 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2011 Balance |
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
(239 |
) |
|
$ |
(233 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2010 Balance |
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
(399 |
) |
|
$ |
(391 |
) |
Realized gain (loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
Purchases |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuances |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Settlements |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
130 |
|
|
|
129 |
|
Transfers in (out) of Level 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010 Balance |
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
(233 |
) |
|
$ |
(227 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Changes in the fair value of NUG contracts are subject to regulatory
accounting and do not impact earnings. |
38
Metropolitan Edison Company
The following tables summarize assets and liabilities recorded on Met-Eds Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2011 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
131 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
131 |
|
Derivative assets commodity contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative assets NUG contracts(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
107 |
|
Equity securities(2) |
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34 |
|
Foreign government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100 |
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
34 |
|
|
$ |
272 |
|
|
$ |
107 |
|
|
$ |
413 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative liabilities NUG contracts(1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(118 |
) |
|
$ |
(118 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(118 |
) |
|
$ |
(118 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets (liabilities)(3) |
|
$ |
34 |
|
|
$ |
272 |
|
|
$ |
(11 |
) |
|
$ |
295 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
32 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
32 |
|
Derivative assets commodity contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
Derivative assets NUG contracts(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
112 |
|
|
|
112 |
|
Equity securities(2) |
|
|
160 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
160 |
|
Foreign government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
88 |
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
160 |
|
|
$ |
142 |
|
|
$ |
112 |
|
|
$ |
414 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative liabilities NUG contracts(1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(116 |
) |
|
$ |
(116 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(116 |
) |
|
$ |
(116 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets (liabilities)(3) |
|
$ |
160 |
|
|
$ |
142 |
|
|
$ |
(4 |
) |
|
$ |
298 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
NUG contracts are subject to regulatory accounting and do not impact earnings. |
|
(2) |
|
NDT funds hold equity portfolios the performance of which is benchmarked against
the S&P 500 Index or Russell 3000 Index. |
|
(3) |
|
Excludes $(1) million and $(9) million as of March 31, 2011 and December 31,
2010, respectively, of receivables, payables, deferred taxes and accrued income associated
with the financial instruments reflected within the fair value table. |
39
Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements
The following table provides a reconciliation of changes in the fair value of NUG contracts held by
Met-Ed and classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the periods ending March 31, 2011
and December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative Asset |
|
|
Derivative Liability |
|
|
Net |
|
|
|
NUG Contracts(1) |
|
|
NUG Contracts(1) |
|
|
NUG Contracts(1) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
January 1, 2011 Balance |
|
$ |
112 |
|
|
$ |
(116 |
) |
|
$ |
(4 |
) |
Realized gain (loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
(18 |
) |
Purchases |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuances |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Settlements |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
Transfers in (out) of Level 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2011 Balance |
|
$ |
107 |
|
|
$ |
(118 |
) |
|
$ |
(11 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2010 Balance |
|
$ |
176 |
|
|
$ |
(143 |
) |
|
$ |
33 |
|
Realized gain (loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) |
|
|
(59 |
) |
|
|
(38 |
) |
|
|
(97 |
) |
Purchases |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuances |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Settlements |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
Transfers in (out) of Level 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010 Balance |
|
$ |
112 |
|
|
$ |
(116 |
) |
|
$ |
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Changes in the fair value of NUG contracts are subject to regulatory
accounting and do not impact earnings. |
Pennsylvania Electric Company
The following tables summarize assets and liabilities recorded on Penelecs Consolidated Balance
Sheets at fair value as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2011 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
70 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
70 |
|
Derivative assets commodity contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative assets NUG contracts(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
Equity securities(2) |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
Foreign government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60 |
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
20 |
|
|
$ |
234 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
258 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative liabilities NUG contracts(1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(122 |
) |
|
$ |
(122 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(122 |
) |
|
$ |
(122 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets (liabilities)(3) |
|
$ |
20 |
|
|
$ |
234 |
|
|
$ |
(118 |
) |
|
$ |
136 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
Derivative assets commodity contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Derivative assets NUG contracts(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
Equity securities(2) |
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
81 |
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
133 |
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
81 |
|
|
$ |
157 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
242 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative liabilities NUG contracts(1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(117 |
) |
|
$ |
(117 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(117 |
) |
|
$ |
(117 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets (liabilities)(3) |
|
$ |
81 |
|
|
$ |
157 |
|
|
$ |
(113 |
) |
|
$ |
125 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
NUG contracts are subject to regulatory accounting and do not impact earnings. |
|
(2) |
|
NDT funds hold equity portfolios the performance of which is benchmarked against
the S&P 500 Index or Russell 3000 Index. |
|
(3) |
|
Excludes $(15) million and $(3) million as of March 31, 2011 and December 31,
2010, respectively, of receivables, payables and accrued income associated with the
financial instruments reflected within the fair value table. |
Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements
The following table provides a reconciliation of changes in the fair value of NUG and commodity
contracts held by Penelec and classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the periods
ended March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative Asset |
|
|
Derivative Liability |
|
|
Net |
|
|
|
NUG Contracts(1) |
|
|
NUG Contracts(1) |
|
|
NUG Contracts(1) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
January 1, 2011 Balance |
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
(117 |
) |
|
$ |
(113 |
) |
Realized gain (loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
(30 |
) |
Purchases |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuances |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Settlements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
Transfers in (out) of Level 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2011 Balance |
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
(122 |
) |
|
$ |
(118 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2010 Balance |
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
$ |
(101 |
) |
|
$ |
(85 |
) |
Realized gain (loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
(108 |
) |
|
|
(119 |
) |
Purchases |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuances |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Settlements |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
91 |
|
Transfers in (out) of Level 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010 Balance |
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
(117 |
) |
|
$ |
(113 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Changes in the fair value of NUG contracts are subject to regulatory
accounting and do not impact earnings. |
41
5. 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 established a Risk Policy Committee, comprised
of members of senior management, which 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 practice. FirstEnergy also uses a variety of
derivative instruments for risk management purposes including forward contracts, options, futures
contracts and swaps. In addition to derivatives, FirstEnergy also enters into master netting
agreements with certain third parties.
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 under the accrual method of accounting, and their effects are included
in earnings at the time of contract performance. Changes in the fair value of derivative
instruments that qualify and are designated as cash flow hedge instruments are recorded to AOCL.
Change in the fair value of derivative instruments that are not designated as cash flow hedge
instruments are recorded in the income statement on a mark-to-market basis. FirstEnergys has
contractual derivative agreements through December 2018.
Cash Flow Hedges
FirstEnergy has used cash flow hedges for risk management purposes to manage the volatility related
to exposures associated with fluctuating interest rates and commodity prices. The effective portion
of gains and losses on the derivative contract are reported as a component of AOCL with subsequent
reclassification to earnings in the period during which the hedged forecasted transaction affects
earnings.
As of December 31, 2010, commodity derivative contracts designated in cash flow hedging
relationships were $104 million of assets and $101 million of liabilities. In February 2011,
FirstEnergy elected to dedesignate all outstanding cash flow hedge relationships. Total net
unamortized losses included in AOCL associated with dedesignated cash flow hedges totaled $6
million as of March 31, 2011. Since the forecasted transactions remain probable of occurring, these
amounts were frozen in AOCL and will be amortized into earnings over the life of the hedging
instruments. Reclassifications from AOCL into other operating expense totaled $5 million for the
three-months ended March 31, 2011. Approximately $16 million will be amortized to earnings as
expense during the next twelve months.
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 March 31, 2011, no
forward starting swap agreements were outstanding. Total unamortized losses included in AOCL
associated with prior interest rate cash flow hedges totaled $87 million ($57 million net of tax)
as of March 31, 2011. Based on current estimates, approximately $10 million will be amortized to
interest expense during the next twelve months. Reclassifications from AOCL into interest expense
totaled $3 million for the three-months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010.
Fair Value Hedges
FirstEnergy has used 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
derivative instruments were 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. As of March 31, 2011, no fixed-for-floating interest rate swap agreements
were outstanding.
As of March 31, 2010, FirstEnergy held fixed-for-floating interest rate swap agreements with
combined notional amounts of $950 million. The gains included in interest expense related to
interest rate swaps totaled $1 million and the fair value of the derivative instruments totaled
$(3) million. There was no impact on the results of operations as a result of ineffectiveness from
fair value hedges.
Total unamortized gains included in long-term debt associated with prior fixed-for-floating
interest rate swap agreements totaled $118 million ($77 million net of tax) as of March 31, 2011.
Based on current estimates, approximately $22 million will be amortized to interest expense during
the next twelve months. Reclassifications from long-term debt into interest expense totaled
approximately $5 million and $1 million for the three-months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010,
respectively.
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.
42
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
natural gas 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.
Interest rate swaps include two interest rate swap agreements that expire during 2011 with an
aggregate notional value of $200 million that were entered into during 2003 to substantially offset
two existing interest rate swaps with the same counterparty. The 2003 agreements effectively locked
in a net liability and substantially eliminated future income volatility from the interest rate
swap positions but do not qualify for cash flow hedge accounting. Derivative instruments are not
used in quantities greater than forecasted needs.
As of March 31, 2011, FirstEnergys net liability position under commodity derivative contracts was
$59 million, which primarily related to FES positions. Under these commodity derivative contracts,
FES posted $120 million and Allegheny posted $1 million in collateral. Certain commodity derivative
contracts include credit risk related contingent features that would
require FES to post $24
million of additional collateral if the credit rating for its debt were to fall below investment
grade.
Based on derivative contracts held as of March 31, 2011, an adverse 10% change in commodity prices
would decrease net income by approximately $12 million ($7 million net of tax) during the next
twelve months.
FTRs
FirstEnergy holds FTRs that generally represent an economic hedge of future congestion charges that
will be incurred in connection with FirstEnergys load obligations. These future obligations are
reflected on the Consolidated Balance Sheets; and have not been designated as cash flow hedge
instruments. FirstEnergy acquires the majority of its FTRs in an annual auction through a
self-scheduling process involving the use of auction revenue rights allocated to members of an RTO
that have load serving obligations. FirstEnergy initially records FTRs at the FTR auction price
less the obligation due to the RTO, and subsequently adjusts the carrying value of remaining FTRs
to their estimated fair value at the end of each accounting period prior to settlement. Changes in
the fair value of FTRs held by FirstEnergys unregulated subsidiaries are included in other
operating expenses as unrealized gains or losses. Unrealized gains or losses on FTRs held by
FirstEnergys regulated subsidiaries are recorded as regulatory assets or liabilities.
The following tables summarize the fair value of derivative instruments in FirstEnergys
Consolidated Balance Sheets:
Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments as of March 31, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative Assets |
|
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power Contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Assets |
|
$ |
332 |
|
|
$ |
151 |
|
Noncurrent Assets |
|
|
192 |
|
|
|
89 |
|
FTRs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Assets |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Noncurrent Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NUGs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Assets |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
Noncurrent Assets |
|
|
114 |
|
|
|
119 |
|
Interest Rate Swaps |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Assets |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Noncurrent Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
Noncurrent Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Derivatives |
|
$ |
646 |
|
|
$ |
372 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative Liabilities |
|
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power Contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Liabilities |
|
$ |
408 |
|
|
$ |
266 |
|
Noncurrent Liabilities |
|
|
175 |
|
|
|
81 |
|
FTRs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Liabilities |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
Noncurrent Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NUGs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Liabilities |
|
|
277 |
|
|
|
229 |
|
Noncurrent Liabilities |
|
|
202 |
|
|
|
238 |
|
Interest Rate Swaps |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Liabilities |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
Noncurrent Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noncurrent Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Derivatives |
|
$ |
1,079 |
|
|
$ |
814 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43
The following table summarizes the volume of FirstEnergys outstanding derivative transactions
as of March 31, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases |
|
|
Sales |
|
|
Net |
|
|
Units |
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Power Contracts |
|
|
83,603 |
|
|
|
(100,407 |
) |
|
|
(16,804 |
) |
|
MWH |
FTRs |
|
|
18,199 |
|
|
|
(130 |
) |
|
|
18,069 |
|
|
MWH |
Interest Rate Swaps |
|
|
200,000 |
|
|
|
(200,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
notional dollars |
NUGs |
|
|
29,824 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,824 |
|
|
MWH |
The effect of derivative instruments on the consolidated statements of income for the three
months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended March 31, |
|
|
|
Power |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contracts |
|
|
FTRs |
|
|
Rate Swaps |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Derivatives in a Hedging Relationship |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain (Loss) Recognized in AOCL (Effective Portion) |
|
$ |
(9 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(9 |
) |
Effective Gain (Loss) Reclassified to: (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase Power Expense |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
Wholesale Revenue |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain (Loss) Recognized in AOCL (Effective Portion) |
|
$ |
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
Effective Gain (Loss) Reclassified to:(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase Power Expense |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Fuel Expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives Not in a Hedging Relationship |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized Gain (Loss) Recognized in: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase Power Expense |
|
$ |
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
29 |
|
Wholesale Revenue |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Operating Expense |
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
Realized Gain (Loss) Reclassified to: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase Power Expense |
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(21 |
) |
Wholesale Revenue |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized Gain (Loss) Recognized in: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase Power Expense |
|
$ |
(27 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(27 |
) |
|
Realized Gain (Loss) Reclassified to: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase Power Expense |
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(25 |
) |
44
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives Not in a Hedging |
|
Three Months Ended March 31, |
|
Relationship with Regulatory Offset(2) |
|
NUGs |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized Loss to NUG Liability: |
|
$ |
(89 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(89 |
) |
Unrealized Gain to Regulatory Assets: |
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized Gain to NUG Liability: |
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72 |
|
Realized Loss to Regulatory Assets: |
|
|
(72 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(72 |
) |
Realized Loss to Deferred Charges |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(10 |
) |
Realized Gain to Regulatory Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized Loss to NUG Liability: |
|
$ |
(224 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(224 |
) |
Unrealized Gain to Regulatory Assets: |
|
|
224 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
224 |
|
|
Realized Gain to NUG Liability: |
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
78 |
|
Realized Loss to Regulatory Assets: |
|
|
(78 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(78 |
) |
Realized Loss to Deferred Charges |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
Realized Gain to Regulatory Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The ineffective portion was immaterial. |
|
(2) |
|
Changes in the fair value of certain contracts are deferred for future recovery
from (or refund to) customers. |
The following table provides a reconciliation of changes in the fair value of certain contracts
that are deferred for future recover from (or refund to) customers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended March 31, |
|
Derivatives Not in a Hedging Relationship with Regulatory Offset(1) |
|
NUGs |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Outstanding net asset (liability) as of January 1, 2011 |
|
$ |
(345 |
) |
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
(335 |
) |
Additions/Change in value of existing contracts |
|
|
(89 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(89 |
) |
Settled contracts |
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding net asset (liability) as of March 31, 2011 |
|
$ |
(362 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(362 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding net asset (liability) as of January 1, 2010 |
|
$ |
(444 |
) |
|
$ |
19 |
|
|
$ |
(425 |
) |
Additions/Change in value of existing contracts |
|
|
(224 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(224 |
) |
Settled contracts |
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding net asset (liability) as of March 31, 2010 |
|
$ |
(590 |
) |
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
(580 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Changes in the fair value of certain contracts are deferred for future
recovery from (or refund to) customers. |
6. 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.
FirstEnergy provides a portion of non-contributory pre-retirement basic life insurance for
employees who are eligible to retire. Health care benefits, which include certain employee
contributions, deductibles and co-payments, are also available upon retirement to certain
employees, their dependents and, under certain circumstances, their survivors. FirstEnergy also has
obligations to former or inactive employees after employment, but before retirement, for
disability-related benefits.
45
FirstEnergys funding policy is based on actuarial computations using the projected unit credit
method. During the first quarter of 2011, FirstEnergy made a $157 million contribution to its
qualified pension plans. FirstEnergy intends to make additional contributions of $220 million and
$6 million to its qualified pension plans and postretirement benefit plans, respectively, in the
last three quarters of 2011.
FirstEnergy measured the funded status of the Allegheny pension plans and postretirement benefit
plans other than pensions as of the merger closing date using discount rates of 5.50% and 5.25%,
respectively. As a result of the fair value measurement, FirstEnergy recorded accumulated benefit
obligation reductions to the Allegheny pension plans and postretirement benefits other than
pensions in the amount of $6 million and $2 million, respectively. The expected returns on plan
assets used to calculate net period costs for the month ended March 31, 2011 was 8.25% for the
Allegheny qualified pension plan and 5.00% for the Allegheny postretirement benefit plans other
than pension plans.
The fair values of plan assets for Alleghenys pension plans and postretirement benefit plans other
than pensions at the date of the merger were $954 million and $75 million, respectively, and the
actuarially determined benefit obligations for such plans at that
date were $1,341 million and $272 million,
respectively.
FirstEnergys net pension and OPEB expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010 were
$28 million and $24 million, respectively. The components of FirstEnergys net pension and OPEB
(including amounts capitalized) for the three months ended March 30, 2011 and 2010, consisted of
the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31 |
|
Pension Benefit Cost (Credit) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Service cost |
|
$ |
29 |
|
|
$ |
25 |
|
Interest cost |
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
78 |
|
Expected return on plan assets |
|
|
(102 |
) |
|
|
(90 |
) |
Amortization of prior service cost |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
Recognized net actuarial loss |
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
Curtailments (1) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Special termination benefits (1) |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic cost |
|
$ |
71 |
|
|
$ |
63 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents costs (credits) incurred related to
change in control provision payments to certain
executives who were terminated or were expected to
be terminated as a result of the merger. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31 |
|
Other Postretirement Benefit Cost (Credit) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Service cost |
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
Interest cost |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
Expected return on plan assets |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
Amortization of prior service cost |
|
|
(48 |
) |
|
|
(48 |
) |
Recognized net actuarial loss |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic cost |
|
$ |
(30 |
) |
|
$ |
(29 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46
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 months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31 |
|
Pension Benefit Cost (Credit) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
FES |
|
$ |
22 |
|
|
$ |
22 |
|
OE |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
CEI |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
TE |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
Penelec |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
Other FirstEnergy Subsidiaries |
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
71 |
|
|
$ |
63 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31 |
|
Other Postretirement Benefit Cost (Credit) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
FES |
|
$ |
(6 |
) |
|
$ |
(7 |
) |
OE |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
CEI |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
TE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
JCP&L |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
Met-Ed |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
Penelec |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
Other FirstEnergy Subsidiaries |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(30 |
) |
|
$ |
(29 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7. VARIABLE INTEREST ENTITIES
FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries perform qualitative analyses 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.
VIEs included in FirstEnergys consolidated financial statements are: 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 $302 million was outstanding as of March
31, 2011.
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 ($5 million) and distributions to owners ($3 million) for the three months ended March
31, 2011.
In order to evaluate contracts for consolidation treatment and entities for which FirstEnergy has
an interest, FirstEnergy aggregated variable interests into the following categories based on
similar risk characteristics and significance as follows:
47
PATH-WV
PATH, LLC was formed to construct, through its operating companies, a portion of the PATH Project,
which is a high-voltage transmission line that is proposed to extend from West Virginia through
Virginia and into Maryland, including modifications to an existing substation in Putnam County,
West Virginia, and the construction of new substations in Hardy County, West Virginia and Frederick
County, Maryland as directed by PJM. PATH, LLC is a series limited liability company that is
comprised of multiple series, each of which has separate rights, powers and duties regarding
specified property and the series profits and losses associated with such property. A subsidiary of
AE owns 100% of the Allegheny Series and 50% of the West Virginia Series (PATH-WV), which is a
joint venture with a subsidiary of AEP. FirstEnergy is not the primary beneficiary of PATH-WV, as
it does not have control over the significant activities affecting the economics of the portion of
the PATH Project to be constructed by PATH-WV.
Because of the nature of PATH-WVs operations and its FERC approved rate mechanism, FirstEnergys
maximum exposure to loss, through AE, consists of its equity investment in PATH-WV, which was $26
million at March 31, 2011.
Power Purchase Agreements
FirstEnergy evaluated its power purchase agreements and determined that certain NUG entities may be
VIEs to the extent that they own a plant that sells substantially all of its output to the
Utilities if the contract price for power is correlated with the plants variable costs of
production. FirstEnergy, through its subsidiaries JCP&L, Met-Ed, Penelec, PE, WP and MP, maintains
23 long-term power purchase agreements with NUG entities. The agreements were entered into pursuant
to PURPA. 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 four of these NUG entities, its subsidiaries do not
have variable interests in the entities or the entities do not meet the criteria to be considered a
VIE. JCP&L, PE and WP may hold variable interests in the remaining four entities; however,
FirstEnergy applied the scope exception that exempts enterprises unable to obtain the necessary
information to evaluate entities.
Because JCP&L, PE and WP have no equity or debt interests in the NUG entities, their maximum
exposure to loss relates primarily to the above-market costs incurred for power. FirstEnergy
expects any above-market costs incurred by its subsidiaries to be recovered from customers.
Purchased power costs related to the four contracts that may contain a variable interest that were
held by FirstEnergy subsidiaries during the three months ended March 31, 2011, were $65 million,
$11 million and $5 million for JCP&L, PE and WP, respectively. Purchased power costs related to
the two contracts that may contain a variable interest that were held by JCP&L during the three
months ended March 31, 2010 were $64 million.
In 1998 the PPUC issued an order approving a transition plan for WP that disallowed certain costs,
including an estimated amount for an adverse power purchase commitment related to the NUG entity
that WP may hold a variable interest, for which WP has taken the scope exception. As of March 31, 2011,
WPs reserve for this adverse purchase power commitment was $61 million, including a current
liability of $18 million, and is being amortized over the life of the commitment.
Loss Contingencies
FirstEnergy has variable interests in certain sale-leaseback transactions. FirstEnergy is not the
primary beneficiary of these interests as it does not have control over the significant activities
affecting the economics of the arrangement.
48
FES and the Ohio Companies are exposed to losses under their applicable sale-leaseback agreements
upon the occurrence of certain contingent events. The maximum exposure under these provisions
represents the net amount of casualty value payments due upon the occurrence of specified casualty
events. 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 as of March 31, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maximum |
|
|
Discounted Lease |
|
|
Net |
|
|
|
Exposure |
|
|
Payments, net(1) |
|
|
Exposure |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
FES |
|
$ |
1,376 |
|
|
$ |
1,187 |
|
|
$ |
189 |
|
OE |
|
|
644 |
|
|
|
485 |
|
|
|
159 |
|
CEI(2) |
|
|
664 |
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
596 |
|
TE(2) |
|
|
664 |
|
|
|
351 |
|
|
|
313 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The net present value of FirstEnergys consolidated
sale and leaseback operating lease commitments is $1.7
billion. |
|
(2) |
|
CEI and TE are jointly and severally liable for the
maximum loss amounts under certain sale-leaseback
agreements. |
8. 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. As a result of the merger with Allegheny in the first quarter of 2011, FirstEnergys
unrecognized tax benefits increased by $97 million. There were no other material changes to
FirstEnergys unrecognized tax benefits during the first three months of 2011. After reaching a
tentative agreement with the IRS on a tax item at appeals related to the capitalization of certain
costs in the first quarter of 2010, FirstEnergy reduced the amount of unrecognized tax benefits by
$57 million, with a corresponding adjustment to accumulated deferred income taxes for this
temporary tax item. There was no impact on FirstEnergys effective tax rate for this tax item in
the first three months of 2010.
As of March 31, 2011, it is reasonably possible that approximately $48 million of unrecognized
benefits may be resolved within the next twelve months, of which approximately $6 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 the capitalization of
certain costs and various state 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. During the first
three months of 2011, there were no material changes to the amount of accrued interest, except for
a $6 million increase in accrued interest from Allegheny. The reversal of accrued interest
associated with the $57 million in recognized tax benefits in 2010 favorably affected FirstEnergys
effective tax rate by $5 million in the first quarter of 2010. The net amount of interest accrued
as of March 31, 2011 was $10 million, compared with $3 million as of December 31, 2010.
As a result of the non-deductible portion of merger transaction costs,
FirstEnergys effective tax rate was unfavorably impacted by $30 million in the first quarter of
2011.
As a result of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education
Affordability Reconciliation Act signed into law in March 2010, 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
under prior law were 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.
That charge reflected the anticipated increase in income taxes that will occur as a result of the
change in tax law.
Allegheny recorded as deferred income tax assets the effect of net operating losses and tax credits
that will more likely than not be realized through future operations and through the reversal of
existing temporary differences. The tax effected net operating loss carryforwards consisted of $152
million of state net operating loss carryforwards that expire from
2019 through 2029 and $53
million of federal net operating loss carryforwards that expire from 2023 to 2029. Federal
Alternative Minimum Tax credits of $25 million have an indefinite carryforward period.
Allegheny is currently under audit by the IRS for tax years 2007 and 2008. The 2009 federal return
was filed and is subject to review. State tax returns for tax years 2006 through 2009 remain
subject to review in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland and Virginia for certain subsidiaries of
AE. FirstEnergy has tax returns that are under review at the audit or appeals level by the IRS
(2008-2010) and state tax authorities. Tax returns for all state jurisdictions are open from
2006-2009. 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 audit began in February 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.
49
9. 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 March 31, 2011, outstanding guarantees
and other assurances aggregated approximately $3.8 billion, consisting primarily of parental
guarantees ($0.8 billion), subsidiaries guarantees ($2.6 billion), surety bonds and LOCs ($0.4
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. FirstEnergy views as remote the likelihood that such parental guarantees
of $0.2 billion (included in the $0.8 billion discussed above) as of March 31, 2011 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 an LOC or accelerated
payments may be required of the subsidiary. As of March 31, 2011, FirstEnergys maximum exposure
under these collateral provisions was $557 million, consisting of $433 million due to a below
investment grade credit rating (of which $184 million is due to an acceleration of payment or
funding obligation) and $124 million due to material adverse event contractual clauses.
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 $623 million, consisting of $494 million due to a below investment grade credit rating (of which
$184 million is related to an acceleration of payment or funding obligation) and $129 million due
to material adverse event contractual clauses.
Most of FirstEnergys surety bonds are backed by various indemnities common within the insurance
industry. Surety bonds and related guarantees of $138 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, contracts entered into by the Competitive Energy
Services segment, including power contracts with affiliates awarded through competitive bidding
processes, typically contain margining provisions that require the posting of cash or LOCs in
amounts determined by future power price movements. Based on FES and AE Supplys power portfolio
as of March 31, 2011 and forward prices as of that date, FES and AE Supply have posted collateral
of $158 million and $5 million, respectively. 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 $52 million of collateral. Depending on the volume of forward contracts and
future price movements, higher amounts for margining could be required to be posted.
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.
Signal Peak and Global Rail are borrowers under a $350 million syndicated two-year senior secured
term loan facility. FirstEnergy, together with WMB Loan Ventures LLC and WMB Loan Ventures II LLC,
the entities that share ownership in the borrowers with FEV, have provided a guaranty of the
borrowers obligations under the facility. In addition, FEV and the other entities that directly
own the equity interest in the borrowers have pledged those interests to the lenders under the term
loan facility as collateral for the facility.
50
(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 SIP(s) 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, 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 in accordance with that agreement.
In July 2008, three complaints were filed against FGCO in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania 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. FGCO believes the claims are without
merit and intends to defend itself against the allegations made in these three complaints.
The states of New Jersey and Connecticut filed CAA citizen suits in 2007 alleging NSR violations at
the Portland Generation Station against GenOn Energy, Inc. (formerly RRI Energy, Inc. and the
current owner and operator), Sithe Energy (the purchaser of the Portland Station from Met-Ed in
1999) and Met-Ed. Specifically, these suits allege that modifications at Portland Units 1 and 2
occurred between 1980 and 2005 without preconstruction NSR permitting in violation of 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, and Met-Ed is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
In January 2009, the EPA issued a NOV to GenOn Energy, Inc. 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.
(Mission) alleging that modifications at the Homer City Power Station occurred from 1988 to the
present without preconstruction NSR permitting in violation of the CAAs PSD program. In May 2010,
the EPA issued a second NOV to Mission, Penelec, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation and
others that have had an ownership interest in the Homer City Power Station containing in all
material respects allegations identical to those included in the June 2008 NOV. On July 20, 2010,
the states of New York and Pennsylvania provided Mission, Penelec, NYSEG and others that have had
an ownership interest in the Homer City Power Station a notification that was required 60 days
prior to filing a citizen suit under the CAA. In January 2011, the DOJ filed a complaint against
Penelec in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking injunctive
relief against Penelec based on alleged modifications at the Homer City Power Station between
1991 to 1994 without preconstruction NSR permitting in violation of the CAAs PSD and Title V
permitting programs. The complaint was also filed against the former co-owner, New York State
Electric and Gas Corporation, and various current owners of the Homer City Station, including EME
Homer City Generation L.P. and affiliated companies, including Edison International. In January
2011, another complaint was filed against Penelec and the other entities described above in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on the Homer
City Stations air emissions as well as certification as a class action and to enjoin the Homer
City Station from operating except in a safe, responsible, prudent and proper manner. Penelec
believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself against the allegations made in
the complaint, but, at this time, is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. In addition, the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the States of New Jersey and New York intervened and have filed
separate complaints regarding the Homer City Station seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties.
Mission 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
is under dispute and Penelec is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
51
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 maintenance at the Eastlake generating plant may
constitute a major modification under the NSR provision of the CAA. Later in 2009, FGCO also
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.
In August 2000, AE received a letter from the EPA requesting that it provide information and
documentation relevant to the operation and maintenance of the following ten electric generation
facilities, which collectively include 22 generation units: Albright, Armstrong, Fort Martin,
Harrison, Hatfields Ferry, Mitchell, Pleasants, Rivesville, R. Paul Smith and Willow Island. The
letter requested information under Section 114 of the CAA to determine compliance with the CAA and
related requirements, including potential application of the NSR standards under the CAA, which can
require the installation of additional air emission control equipment when the major modification
of an existing facility results in an increase in emissions. AE has provided responsive information
to this and a subsequent request but is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
In May 2004, AE, AE Supply, MP and WP received a Notice of Intent to Sue Pursuant to CAA §7604 from
the Attorneys General of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut and from the PA DEP, alleging that
Allegheny performed major modifications in violation of the PSD provisions of the CAA at the
following West Virginia coal-fired facilities: Albright Unit 3; Fort Martin Units 1 and 2; Harrison
Units 1, 2 and 3; Pleasants Units 1 and 2 and Willow Island Unit 2. The Notice also alleged PSD
violations at the Armstrong, Hatfields Ferry and Mitchell generation facilities in Pennsylvania
and identifies PA DEP as the lead agency regarding those facilities. In September 2004, AE, AE
Supply, MP and WP received a separate Notice of Intent to Sue from the Maryland Attorney General
that essentially mirrored the previous Notice.
In June 2005, the PA DEP and the Attorneys General of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and
Maryland filed suit against AE, AE Supply, MP, PE and WP in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging, among other things, that Allegheny performed major
modifications in violation of the CAA and the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act at the
Hatfields Ferry, Armstrong and Mitchell facilities in Pennsylvania. On January 17, 2006, the PA
DEP and the Attorneys General filed an amended complaint. In May 2006, the District Court denied
Alleghenys motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In July 2006, the Court determined that
discovery would proceed regarding liability issues, but not remedies. Discovery on the liability
phase closed on December 31, 2007, and summary judgment briefing was completed during the first
quarter of 2008. In November 2008, the District Court issued a Memorandum Order denying all
motions for summary judgment and establishing certain legal standards to govern at trial. In
December 2009, a new trial judge was assigned to the case, who then entered an order granting a
motion to reconsider the rulings in the November 2008 Memorandum Order. In April 2010, the new
judge issued an opinion, again denying all motions for summary judgment and establishing certain
legal standards to govern at trial. The non-jury trial on liability only was held in September
2010. Plaintiffs filed their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in December 2010,
Allegheny made its related filings in February 2011 and plaintiffs filed their responses in April
2011. The parties are awaiting a decision from the District Court, but there is no deadline for
that decision.
In September 2007, Allegheny also received a NOV from the EPA alleging NSR and PSD violations under
the CAA, as well as Pennsylvania and West Virginia state laws at the Hatfields Ferry and Armstrong
generation facilities in Pennsylvania and the Fort Martin and Willow Island generation facilities
in West Virginia.
FirstEnergy intends to vigorously defend against the CAA matters described above but cannot predict
their outcomes.
State Air Quality Compliance
In early 2006, Maryland passed the Healthy Air Act, which imposes state-wide emission caps on
SO2 and NOX, requires mercury emission reductions and mandates that Maryland
join the RGGI and participate in that coalitions regional efforts to reduce CO2
emissions. On April 20, 2007, Maryland became the 10th state to join the RGGI. The Healthy Air Act
provides a conditional exemption for the R. Paul Smith power station for NOX,
SO2 and mercury, based on a PJM declaration that the station is vital to reliability in
the Baltimore/Washington DC metropolitan area, which PJM determined in 2006. Pursuant to the
legislation, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) passed alternate NOX
and SO2 limits for R. Paul Smith, which became effective in April 2009. However, R. Paul
Smith is still required to meet the Healthy Air Act mercury reductions of 80% beginning in 2010.
The statutory exemption does not extend to R. Paul Smiths CO2 emissions. Maryland
issued final regulations to implement RGGI requirements in February 2008. Ten RGGI auctions have
been held through the end of calendar year 2010. RGGI allowances are also readily available in the
allowance markets, affording another mechanism by which to secure necessary allowances. On March
14, 2011, MDE requested PJM perform an analysis to determine if termination of operation at R. Paul
Smith would adversely impact the reliability of electrical service in the PJM region under current
system conditions. FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
52
In
January 2010, the WVDEP issued a NOV for opacity emissions at
Alleghenys Pleasants generating
facility. FirstEnergy is discussing with WVDEP steps to resolve the NOV including installing a
reagent injection system to reduce opacity.
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 Circuit 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 and severely
limits interstate trading of NOx and SO2 emission allowances. The EPA also requested
comment on 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, as disclosed herein, management
decided to idle certain units or operate them on a seasonal basis until developments clarify.
Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions
On March 16, 2011, the EPA released its MACT proposal to establish emission
standards for mercury, hydrochloric acid and various metals for electric generating units.
Depending on the action taken by the EPA and how any future regulations are ultimately implemented,
FirstEnergys future cost of compliance with MACT regulations may be substantial and changes to
FirstEnergys operations may result.
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, in June 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, proposals
to ensure that 10% of electricity used in the United States comes from renewable sources by 2012,
to increase to 25% by 2025, to implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce GHG
emissions by 80% by 2050. Certain states, primarily the northeastern states participating in the
RGGI and western states, led by California, have coordinated efforts to develop regional strategies
to control emissions of certain GHGs.
In September 2009, the EPA finalized a national GHG emissions collection and reporting rule that
required FirstEnergy to measure GHG emissions commencing in 2010 and will require it to 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 GHGs increase the threat of climate change and may be regulated as
air pollutants under the CAA. 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 would 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 CAAs NSR 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
PSD program. Until July 1, 2011, this emissions applicability threshold will only apply if PSD is
triggered by non-CO2 pollutants.
53
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 that
recognized the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below two degrees
Celsius; includes 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 establishes the
Copenhagen Green Climate Fund to support mitigation, adaptation, and other climate-related
activities in developing countries. To the extent that 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.
In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and 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.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Second Circuit.
Oral argument was held on April 19, 2011, and a decision is expected by July 2011. While
FirstEnergy is not a party to this litigation, 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 of its 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, the states in which FirstEnergy
operates 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. In April 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. On March 28, 2011, the EPA released a new proposed regulation under Section 316(b) of
the Clean Water Act generally requiring fish impingement to be reduced to a 12% annual average and
studies to be conducted at the majority of our existing generating facilities to assist permitting
authorities to determine whether and what site-specific controls, if any, would be required to
reduce entrainment of aquatic life. 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. In November
2010, the Ohio EPA issued a 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
April 2011, the U.S. Attorneys Office in Cleveland, Ohio
advised FGCO that it is no longer 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. This matter has been referred back
to EPA for civil enforcement and FGCO is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
54
Monongahela River Water Quality
In late 2008, the PA DEP imposed water quality criteria for certain effluents, including TDS and
sulfate concentrations in the Monongahela River, on new and modified sources, including the
scrubber project at the Hatfields Ferry generation facility. These criteria are reflected in the
current PA DEP water discharge permit for that project. AE Supply appealed the PA DEPs permitting
decision, which would require it to incur significant costs or negatively affect its ability to
operate the scrubbers as designed. Preliminary studies indicate an initial capital investment in
excess of $150 million in order to install technology to meet the TDS and sulfate limits in the
permit. The permit has been independently appealed by Environmental Integrity Project and Citizens
Coal Council, which seeks to impose more stringent technology-based effluent limitations. Those
same parties have intervened in the appeal filed by AE Supply, and both appeals have been
consolidated for discovery purposes. An order has been entered that stays the permit limits that AE
Supply has challenged while the appeal is pending. The hearing is scheduled to begin on September
13, 2011. AE Supply intends to vigorously pursue these issues, but cannot predict the outcome of
these appeals.
In a parallel rulemaking, the PA DEP recommended, and in August 2010, the Pennsylvania
Environmental Quality Board issued, a final rule imposing end-of-pipe TDS effluent limitations.
FirstEnergy could incur significant costs for additional control equipment to meet the requirements
of this rule, although its provisions do not apply to electric generating units until the end of
2018, and then only if the EPA has not promulgated TDS effluent limitation guidelines applicable to
such units.
In December 2010, PA DEP submitted its Clean Water Act 303(d) list to the EPA with a recommended
sulfate impairment designation for an approximately 68 mile stretch of the Monongahela River north
of the West Virginia border. EPA has not acted on PA DEPs recommendation. If the designation is
approved, Pennsylvania will then need to develop a TMDL limit for the
river, a process that will take about five years. Based on the stringency of the TMDL, FirstEnergy may incur significant
costs to reduce sulfate discharges into the
Monongahela River from its Hatfields Ferry and Mitchell facilities in Pennsylvania and its Fort
Martin facility in West Virginia.
In October 2009, the WVDEP issued the water discharge permit for the Fort Martin generation
facility. Similar to the Hatfields Ferry water discharge permit issued for the scrubber project,
the Fort Martin permit imposes effluent limitations for TDS and sulfate concentrations. The permit
also imposes temperature limitations and other effluent limits for heavy metals that are not
contained in the Hatfields Ferry water permit. Concurrent with the issuance of the Fort Martin
permit, WVDEP also issued an administrative order that sets deadlines for MP to meet certain of the
effluent limits that are effective immediately under the terms of the permit. MP appealed the Fort
Martin permit and the administrative order. The appeal included a request to stay certain of the
conditions of the permit and order while the appeal is pending, which was granted pending a final
decision on appeal and subject to WVDEP moving to dissolve the stay. The appeals have been
consolidated. MP moved to dismiss certain of the permit conditions for the failure of the WVDEP to
submit those conditions for public review and comment during the permitting process. An agreed-upon
order that suspends further action on this appeal, pending WVDEPs release for public review and
comment on those conditions, was entered on August 11, 2010. The stay remains in effect during that
process. The current terms of the Fort Martin permit would require MP to incur significant costs or
negatively affect operations at Fort Martin. Preliminary information indicates an initial capital
investment in excess of the capital investment that may be needed at Hatfields Ferry in order to
install technology to meet the TDS and sulfate limits in the Fort Martin permit, which technology
may also meet certain of the other effluent limits in the permit. Additional technology may be
needed to meet certain other limits in the permit. MP intends to vigorously pursue these issues but
cannot predict the outcome of these appeals.
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.
In December 2009, in an advanced notice of public rulemaking, the EPA asserted that the large
volumes of coal combustion residuals produced by electric utilities pose significant financial risk
to the industry. In May 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. FirstEnergys future cost of compliance
with any coal combustion residuals regulations that 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.
55
The Utility Registrants 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 March 31, 2011, based on estimates of the total costs of cleanup,
the Utility Registrants proportionate responsibility for such costs and the financial ability of
other unaffiliated entities to pay. Total liabilities of approximately $104 million (JCP&L $69
million, TE $1 million, CEI $1 million, FGCO $1 million and FirstEnergy $32 million) have
been accrued through March 31, 2011. Included in the total are accrued liabilities of approximately
$64 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&L. 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. On July 29, 2010, the Appellate Division upheld the trial courts decision decertifying
the class. Plaintiffs have filed, and JCP&L has opposed, a motion for leave to appeal to the New
Jersey Supreme Court. In November 2010, the Supreme Court issued an order denying Plaintiffs
motion. The Courts order effectively ends the class action attempt, and leaves only nine (9)
plaintiffs to pursue their respective individual claims. The remaining individual plaintiffs have
not taken any affirmative steps to pursue their individual claims.
Nuclear Plant Matters
Under NRC regulations, FirstEnergy must ensure that adequate funds will be available to
decommission its nuclear facilities. As of March 31, 2011, FirstEnergy had approximately $2 billion
invested in external trusts to be used for the decommissioning and environmental remediation of
Davis-Besse, Beaver Valley, Perry and TMI-2. FirstEnergy provides an additional $15 million
parental guarantee associated with the funding of decommissioning costs for these units. As
required by the NRC, FirstEnergy annually recalculates and adjusts the amount of its parental
guarantee, as appropriate. The values of FirstEnergys nuclear decommissioning trusts fluctuate
based on market conditions. If the value of the trusts decline by a material amount, FirstEnergys
obligation to fund the trusts may increase. Disruptions in the capital markets and their effects on
particular businesses and the economy could also affect the values of the nuclear decommissioning
trusts. The NRC issued guidance anticipating an increase in low-level radioactive waste disposal
costs associated with the decommissioning of FirstEnergys nuclear facilities. On March 28, 2011,
FENOC submitted its biennial report on nuclear decommissioning funding to the NRC. This submittal
identified a total shortfall in nuclear decommissioning funding for Beaver Valley Unit 1 and Perry
of approximately $92.5 million. This estimate encompasses the shortfall covered by the existing $15
million parental guarantee. FENOC agreed to increase the parental guarantee to $95 million within
90 days of the submittal.
In August 2010, FENOC submitted an application to the NRC for renewal of the Davis-Besse Nuclear
Power Station operating license for an additional twenty years, until 2037.
By an order dated April 26, 2011, the NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) granted a hearing on the Davis-Besse
license renewal application to a group of petitioners. By this order, the ASLB also admitted two contentions regarding (1) a
combination of renewable alternatives to the renewal of Davis-Besses operating license, and (2) the cost of mitigating a
severe accident at Davis-Besse. FENOC is currently evaluating these developments and considering an appropriate response. On April 14,
2011, a group of environmental organizations petitioned the NRC Commissioners to suspend all pending nuclear license
renewal proceedings, including the Davis-Besse proceeding, to ensure that any safety and environmental implications of the
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station event in Japan are considered.
In January 2004, subsidiaries of FirstEnergy filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims
seeking damages in connection with costs incurred at the Beaver Valley, Davis-Besse and Perry
Nuclear facilities as a result of the DOE failure to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel on January
31, 1998. DOE was required to so commence accepting spent nuclear fuel by the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act (42 USC 10101 et seq) and the contracts entered into by the DOE and the owners and operators of
these facilities pursuant to the Act. On January 18, 2011, the parties, FirstEnergy and DOJ, filed
a joint status report that established a schedule for the litigation of these claims. FirstEnergy
filed damages schedules and disclosures with the DOJ on February 11, 2011, seeking approximately
$57 million in damages for delay costs incurred through September 30, 2010. The damage claim is
subject to review and audit by DOE.
56
Other Legal Matters
In February 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. In March 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 granted the motion
to dismiss on September 7, 2010. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals of
Ohio, which has not yet rendered an opinion.
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.
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.
10. REGULATORY MATTERS
(A) RELIABILITY INITIATIVES
Federally-enforceable mandatory reliability standards apply to the bulk electric system and impose
certain operating, record-keeping and reporting requirements on the Utilities, FES, FGCO, FENOC,
and ATSI and TrAIL Company. The NERC, as the ERO is charged with establishing and enforcing these
reliability standards, although it 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 generally is in compliance with all currently-effective and
enforceable reliability standards. Nevertheless, in the course of operating its extensive electric
utility systems and facilities, FirstEnergy occasionally learns of isolated facts or circumstances
that could be interpreted as excursions from the reliability standards. If and when such items are
found, FirstEnergy develops information about the item and develops a remedial response to the
specific circumstances, including in appropriate cases self-reporting an item to
ReliabilityFirst. Moreover, it is clear 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.
On August 23, 2010, FirstEnergy self-reported to ReliabilityFirst a vegetation encroachment event
on a Met-Ed 230 kV line. This event did not result in a fault, outage, operation of protective
equipment, or any other meaningful electric effect on any FirstEnergy transmission facilities or
systems. On August 25, 2010, ReliabilityFirst issued a Notice of Enforcement to investigate the
incident. FirstEnergy submitted a data response to ReliabilityFirst on September 27, 2010. In
March 2011, ReliabilityFirst submitted its proposed findings and settlement. At this time,
FirstEnergy is evaluating ReliabilityFirsts proposal and is unable to predict the final outcome of
this investigation.
Allegheny has been subject to routine audits with respect to its compliance with applicable
reliability standards and has settled certain related issues. In addition, ReliabilityFirst is
currently conducting certain violation investigations with regard to matters of compliance by
Allegheny.
57
(B) MARYLAND
In 1999, Maryland adopted electric industry restructuring legislation, which gave PEs Maryland
retail electric customers the right to choose their electricity generation suppliers. PE remained
obligated to provide standard offer generation service (SOS) at capped rates to residential and
non-residential customers for various periods. The longest such period, for residential customers,
expired on December 31, 2008. PE implemented a rate stabilization plan in 2007 that was designed
to transition customers from capped generation rates to rates based on market prices and that
concluded on December 31, 2010. PEs transmission and distribution rates for all customers are
subject to traditional regulated utility ratemaking (i.e., cost-based rates).
By statute enacted in 2007, the obligation of Maryland utilities to provide SOS to residential and
small commercial customers, in exchange for recovery of their costs plus a reasonable profit, was
extended indefinitely. The legislation also established a five-year cycle (to begin in 2008) for
the MDPSC to report to the legislature on the status of SOS. In August 2007, PE filed a plan for
seeking bids to serve its Maryland residential load for the period after the expiration of rate
caps. The MDPSC approved the plan and PE now conducts rolling auctions to procure the power supply
necessary to serve its customer load. However, the terms on which PE will provide SOS to
residential customers after the settlement beyond 2012 will depend on developments with respect to SOS
in Maryland between now and then, including but not limited to possible MDPSC decisions in the
proceedings discussed below.
The MDPSC opened a new docket in August 2007 to consider matters relating to possible managed
portfolio approaches to SOS and other matters. Phase II of the case addressed utility purchases
or construction of generation, bidding for procurement of demand response resources and possible
alternatives if the TrAIL and PATH projects were delayed or defeated. It is unclear when the MDPSC
will issue its findings in this and other SOS-related pending proceedings discussed below.
In September 2009, the MDPSC opened a new proceeding to receive and consider proposals for
construction of new generation resources in Maryland. In December 2009, Governor Martin OMalley
filed a letter in this proceeding in which he characterized the electricity market in Maryland as a
failure and urged the MDPSC to use its existing authority to order the construction of new
generation in Maryland, vary the means used by utilities to procure generation and include more
renewables in the generation mix. In August 2010, the MDPSC opened another new proceeding to
solicit comments on the PJM RPM process. Public hearings on the comments were held in October 2010.
In December 2010, the MDPSC issued an order soliciting comments on a model request for proposal for
solicitation of long-term energy commitments by Maryland electric utilities. PE and numerous other
parties filed comments, and at this time no further proceedings have been set by the MDPSC in this
matter.
In September 2007, the MDPSC issued an order that required the Maryland utilities to file detailed
plans for how they will meet the EmPOWER Maryland proposal that, in Maryland, electric
consumption be reduced by 10% and electricity demand be reduced by 15%, in each case by 2015. In
October 2007, PE filed its initial report on energy efficiency, conservation and demand reduction
plans in connection with this order. The MDPSC conducted hearings on PEs and other utilities
plans in November 2007 and May 2008.
In a related development, the Maryland legislature in 2008 adopted a statute codifying the EmPOWER
Maryland goals. In 2008, PE filed its comprehensive plans for attempting to achieve those goals,
asking the MDPSC to approve programs for residential, commercial, industrial, and governmental
customers, as well as a customer education program, and a pilot deployment of Advanced Utility
Infrastructure (AUI) that Allegheny had previously tested in West Virginia. The MDPSC ultimately
approved the programs in August 2009 after certain modifications had been made as required by the
MDPSC, and approved cost recovery for the programs in October 2009. Expenditures were estimated to
be approximately $101 million and would be recovered over the following six years. The AUI pilot
was placed on a separate track to be re-examined after further discussion with the Staff of the
MDPSC and other stakeholders. Meanwhile, extensive meetings with the MDPSC Staff and other
stakeholders to discuss details of PEs plans for additional and improved programs for the period
2012-2014 began in April 2011.
In March 2009, the Maryland PSC issued an order suspending until further notice the right of all
electric and gas utilities in the state to terminate service to residential customers for
non-payment of bills. The MDPSC subsequently issued an order making various rule changes relating
to terminations, payment plans, and customer deposits that make it more difficult for Maryland
utilities to collect deposits or to terminate service for non-payment. PE and several other
utilities filed requests for reconsideration of various parts of the order, which were denied. The
MDPSC is continuing to conduct hearings and collect data on payment plan and related issues and has
adopted a set of proposed regulations that expand the summer and winter severe weather
termination moratoria when temperatures are very high or very low, from one day, as provided by
statute, to three days on each occurrence.
58
On March 24, 2011, the MDPSC held an initial hearing to discuss possible new regulations relating
to service interruptions, storm response, call center metrics, and related reliability standards.
The proposed rules included provisions for civil penalties for non-compliance. Numerous parties
filed comments on the proposed rules and participated in the hearing, with many noting issues of
cost and practicality relating to implementation. Concurrently, the Maryland legislature is
considering a bill addressing the same topics. The final bill passed on April 11, 2011, requires
the MDPSC to promulgate rules by July 1, 2012 that address service interruptions, downed wire
response, customer communication, vegetation management, equipment inspection, and annual
reporting. In crafting the regulations, the MDPSC is directed to consider cost-effectiveness, and
may adopt different standards for different utilities based on such factors as system design and
existing infrastructure, geography, and customer density. Beginning in July 2013, the MDPSC is to
assess each utilitys compliance with the standards, and may assess penalties of up to $25,000 per
day per violation. The MDPSC has ordered that a working group of utilities, regulators, and other
interested stakeholders meet to address the topics of the proposed rules.
In December 2009, PE filed an application with the MDPSC for authorization to construct the
Maryland portions of the PATH Project to be owned by PATH Allegheny Maryland Transmission Company,
LLC, which is owned by Potomac Edison and PATH-Allegheny. On February 28, 2011, PE withdrew its
application. See Transmission Expansion in the Federal Regulation and Rate Matters section for
further discussion of this matter.
(C) 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 NUG rates and market sales of NUG energy
and capacity. As of March 31, 2011, the accumulated deferred cost balance was a credit of
approximately $102 million. To better align the recovery of expected costs, in July 2010, JCP&L
filed a request to decrease the amount recovered for the costs incurred under the NUG agreements by
$180 million annually, which the NJBPU approved, allowing the change in rates to become effective
March 1, 2011.
In March 2009 and again in February 2010, JCP&L filed annual SBC Petitions with the NJBPU that
included a requested zero 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).
Both matters are currently pending before the NJBPU.
(D) OHIO
The Ohio Companies operate under an ESP, which expires on May 31, 2011, that provides for
generation supplied through a CBP. The 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 May 2009 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).
In March 2010, the Ohio Companies filed an application for a new ESP, which the PUCO approved in
August 2010, with certain modifications. The new ESP will go into effect on June 1, 2011 and
conclude on May 31, 2014. The material terms of the new ESP include: a CBP similar to the one
used in May 2009 and the one proposed on the October 2009 MRO filing (initial auctions held on
October 20, 2010 and January 25, 2011); a load cap of no less than 80%, which also applies to
tranches assigned post-auction; 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.
Rider DCR substitutes for Rider DSI which terminates under the current ESP. The Ohio Companies
also agreed not to recover from retail customers certain costs related to the companies
integration into PJM for the longer of the five-year period from June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2015
or when the amount of costs avoided by customers for certain types of products totals $360 million
dependent on the outcome of certain PJM proceedings, agreed to establish a $12 million fund to
assist low income customers over the term of the ESP and agreed to additional matters related to
energy efficiency and alternative energy requirements. Many of the existing riders approved in the
previous ESP remain in effect, with some modifications. The new ESP resolved proceedings pending
at the PUCO regarding corporate separation, elements of the smart grid proceeding and expenses
related to the ESP.
Under the provisions of SB221, the Ohio Companies are required to implement energy efficiency
programs that will achieve a total annual energy savings equivalent to 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.
59
In December 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. The Ohio Companies expect that all costs associated with
compliance will be recoverable from customers. The PUCO issued an Opinion and Order generally
approving the Ohio Companies 3-year plan, and the Companies are in the process of implementing
those programs included in the Plan. Because of the delay in issuing the Order, the launch of the
programs included in the plan for 2010 was delayed and will launch during the second quarter of
this year. As a result, OE fell short of its statutory 2010 energy efficiency and peak
demand reduction benchmarks. Therefore, on January 11, 2011, it requested that its 2010 energy
efficiency and peak demand reduction benchmarks be amended to actual levels achieved in 2010.
Moreover, because the PUCO indicated, when approving the 2009 benchmark request, that it
would modify the Companies 2010 (and 2011 and 2012) energy efficiency benchmarks when addressing
the portfolio plan, the Ohio Companies were not certain of their 2010 energy efficiency
obligations. Therefore, CEI and TE (each of which achieved its 2010 energy efficiency
and peak demand reduction statutory benchmarks) also requested an amendment if and only to the
degree one was deemed necessary to bring these them into compliance with their yet-to-be-defined
modified benchmarks. Failure to comply with the benchmarks or to obtain such an amendment may
subject the Companies to an assessment by the PUCO of a penalty. In addition to approving the
programs included in the plan, with only minor modifications, the PUCO authorized the
Companies to recover all costs related to the original CFL program that the Ohio Companies had
previously suspended at the request of the PUCO. Applications for Rehearing were filed on April
22, 2011, regarding portions of the PUCOs decision, including the method for calculating
savings and certain changes made by the PUCO to specific programs.
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 served 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 were used to help meet the renewable energy requirements established under
SB221 for 2009, 2010 and 2011. In March 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 Ohio Companies 2010 alternative energy requirements be
increased to include the shortfall for the 2009 solar REC benchmark. FES also applied for a force
majeure determination from the PUCO regarding a portion of their compliance with the 2009 solar
energy resource benchmark. On February 23, 2011, the PUCO granted FES force majeure request for
2009 and increased its 2010 benchmark by the amount of SRECs that FES was short of in its 2009
benchmark. In July 2010, the Ohio Companies initiated an additional RFP to secure RECs and solar
RECs needed to meet the Ohio Companies alternative energy requirements as set forth in SB221 for
2010 and 2011 and executed related contracts in August 2010. On April 15, 2011, the Ohio Companies
filed an application seeking an amendment to each of their 2010 alternative energy requirements for
solar RECs generated in Ohio on the basis that an insufficient quantity of solar resources are
available in the market but reflecting solar RECs that they have obtained and providing additional
information regarding efforts to secure solar RECs. The PUCO has not yet acted on that
application.
In February 2010, OE and CEI filed an application with the PUCO to establish a new credit for
all-electric customers. In March 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 in March 2010. In
April 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 it expected 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 in May 2010 and the
proceeding remains open. The hearing on the matter was held in February 2011. The matter has now
been briefed and the Ohio Companies await the PUCOs decision.
60
(E) PENNSYLVANIA
The PPUC entered an Order on March 3, 2010 that denied the recovery of marginal transmission losses
through the TSC rider for the period of June 1, 2007 through March 31, 2008, directed Met-Ed and
Penelec to submit a new tariff or tariff supplement reflecting the removal of marginal transmission
losses from the TSC, and instructed 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. In March 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 costs for marginal transmission losses. The PPUC
granted the requested stay until December 31, 2010. Pursuant to the PPUCs order, Met-Ed and
Penelec filed plans to establish separate accounts for marginal transmission loss revenues and
related interest and carrying charges and for the use of these funds to mitigate future generation
rate increases which the PPUC approved. In April 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a Petition for
Review with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania appealing the PPUCs March 3, 2010 Order. The
argument before the Commonwealth Court, en banc, was held in December 2010. Although the ultimate
outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time, Met-Ed and Penelec believe that they
should prevail in the appeal and therefore expect to fully recover the approximately $252.7 million
($188.0 million for Met-Ed and $64.7 million for Penelec) in marginal transmission losses for the
period prior to January 1, 2011.
In May 2008, May 2009 and May 2010, the PPUC approved Met-Eds and Penelecs annual updates to
their TSC rider for the annual periods between June 1, 2008 to 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
PPUCs approval in May 2010 authorized an increase to the TSC for Met-Eds customers to provide for
full recovery by December 31, 2010.
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 through a
prudent mix of long-term, short-term and spot market generation supply with a staggered procurement
schedule that varies by customer class, using a descending clock auction. In August 2009, the
parties to the proceeding filed a settlement agreement of all but two issues, and the PPUC entered
an Order approving the settlement and the generation procurement plan in November 2009. Generation
procurement began in January 2010.
In February 2010, Penn filed a Petition for Approval of its Default Service Plan for the period
June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2013. In July 2010, the parties to the proceeding filed a Joint
Petition for Settlement of all issues. Although the PPUCs Order approving the Joint Petition held
that the provisions relating to the recovery of MISO exit fees and one-time PJM integration costs
(resulting from Penns June 1, 2011 exit from MISO and integration into PJM) were approved, it made
such provisions subject to the approval of cost recovery by FERC. Therefore, Penn may not put these
provisions into effect until FERC has approved the recovery and allocation of MISO exit fees and
PJM integration costs.
Pennsylvania adopted Act 129 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. Act 129 also required utilities to file with the
PPUC a Smart Meter Implementation Plan (SMIP).
The PPUC entered an Order in February 2010 giving final approval to all aspects of the EE&C Plans
of Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn and the tariff rider with rates effective March 1, 2010.
WP filed its original EE&C Plan in June 2009, which the PPUC approved, in large part, by Opinion
and Order entered in October 2009. In November 2009, the Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA) filed an
appeal with the Commonwealth Court of the PPUCs October Order. The OCA contends that the PPUCs Order failed to include WPs costs for smart meter implementation in the
EE&C Plan, and that inclusion of such costs would cause the EE&C Plan to exceed the statutory cap
for EE&C expenditures. The OCA also contends that WPs EE&C plan does not meet the Total Resource Cost
Test. The appeal remains pending but has been stayed by the Commonwealth Court pending possible
settlement of WPs SMIP. In September, 2010, WP filed an amended EE&C
Plan that is less reliant on smart meter deployment, which the PPUC approved in January 2011.
61
Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn jointly filed a SMIP with the PPUC in August 2009. This plan proposed 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 of
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 SMIP as modified by
the ALJ, including: ensuring that the smart meters to be deployed include the capabilities listed
in the PPUCs Implementation Order; denying the recovery of interest through the automatic
adjustment clause; providing for the recovery of reasonable and prudent costs net of resulting
savings from installation and use of smart meters; and requiring that administrative start-up costs
be expensed and the costs incurred for research and development in the assessment period be
capitalized. In April 2010, the PPUC adopted a Motion by Chairman Cawley that modified the ALJs
initial decision, and decided various issues regarding the SMIP for Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn. The
PPUC entered its Order in June 2010, consistent with the Chairmans Motion. Met-Ed, Penelec and
Penn filed a Petition for Reconsideration of a single portion of the PPUCs Order regarding the
future ability to include smart meter costs in base rates, which the PPUC granted in part by
deleting language from its original order that would have precluded Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn from
seeking to include smart meter costs in base rates at a later time. The costs to implement the
SMIP could be material. However, assuming these costs satisfy a just and reasonable standard, they
are expected to be recovered in a rider (Smart Meter Technologies Charge Rider) which was approved
when the PPUC approved the SMIP.
In August 2009, WP filed its original SMIP, which provided for extensive deployment of smart meter
infrastructure with replacement of all of WPs approximately 725,000 meters by the end of 2014. In
December 2009, WP filed a motion to reopen the evidentiary record to submit an alternative smart
meter plan proposing, among other things, a less-rapid deployment of smart meters. In an Initial
Decision dated April 29, 2010, an ALJ determined that WPs alternative smart meter deployment plan,
which contemplated deployment of 375,000 smart meters by May 2012, complied with the requirements
of Act 129 and recommended approval of the alternative plan, including WPs proposed cost recovery
mechanism.
In light of the significant expenditures that would be associated with its smart meter deployment
plans and related infrastructure upgrades, as well as its evaluation of recent PPUC decisions
approving less-rapid deployment proposals by other utilities, WP re-evaluated its Act 129
compliance strategy, including both its plans with respect to smart meter deployment and certain
smart meter dependent aspects of the EE&C Plan. In October 2010, WP and Pennsylvanias Office of
Consumer Advocate filed a Joint Petition for Settlement addressing WPs smart meter implementation
plan with the PPUC. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, WP proposed to decelerate its
previously contemplated smart meter deployment schedule and to target the installation of
approximately 25,000 smart meters in support of its EE&C Plan, based on customer requests, by
mid-2012. The proposed settlement also contemplates that WP take advantage of the 30-month grace
period authorized by the PPUC to continue WPs efforts to re-evaluate full-scale smart meter
deployment plans. WP currently anticipates filing its plan for full-scale deployment of smart
meters in June 2012. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, WP would be permitted to recover
certain previously incurred and anticipated smart-meter related expenditures through a levelized
customer surcharge, with certain expenditures amortized over a ten-year period. Additionally, WP
would be permitted to seek recovery of certain other costs as part of its revised SMIP that it
currently intends to file in June 2012, or in a future base distribution rate case.
In December 2010, the PPUC directed that the SMIP proceeding be referred to the ALJ for further
proceedings to ensure that the impact of the proposed merger with FirstEnergy is considered and
that the Joint Petition for Settlement has adequate support in the record. On March 9, 2011, WP
submitted an Amended Joint Petition for Settlement which restates the Joint Petition for Settlement
filed in October 2010, adds the PPUCs Office of Trial Staff as a signatory party, and confirms the
support or non-opposition of all parties to the settlement. The proposed settlement also obligates OCA to
withdraw its November 2009 appeal of the PPUCs Order in WPs EE&C plan proceeding. A Joint
Stipulation with the OSBA was also filed on March 9, 2011. The proposed settlement remains subject
to review by the ALJ, who will prepare an Initial Decision for consideration by the PPUC.
By Tentative Order entered in September 2009, the PPUC provided for an additional 30-day comment
period on whether the 1998 Restructuring Settlement, which addressed how Met-Ed and Penelec were
going to implement direct access to a competitive market for the generation of electricity, 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.
In the PPUC Order approving the FirstEnergy and Allegheny merger, the PPUC announced that a
separate statewide investigation into Pennsylvanias retail electricity market will be conducted
with the goal of making recommendations for improvements to ensure that a properly functioning and
workable competitive retail electricity market exists in the state. The PPUC has not yet initiated
that investigation.
62
(F) VIRGINIA
In September 2010, PATH-VA filed an application with the Virginia SCC for authorization to
construct the Virginia portions of the PATH Project. On February 28, 2011, PATH-VA filed a motion
to withdraw the application. See Transmission Expansion in the Federal Regulation and Rate
Matters section for further discussion of this matter.
(G) WEST VIRGINIA
In August 2009, MP and PE filed with the WVPSC a request to increase retail rates by approximately
$122.1 million annually, effective June 10, 2010. In January 2010, MP and PE filed supplemental
testimony discussing a tax treatment change that would result in a revenue requirement
approximately $7.7 million lower than the requirement included in the original filing. In addition,
in December 2009, subsidiaries of MP and PE completed a securitization transaction to finance
certain costs associated with the installation of scrubbers at the Fort Martin generating station,
which costs would otherwise have been included in the request for rate recovery. Consequently, MP
and PE ultimately requested an annual increase in retail rates of approximately $95 million, rather than
$122.1 million. In April 2010, MP and PE filed with the WVPSC a Joint Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement reached with the other parties in the proceeding that provided for:
|
|
|
a $40 million annualized base rate increase effective June 29, 2010; |
|
|
|
a deferral of February 2010 storm restoration expenses in West Virginia over a
maximum five-year period; |
|
|
|
an additional $20 million annualized base rate increase effective in January 2011; |
|
|
|
a decrease of $20 million in ENEC rates effective January 2011, which amount is
deferred for later recovery in 2012; and |
|
|
|
a moratorium on filing for further increases in base rates before December 1, 2011,
except under specified circumstances. |
The WVPSC approved the Joint Petition and Agreement of Settlement in June 2010.
In 2009, the West Virginia Legislature enacted the Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Act
(Portfolio Act), which generally requires that a specified minimum percentage of electricity sold
to retail customers in West Virginia by electric utilities each year be derived from alternative
and renewable energy resources according to a predetermined schedule of increasing percentage
targets, including ten percent by 2015, fifteen percent by 2020, and twenty-five percent by 2025.
In November 2010, the WVPSC issued Rules Governing Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio
Standard (RPS Rules), which became effective on January 4, 2011. Under the RPS Rules, on or before
January 1, 2011, each electric utility subject to the provisions of this rule was required to
prepare an alternative and renewable energy portfolio standard compliance plan and file an
application with the WVPSC seeking approval of such plan. MP and PE filed their combined
compliance plan in December 2010. Additionally, in January 2011, MP and PE filed an application
with the WVPSC seeking to certify three facilities as Qualified Energy Resource Facilities. If
the application is approved, the three facilities would then be capable of generating renewable
credits which would assist the companies in meeting their combined requirements under the Portfolio
Act. Further, in February 2011, MP and PE filed a petition with the WVPSC seeking an Order
declaring that MP is entitled to all alternative & renewable energy resource credits associated
with the electric energy, or energy and capacity, that MP is required to purchase pursuant to
electric energy purchase agreements between MP and three non-utility electric generating facilities
in WV. The City of New Martinsville, the owner of one of the contracted resources, has filed an
opposition to the Petition.
63
(H) FERC MATTERS
Rates for Transmission Service Between MISO and PJM
In November 2004, the FERC issued an order eliminating the through and out rate for transmission
service between the MISO and PJM regions. The FERCs intent was to eliminate multiple transmission
charges for a single transaction between the MISO and PJM regions. The FERC also ordered MISO, PJM
and the transmission owners within MISO and PJM to submit compliance filings containing a rate
mechanism to recover lost transmission revenues created by elimination of this charge (referred to
as SECA) during a 16-month transition period. In 2005, the FERC set the SECA for hearing. The
presiding ALJ issued an initial decision in August 2006, rejecting the compliance filings made by
MISO, PJM and the transmission owners, and directing new compliance filings. This decision was
subject to review and approval by the FERC. In May 2010, FERC issued an order denying pending
rehearing requests and an Order on Initial Decision which reversed the presiding ALJs rulings in
many respects. Most notably, these orders affirmed the right of transmission owners to collect
SECA charges with adjustments that modestly reduce the level of such charges, and changes to the
entities deemed responsible for payment of the SECA charges. The Ohio Companies were identified as
load serving entities responsible for payment of additional SECA charges for a portion of the SECA
period (Green Mountain/Quest issue). FirstEnergy executed settlements with AEP, Dayton and the
Exelon parties to fix FirstEnergys liability for SECA charges originally billed to Green Mountain
and Quest for load that returned to regulated service during the SECA period. The AEP, Dayton and
Exelon, settlements were approved by the FERC in November 2010, and the relevant payments made.
The Utilities have refund obligations that are under review by FERC as part of a compliance filing.
Potential refund obligations of FirstEnergy are not expected to be material. Rehearings remain
pending in this proceeding.
PJM Transmission Rate
In April 2007, 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, 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 (DFAX), which is generally referred to as a beneficiary pays approach to
allocating the cost of high voltage transmission facilities.
The FERCs Opinion 494 order was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,
which issued a decision in August 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 and then
reply comments on later dates. 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 the 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. This
matter is awaiting action by the FERC.
RTO Realignment
On February 1, 2011, ATSI in conjunction with PJM filed its proposal with FERC for moving its
transmission rate into PJMs tariffs. FirstEnergy expects ATSI to enter PJM on June 1, 2011, and
that if legal proceedings regarding its rate are outstanding at that time, ATSI will be permitted
to start charging its proposed rates, subject to refund. On April 1, 2011, the MISO Transmission
Owners (including ATSI) filed proposed tariff language that describes the mechanics of collecting
and administering MTEP costs from ATSI-zone ratepayers. From March 20, 2011 through April 1, 2011,
FirstEnergy, PJM and the MISO submitted numerous filings for the purpose of effecting movement of
the ATSI zone to PJM on June 1, 2011. These filings include clean-up of the MISOs tariffs (to
remove the ATSI zone), submission of load and generation interconnection agreements to reflect the
move into PJM, and submission of changes to PJMs tariffs to support the move into PJM.
FERC proceedings are pending in which ATSIs transmission rate, the exit fee payable to MISO,
transmission cost allocations and costs associated with long term firm transmission rights payable
by the ATSI zone upon its departure from the MISO are under review. The outcome of these
proceedings cannot be predicted.
64
MISO Multi-Value Project Rule Proposal
In July 2010, MISO and certain MISO transmission owners jointly filed with FERC their proposed cost
allocation methodology for certain new transmission projects. The new transmission
projectsdescribed as MVPsare a class of MTEP projects. The filing parties proposed to allocate
the costs of MVPs by means of a usage-based charge that will be applied to all loads within the
MISO footprint, and to energy transactions that call for power to be wheeled through the MISO as
well as to energy transactions that source in the MISO but sink outside of MISO. The filing
parties expect that the MVP proposal will fund the costs of large transmission projects designed to
bring wind generation from the upper Midwest to load centers in the east. The filing parties
requested an effective date for the proposal of July 16, 2011. On August 19, 2010, MISOs Board
approved the first MVP project the Michigan Thumb Project. Under MISOs proposal, the costs of
MVP projects approved by MISOs Board prior to the anticipated June 1, 2011 effective date of
FirstEnergys integration into PJM would continue to be allocated to FirstEnergy. MISO estimated
that approximately $15 million in annual revenue requirements would be allocated to the ATSI zone
associated with the Michigan Thumb Project upon its completion.
In September 2010, FirstEnergy filed a protest to the MVP proposal arguing that MISOs proposal to
allocate costs of MVP projects across the entire MISO footprint does not align with the established
rule that cost allocation is to be based on cost causation (the beneficiary pays approach).
FirstEnergy also argued that, in light of progress to date in the ATSI integration into PJM, it
would be unjust and unreasonable to allocate any MVP costs to the ATSI zone, or to ATSI. Numerous
other parties filed pleadings on MISOs MVP proposal.
In December 2010, FERC issued an order approving the MVP proposal without significant change.
FERCs order was not clear, however, as to whether the MVP costs would be payable by ATSI or load
in the ATSI zone. FERC stated that the MISOs tariffs obligate ATSI to pay all charges that attach
prior to ATSIs exit but ruled that the question of the amount of costs that are to be allocated to
ATSI or to load in the ATSI zone were beyond the scope of FERCs order and would be addressed in
future proceedings.
On January 18, 2011, FirstEnergy filed for rehearing of FERCs order. In its rehearing request,
FirstEnergy argued that because the MVP rate is usage-based, costs could not be applied to ATSI,
which is a stand-alone transmission company that does not use the transmission system. FirstEnergy
also renewed its arguments regarding cost causation and the impropriety of allocating costs to the
ATSI zone or to ATSI. FirstEnergy cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings at this time.
PJM Calculation Error
In March 2010, MISO filed two complaints at FERC against PJM relating to a previously-reported
modeling error in PJMs system that impacted the manner in which market-to-market power flow
calculations were made between PJM and MISO since April 2005. MISO claimed that this error
resulted in PJM underpaying MISO by approximately $130 million over the time period in question.
Additionally, MISO alleged that PJM did not properly trigger market-to-market settlements between
PJM and MISO during times when it was required to do so, which MISO claimed may have cost it $5
million or more. As PJM market participants, AE Supply and MP may be liable for a portion of any
refunds ordered in this case. PJM, Allegheny and other PJM market participants filed responses to
MISO complaints and PJM filed a related complaint at FERC against MISO claiming that MISO
improperly called for market-to-market settlements several times during the same time period
covered by the two MISO complaints filed against PJM, which PJM claimed may have cost PJM market
participants $25 million or more. On January 4, 2011, an Offer of Settlement was filed at FERC
that, if approved, would resolve all pending issues in the dispute. The Offer of Settlement calls
for the withdrawal of all pending complaints with no payments being made by any parties. Initial
comments on the Offer of Settlement were filed at FERC on January 24, 2011. FirstEnergy and
Allegheny Energy filed comments supporting the proposed settlement. A report on the partially
contested settlement was issued by the settlement judge to the FERC on March 9, 2011. On March 16,
2011, the settlement judge terminated the settlement proceedings and forwarded the partially
contested settlement to the FERC for review. The case is awaiting a decision by the FERC.
California Claims Matters
In October 2006, several California governmental and utility parties presented AE Supply with a
settlement proposal to resolve alleged overcharges for power sales by AE Supply to the California
Energy Resource Scheduling division of the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) during
2001. The settlement proposal claims that CDWR is owed approximately $190 million for these alleged
overcharges. This proposal was made in the context of mediation efforts by the FERC and the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in pending proceedings to resolve all outstanding
refund and other claims, including claims of alleged price manipulation in the California energy
markets during 2000 and 2001. The Ninth Circuit has since remanded one of those proceedings to the
FERC, which arises out of claims previously filed with the FERC by the California Attorney General
on behalf of certain California parties against various sellers in the California wholesale power
market, including AE Supply (the Lockyer case). AE Supply and several other sellers have filed
motions to dismiss the Lockyer case. In March 2010, the judge assigned to the case entered an
opinion that granted the motions to dismiss filed by AE Supply and other sellers and dismissed the
claims of the California Parties. In April 2010, the California parties filed exceptions to the
judges ruling with the FERC, and briefing is complete on those exceptions. The parties are
awaiting a ruling from the FERC on the exceptions.
65
In June 2009, the California Attorney General, on behalf of certain California parties, filed a
second lawsuit with the FERC against various sellers, including AE Supply (the Brown case), again
seeking refunds for trades in the California energy markets during 2000 and 2001. The above-noted
trades with CDWR are the basis for the joining of AE Supply in this new lawsuit. AE Supply has
filed a motion to dismiss the Brown case that is pending before the FERC. No scheduling order has
been entered in the Brown case. Allegheny intends to vigorously defend against these claims but
cannot predict their outcome.
Transmission Expansion
TrAIL
Project. TrAIL is a 500kV transmission line currently under construction that will extend
from southwest Pennsylvania through West Virginia and into northern Virginia. On April 15, 2011,
the TrAIL 500 kV line segment from Meadowbrook substation to Loudoun substation in Virginia was
successfully energized and is carrying load. The other segments are planned to be energized in May.
The entire TrAIL line is scheduled to be completed and placed in service no later than June 2011.
PATH Project. The PATH Project is comprised of a 765 kV transmission line that is proposed to
extend from West Virginia through Virginia and into Maryland, modifications to an existing
substation in Putnam County, West Virginia, and the construction of new substations in Hardy
County, West Virginia and Frederick County, Maryland.
PJM initially authorized construction of the PATH Project in June 2007 and, on June 17, 2010,
requested that PATH, LLC proceed with all efforts related to the PATH Project, including state
regulatory proceedings, assuming a required in-service date of June 1, 2015. In December 2010, PJM
advised that its 2011 Load Forecast Report included load projections that are different from
previous forecasts and that may have an impact on the proposed in-service date for the PATH
Project. As part of its 2011 RTEP, and in response to a January 19, 2011 directive by a Virginia
Hearing Examiner, PJM conducted a series of analyses using the most current economic forecasts and
demand response commitments, as well as potential new generation resources. Preliminary analysis
revealed the expected reliability violations that necessitated the PATH Project had moved several
years into the future. Based on those results, PJM announced on February 28, 2011 that its Board
of Managers had decided to hold the PATH Project in abeyance in its 2011 RTEP and directed
FirstEnergy and AEP, as the sponsoring transmission owners, to suspend current development efforts
on the project, subject to those activities necessary to maintain the project in its current state,
while PJM conducts more rigorous analysis of the potential need for the project as part of its
continuing RTEP process. PJM stated that its action did not constitute a directive to FirstEnergy
and AEP to cancel or abandon the PATH Project. PJM further stated that it will complete a more
rigorous analysis of the PATH Project and other transmission requirements and its Board will review
this comprehensive analysis as part of its consideration of the 2011 RTEP. On February 28, 2011,
affiliates of FirstEnergy and AEP filed motions or notices to withdraw applications for
authorization to construct the project that were pending before state commissions in West Virginia,
Virginia and Maryland. Withdrawal was deemed effective upon filing the notice with the MDPSC and
the WVPSC has granted the motion to withdraw. The VSCC has not ruled on the motion to withdraw.
PATH, LLC submitted a filing to FERC to implement a formula rate tariff effective March 1, 2008.
In a November 19, 2010 order addressing various matters relating to the formula rate, FERC set the
projects base return on equity for hearing and reaffirmed its prior authorization of a return on
CWIP, recovery of start-up costs and recovery of abandonment costs. In the order, FERC also
granted a 1.5% return on equity incentive adder and a 0.50% return on equity adder for RTO
participation. These adders will be applied to the base return on equity determined as a result of
the hearing. PATH, LLC is currently engaged in settlement discussions with the staff of FERC and
intervenors regarding resolution of the base return on equity. FirstEnergy cannot predict the
outcome of this proceeding or whether it will have a material impact on its operating results.
Sales to Affiliates
FES has received authorization from the FERC to make wholesale power sales to affiliated regulated
utilities in New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. FES actively participates in auctions conducted
by or on behalf the regulated affiliates to obtain power necessary to meet the utilities POLR
obligations. AE Supply, a merchant affiliate acquired in the FirstEnergy-Allegheny merger, also
participates in these auctions, and obtains prior FERC authorization when necessary to make sales
to FE affiliates.
11. STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION PLANS
FirstEnergy has four types of stock-based compensation programs including LTIP, EDCP, ESOP and
DCPD, as described below.
In addition, Alleghenys stock-based awards were converted into First Energy stock-based awards as of
the date of the merger. These awards, referred to below as converted Allegheny awards,
were adjusted in terms of the number of awards and where applicable, the exercise price thereof, to reflect the mergers common stock exchange ratio of 0.667 of a share of
FirstEnergy common stock for each share of Allegheny common stock.
66
(A) LTIP
FirstEnergys LTIP includes four forms of stock-based compensation awards stock options,
performance shares, restricted stock and restricted stock units.
Under FirstEnergys LTIP, total awards cannot exceed 29.1 million shares of common stock or their
equivalent. Only stock options, restricted stock and restricted stock units have currently been
designated to be settled in common stock, with vesting periods ranging from two months to ten
years. Performance share awards are currently designated to be paid in cash rather than common
stock and therefore do not count against the limit on stock-based awards. There were 6.3 million
shares available for future awards as of March 31, 2011.
Restricted Stock and Restricted Stock Units
Restricted common stock (restricted stock) and restricted stock unit (stock unit) activity was as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, 2011 |
|
|
Restricted stock and stock units outstanding as of
January 1, 2011 |
|
|
1,878,022 |
|
Granted |
|
|
223,161 |
|
Converted Allegheny restricted stock |
|
|
645,197 |
|
Exercised |
|
|
(422,031 |
) |
Forfeited |
|
|
(37,182 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Restricted stock and stock units outstanding as of
March 31, 2011 |
|
|
2,287,167 |
|
|
|
|
|
The 223,161 shares of restricted common stock granted during the three months ended March 31, 2011
had a grant-date fair value of $8.2 million and a weighted-average vesting period of 1.86 years.
Restricted stock units include awards that will be settled in a specific number of shares of stock
after the service condition has been met. Restricted stock units also include performance-based
awards that will be settled after the service condition has been met in a specified number of
shares of stock based on FirstEnergys performance compared to annual target performance metrics.
Compensation expense recognized for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010 for restricted
stock and restricted stock units, net of amounts capitalized, was approximately $16 million and $6
million, respectively.
Stock Options
Stock option activity for the three months ended March 31, 2011 was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
Number of |
|
|
Exercise |
|
Stock Option Activities |
|
Shares |
|
|
Price |
|
|
Stock options outstanding as of January 1, 2011 (all exercisable) |
|
|
2,889,066 |
|
|
$ |
35.18 |
|
Options granted |
|
|
662,122 |
|
|
|
37.75 |
|
Converted Allegheny options |
|
|
1,805,811 |
|
|
|
41.75 |
|
Options exercised |
|
|
(182,422 |
) |
|
|
29.56 |
|
Options forfeited/expired |
|
|
(6,670 |
) |
|
|
69.36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock options outstanding as of March 31, 2011 |
|
|
5,167,907 |
|
|
$ |
37.96 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,505,785 options exercisable) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compensation expense recognized for stock options during the three months ended March 31, 2011
was $0.1 million. No expense was recognized during the three months ending March 31, 2010. Options granted during the three months ended
March 31, 2011 had a grant-date fair value of $3.3 million and an expected weighted-average vesting
period of 3.79 years.
67
Options outstanding by exercise price as of March 31, 2011 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted |
|
|
Remaining |
|
|
|
Shares Under |
|
|
Average |
|
|
Contractual |
|
Exercise Prices |
|
Options |
|
|
Exercise Price |
|
|
Life in Years |
|
|
$20.02 $30.74 |
|
|
1,305,563 |
|
|
$ |
26.72 |
|
|
|
2.01 |
|
$30.89 $40.93 |
|
|
3,378,866 |
|
|
|
37.22 |
|
|
|
4.79 |
|
$42.72 $51.82 |
|
|
37,233 |
|
|
|
44.40 |
|
|
|
0.24 |
|
$53.06 $62.97 |
|
|
54,559 |
|
|
|
56.15 |
|
|
|
3.27 |
|
$64.52 $71.82 |
|
|
54,778 |
|
|
|
68.52 |
|
|
|
1.09 |
|
$73.39 $80.47 |
|
|
327,570 |
|
|
|
80.19 |
|
|
|
6.01 |
|
$81.19 $89.59 |
|
|
9,338 |
|
|
|
83.51 |
|
|
|
1.92 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
5,167,907 |
|
|
$ |
37.96 |
|
|
|
4.07 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Performance Shares
Performance shares will be settled in cash and are accounted for as liability awards. Compensation
expense (income) recognized for performance shares during the three months ended March 31, 2011 and
2010, net of amounts capitalized, totaled $1 million and $(3) million, respectively. No performance
shares under the FirstEnergy LTIP were settled during the three months ended March 31, 2011 and
2010.
(B) ESOP
During 2011 shares of FirstEnergy common stock were purchased on the open market and contributed to
participants accounts. Total ESOP-related compensation expense for the three months ended March
31, 2011 and 2010, net of amounts capitalized and dividends on common stock were $7 million and $5
million, respectively.
(C) EDCP
Compensation expense (income) recognized on EDCP stock units, for the three months ended March 31,
2011 and 2010, net of amounts capitalized, was not material.
(D) DCPD
DCPD expenses recognized for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010 were approximately $1
million and $1 million. The net liability recognized for DCPD of approximately $5 million as of
March 31, 2011 is included in the caption Retirement benefits on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Of the 1.7 million stock units authorized under the EDCP and DCPD, 1,076,779 stock units were
available for future awards as of March 31, 2011.
12. NEW ACCOUNTING STANDARDS AND INTERPRETATIONS
During the three months ended March 31, 2011, there were no new accounting standards or
interpretations issued, but not effective that would materially affect FirstEnergys financial statements.
13. SEGMENT INFORMATION
With the completion of the Allegheny merger in the first quarter of 2011, FirstEnergy reorganized
its management structure, which resulted in changes to its operating segments to be consistent with
the manner in which management views the business. The new structure supports the combined
companys primary operations distribution, transmission, generation and the marketing and sale
of its products. The external segment reporting is consistent with the internal financial reporting
utilized by FirstEnergys chief executive officer (its chief operating decision maker) to regularly
assess the performance of the business and allocate resources. FirstEnergy now has three
reportable operating segments Regulated Distribution, Regulated Independent Transmission and
Competitive Energy Services.
68
Prior to the change in composition of business segments, FirstEnergys business was comprised of
two reportable operating segments. The Energy Delivery Services segment included FirstEnergys
then eight existing utility operating companies that transmit and distribute electricity to
customers and purchase power to serve their POLR and default service requirements. The Competitive
Energy Services segment was comprised of FES, which supplies electric power to end-use customers
through retail and wholesale arrangements. The Other segment consisted of corporate items and
other businesses that were below the quantifiable threshold for separate disclosure. Disclosures
for FirstEnergys operating segments for 2010 have been reclassified to conform to the current
presentation.
The changes in FirstEnergys reportable segments during the first quarter of 2011 consisted
primarily of the following:
|
|
|
Energy Delivery Services was renamed Regulated Distribution and the operations of
MP, PE and WP, which were acquired as part of the merger with Allegheny, and certain
regulatory asset recovery mechanisms formerly included in the Other segment, were
placed into this segment. |
|
|
|
A new Regulated Independent Transmission segment was created consisting of ATSI, and
the operations of TrAIL Company and FirstEnergys interest in PATH; TrAIL and PATH were acquired
as part of the merger with Allegheny. The transmission assets and operations of JCP&L,
Met-Ed, Penelec, MP, PE and WP remain within the Regulated Distribution segment. |
|
|
|
AE Supply, an operator of generation facilities that was acquired as part of the
merger with Allegheny, was placed into the Competitive Energy Services segment. |
Financial information for each of FirstEnergys reportable segments is presented in the table
below, which includes financial results for Allegheny beginning February 25, 2011.
FES and the Utilities do not have separate reportable operating segments.
The Regulated Distribution segment distributes electricity through FirstEnergys ten utility
operating companies, serving approximately 6 million customers within 67,000 square miles of Ohio,
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey and New York, and purchases power for
its POLR and default service requirements in Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. This segment also
includes the transmission operations of JCP&L, Met-Ed, Penelec, WP, MP and PE and the regulated
electric generation facilities in West Virginia and New Jersey which
MP and JCP&L, respectively, own or contractually control.
The Regulated Distribution segments 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 (POLR
or default service) in its Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania franchise areas. Its results
reflect the commodity costs of securing electric generation from FES and AE Supply and from
non-affiliated power suppliers and the deferral and amortization of certain fuel costs.
The Regulated Independent Transmission segment transmits electricity through transmission lines and
its revenues are primarily derived from the formula rate recovery of costs and a return on debt and
equity for capital expenditures in connection with TrAIL, PATH and other projects and revenues from
providing transmission services to electric energy providers, power marketers and receiving
transmission-related revenues from operation of a portion of the FirstEnergy transmission system.
Its results reflect the net PJM and MISO transmission expenses related to the delivery of the
respective generation loads. On June 1, 2011, the ATSI transmission assets currently dedicated to
MISO are scheduled to be integrated into the PJM market. This integration brings all of
FirstEnergys assets into one RTO.
The Competitive Energy Services segment, through FES, 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,
Illinois, Maryland, Michigan and New Jersey. FES purchases the entire output of the 18 generating
facilities which it owns and operates through its FGCO subsidiary (fossil and hydroelectric
generating facilities) and owns, through its NGC subsidiary, FirstEnergys nuclear generating
facilities. FENOC, a separate subsidiary of FirstEnergy, operates and maintains NGCs nuclear
generating facilities as well as the output relating to leasehold interests of OE and TE in certain
of those facilities that are subject to sale and leaseback arrangements with non-affiliates,
pursuant to full output, cost-of-service PSAs.
The Competitive Energy Services segment also includes Alleghenys unregulated electric generation
operations, including AE Supply and AE Supplys interest in AGC. AE Supply owns, operates and
controls the electric generation capacity of its 18 facilities. AGC owns and sells generation
capacity to AE Supply and MP, which own approximately 59% and 41% of AGC, respectively. AGCs sole
asset is a 40% undivided interest in the Bath County, Virginia pumped-storage hydroelectric
generation facility and its connecting transmission facilities. All of AGCs revenues are derived
from sales of its 1,109 MW share of generation capacity from the Bath County generation facility to
AE Supply and MP.
This business segment controls approximately 20,000 MWs 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 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.
69
The Other segment contains corporate items and other businesses that are below the quantifiable
threshold for separate disclosure as a reportable segment.
Segment Financial Information
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Competitive |
|
|
Regulated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Independent |
|
|
Other/ |
|
|
Reconciling |
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
Distribution |
|
|
Services |
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
Corporate |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
March 31, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External revenues |
|
$ |
2,268 |
|
|
$ |
1,254 |
|
|
$ |
67 |
|
|
$ |
(23 |
) |
|
$ |
(22 |
) |
|
$ |
3,544 |
|
Internal revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
343 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(311 |
) |
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
2,268 |
|
|
|
1,597 |
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
(333 |
) |
|
|
3,576 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
245 |
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
352 |
|
Investment income (loss), net |
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
21 |
|
Net interest charges |
|
|
131 |
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
213 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
78 |
|
Net income (loss) |
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
|
(34 |
) |
|
|
45 |
|
Total assets |
|
|
27,165 |
|
|
|
17,308 |
|
|
|
2,479 |
|
|
|
914 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47,866 |
|
Total goodwill |
|
|
5,551 |
|
|
|
976 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,527 |
|
Property additions |
|
|
177 |
|
|
|
214 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
449 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External revenues |
|
$ |
2,484 |
|
|
$ |
719 |
|
|
$ |
57 |
|
|
$ |
(22 |
) |
|
$ |
(6 |
) |
|
$ |
3,232 |
|
Internal revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
674 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(607 |
) |
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
2,484 |
|
|
|
1,393 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
(613 |
) |
|
|
3,299 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
313 |
|
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
405 |
|
Investment income (loss), net |
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
16 |
|
Net interest charges |
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
172 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
111 |
|
Net income (loss) |
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
149 |
|
Total assets |
|
|
21,535 |
|
|
|
10,950 |
|
|
|
995 |
|
|
|
598 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34,078 |
|
Total goodwill |
|
|
5,551 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,575 |
|
Property additions |
|
|
152 |
|
|
|
329 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
508 |
|
Reconciling adjustments to segment operating results from internal management reporting to
consolidated external financial reporting primarily consist of elimination of intersegment
transactions.
14. IMPAIRMENT OF LONG-LIVED ASSETS
FirstEnergy reviews long-lived assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances
indicate that the carrying value of such assets may not be recoverable. The recoverability of a
long-lived asset is measured by comparing its carrying value to the sum of undiscounted future cash
flows expected to result from the use and eventual disposition of the asset. If the carrying value
is greater than the undiscounted cash flows, impairment exists and a loss is recognized for the
amount by which the carrying value of the long-lived asset exceeds its estimated fair value. Two
events occurred during the first quarter of 2011 that indicated the carrying value of certain
assets may not be recoverable as described in the sections below.
Fremont Energy Center
On March 11, 2011, FirstEnergy and American Municipal Power, Inc., (AMP) entered into an agreement for
the sale of Fremont Energy Center, which includes two natural gas combined-cycle combustion
turbines and a steam turbine capable of producing 544 MW of load-following capacity and 163 MW of
peaking capacity. The agreement provides, among other things, for a targeted closing date in July
2011. The execution of this agreement triggered a need to evaluate the recoverability of the
carrying value of the assets associated with the Fremont Energy Center. The estimated fair value of
the Fremont Energy Center was based on the purchase price outlined in the sale agreement with
American Municipal Power, Inc. The result of this evaluation indicated that the carrying cost of
the Fremont Energy Center was not fully recoverable. As a result of the recoverability evaluation,
FirstEnergy recorded an impairment charge of $11 million to operating income during the quarter
ended March 31, 2011. On April 19, 2011, FGCO filed an section 203 application with the FERC for
authorization to sell the Fremont Energy Center, including related capacity supply obligations, to
AMP. Comments are due on the filing on or before May 10, 2011. FGCO
requested FERC action by June 17, 2011.
70
Peaking Facilities
During the three months ended March 31, 2011, FirstEnergy assessed the carrying values of certain
peaking facilities that will more likely than not be sold or disposed of before the end of their
useful lives. The estimated fair values were based on estimated sales prices quoted in an active
market. The result of this evaluation indicated that the carrying costs of the peaking facilities
were not fully recoverable. As a result of the recoverability evaluation, FirstEnergy recorded an
impairment charge of $14 million to the operating income of its Competitive Energy Services segment
during the quarter ended March 31, 2011.
15. ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS
FirstEnergy has recognized applicable legal obligations for AROs and their associated cost for
nuclear power plant decommissioning, reclamation of sludge disposal ponds and closure of coal ash
disposal sites. In addition, FirstEnergy has recognized conditional asset retirement obligations
(primarily for asbestos remediation).
The ARO liabilities for FES and OE include the decommissioning of the Perry nuclear generating
facilities. FES and OE use an expected cash flow approach to measure the fair value of their
nuclear decommissioning AROs.
During the first quarter of 2011, studies were completed to update the estimated cost of
decommissioning the Perry nuclear generating facility. The cost studies resulted in a revision to
the estimated cash flows associated with the ARO liabilities of FES and OE and reduced the
liability for each subsidiary in the amounts of $40 million and $6 million, respectively, as of
March 31, 2011.
The revision to the estimated cash flows had no significant impact on accretion of the obligation
during the first quarter of 2011 when compared to the first quarter of 2010.
16. 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 periods ended March 31, 2011
and 2010, consolidating balance sheets as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010 and consolidating
statements of cash flows for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010 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.
71
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2011 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES |
|
$ |
1,366,899 |
|
|
$ |
742,638 |
|
|
$ |
467,967 |
|
|
$ |
(1,186,416 |
) |
|
$ |
1,391,088 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
1,203 |
|
|
|
293,862 |
|
|
|
48,044 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
343,109 |
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
1,184,606 |
|
|
|
1,772 |
|
|
|
68,743 |
|
|
|
(1,186,378 |
) |
|
|
68,743 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
296,733 |
|
|
|
205 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
296,938 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
177,529 |
|
|
|
118,245 |
|
|
|
188,009 |
|
|
|
12,152 |
|
|
|
495,935 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
879 |
|
|
|
31,539 |
|
|
|
37,333 |
|
|
|
(1,299 |
) |
|
|
68,452 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
12,263 |
|
|
|
9,453 |
|
|
|
7,389 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,105 |
|
Impairment of long-lived assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,800 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,800 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
1,673,213 |
|
|
|
468,876 |
|
|
|
349,518 |
|
|
|
(1,175,525 |
) |
|
|
1,316,082 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) |
|
|
(306,314 |
) |
|
|
273,762 |
|
|
|
118,449 |
|
|
|
(10,891 |
) |
|
|
75,006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
676 |
|
|
|
232 |
|
|
|
4,953 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,861 |
|
Miscellaneous income, including
net income from equity investees |
|
|
247,859 |
|
|
|
584 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(229,202 |
) |
|
|
19,241 |
|
Interest expense affiliates |
|
|
(50 |
) |
|
|
(451 |
) |
|
|
(516 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,017 |
) |
Interest expense other |
|
|
(24,133 |
) |
|
|
(27,758 |
) |
|
|
(16,836 |
) |
|
|
15,767 |
|
|
|
(52,960 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
131 |
|
|
|
4,826 |
|
|
|
4,962 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,919 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense) |
|
|
224,483 |
|
|
|
(22,567 |
) |
|
|
(7,437 |
) |
|
|
(213,435 |
) |
|
|
(18,956 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
(81,831 |
) |
|
|
251,195 |
|
|
|
111,012 |
|
|
|
(224,326 |
) |
|
|
56,050 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES (BENEFITS) |
|
|
(117,841 |
) |
|
|
93,129 |
|
|
|
42,374 |
|
|
|
2,454 |
|
|
|
20,116 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
|
36,010 |
|
|
|
158,066 |
|
|
|
68,638 |
|
|
|
(226,780 |
) |
|
|
35,934 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(76 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(76 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EARNINGS AVAILABLE TO PARENT |
|
$ |
36,010 |
|
|
$ |
158,142 |
|
|
$ |
68,638 |
|
|
$ |
(226,780 |
) |
|
$ |
36,010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2010 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES |
|
$ |
1,367,025 |
|
|
$ |
568,364 |
|
|
$ |
426,320 |
|
|
$ |
(973,616 |
) |
|
$ |
1,388,093 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
5,097 |
|
|
|
280,863 |
|
|
|
42,261 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
328,221 |
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
968,537 |
|
|
|
5,079 |
|
|
|
60,953 |
|
|
|
(973,616 |
) |
|
|
60,953 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
450,216 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
450,216 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
53,125 |
|
|
|
99,776 |
|
|
|
139,420 |
|
|
|
12,189 |
|
|
|
304,510 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
790 |
|
|
|
26,527 |
|
|
|
36,910 |
|
|
|
(1,309 |
) |
|
|
62,918 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
5,498 |
|
|
|
14,600 |
|
|
|
6,648 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26,746 |
|
Impairment of long-lived assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,833 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,833 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
1,483,263 |
|
|
|
428,678 |
|
|
|
286,192 |
|
|
|
(962,736 |
) |
|
|
1,235,397 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) |
|
|
(116,238 |
) |
|
|
139,686 |
|
|
|
140,128 |
|
|
|
(10,880 |
) |
|
|
152,696 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income (loss) |
|
|
1,897 |
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
(1,234 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
717 |
|
Miscellaneous income (expense), including
net income from equity investees |
|
|
166,373 |
|
|
|
200 |
|
|
|
(101 |
) |
|
|
(163,329 |
) |
|
|
3,143 |
|
Interest expense affiliates |
|
|
(58 |
) |
|
|
(1,812 |
) |
|
|
(435 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,305 |
) |
Interest expense other |
|
|
(23,373 |
) |
|
|
(26,506 |
) |
|
|
(15,763 |
) |
|
|
15,998 |
|
|
|
(49,644 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
16,333 |
|
|
|
3,257 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19,690 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense) |
|
|
144,939 |
|
|
|
(11,731 |
) |
|
|
(14,276 |
) |
|
|
(147,331 |
) |
|
|
(28,399 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
28,701 |
|
|
|
127,955 |
|
|
|
125,852 |
|
|
|
(158,211 |
) |
|
|
124,297 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES (BENEFITS) |
|
|
(51,225 |
) |
|
|
48,043 |
|
|
|
45,013 |
|
|
|
2,540 |
|
|
|
44,371 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
79,926 |
|
|
$ |
79,912 |
|
|
$ |
80,839 |
|
|
$ |
(160,751 |
) |
|
$ |
79,926 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
73
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of March 31, 2011 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
6,831 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
6,839 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers |
|
|
388,951 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
388,951 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
621,241 |
|
|
|
500,097 |
|
|
|
269,750 |
|
|
|
(857,808 |
) |
|
|
533,280 |
|
Other |
|
|
27,966 |
|
|
|
7,617 |
|
|
|
51,128 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
86,711 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
5,742 |
|
|
|
389,312 |
|
|
|
83,364 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
478,418 |
|
Materials and supplies, at average cost |
|
|
46,747 |
|
|
|
251,190 |
|
|
|
191,060 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
488,997 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
328,156 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
328,156 |
|
Prepayments and other |
|
|
41,403 |
|
|
|
9,093 |
|
|
|
948 |
|
|
|
(506 |
) |
|
|
50,938 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,460,206 |
|
|
|
1,164,140 |
|
|
|
596,258 |
|
|
|
(858,314 |
) |
|
|
2,362,290 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
99,899 |
|
|
|
6,102,623 |
|
|
|
5,421,719 |
|
|
|
(384,676 |
) |
|
|
11,239,565 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
17,918 |
|
|
|
2,035,726 |
|
|
|
2,230,588 |
|
|
|
(176,690 |
) |
|
|
4,107,542 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
81,981 |
|
|
|
4,066,897 |
|
|
|
3,191,131 |
|
|
|
(207,986 |
) |
|
|
7,132,023 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
8,139 |
|
|
|
147,546 |
|
|
|
600,620 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
756,305 |
|
Property, plant and equipment held for sale, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
476,602 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
476,602 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
90,120 |
|
|
|
4,691,045 |
|
|
|
3,791,751 |
|
|
|
(207,986 |
) |
|
|
8,364,930 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,159,903 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,159,903 |
|
Investment in associated companies |
|
|
5,175,787 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,175,787 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
371 |
|
|
|
9,171 |
|
|
|
202 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,744 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,176,158 |
|
|
|
9,171 |
|
|
|
1,160,105 |
|
|
|
(5,175,787 |
) |
|
|
1,169,647 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income tax benefits |
|
|
32,544 |
|
|
|
376,182 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(408,726 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Customer intangibles |
|
|
131,870 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
131,870 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
24,248 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,248 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,463 |
|
|
|
24,649 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41,112 |
|
Unamortized sale and leaseback costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
23,288 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67,515 |
|
|
|
90,803 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
211,223 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
211,223 |
|
Other |
|
|
26,661 |
|
|
|
75,647 |
|
|
|
8,157 |
|
|
|
(57,408 |
) |
|
|
53,057 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
426,546 |
|
|
|
491,580 |
|
|
|
32,806 |
|
|
|
(398,619 |
) |
|
|
552,313 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
7,153,030 |
|
|
$ |
6,355,936 |
|
|
$ |
5,580,920 |
|
|
$ |
(6,640,706 |
) |
|
$ |
12,449,180 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
785 |
|
|
$ |
373,550 |
|
|
$ |
632,106 |
|
|
$ |
(19,578 |
) |
|
$ |
986,863 |
|
Short-term borrowings- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
321,133 |
|
|
|
39,410 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
360,543 |
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
661 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
661 |
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
769,133 |
|
|
|
290,902 |
|
|
|
208,889 |
|
|
|
(768,988 |
) |
|
|
499,936 |
|
Other |
|
|
92,874 |
|
|
|
96,270 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
189,144 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
2,721 |
|
|
|
98,597 |
|
|
|
65,919 |
|
|
|
(100,744 |
) |
|
|
66,493 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
380,744 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
380,744 |
|
Other |
|
|
31,698 |
|
|
|
119,402 |
|
|
|
26,282 |
|
|
|
47,143 |
|
|
|
224,525 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,599,088 |
|
|
|
1,018,792 |
|
|
|
933,196 |
|
|
|
(842,167 |
) |
|
|
2,708,909 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity |
|
|
3,824,540 |
|
|
|
2,673,372 |
|
|
|
2,487,105 |
|
|
|
(5,160,461 |
) |
|
|
3,824,556 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
1,488,455 |
|
|
|
2,113,043 |
|
|
|
793,250 |
|
|
|
(1,249,751 |
) |
|
|
3,144,997 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,312,995 |
|
|
|
4,786,415 |
|
|
|
3,280,355 |
|
|
|
(6,410,212 |
) |
|
|
6,969,553 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred gain on sale and leaseback transaction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
950,726 |
|
|
|
950,726 |
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
456,556 |
|
|
|
(339,053 |
) |
|
|
117,503 |
|
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
32,511 |
|
|
|
20,670 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53,181 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,114 |
|
|
|
839,529 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
866,643 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
48,818 |
|
|
|
240,467 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
289,285 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,463 |
|
|
|
24,649 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41,112 |
|
Lease market valuation liability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
205,366 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
205,366 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
168,409 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
168,409 |
|
Other |
|
|
23,720 |
|
|
|
28,808 |
|
|
|
25,965 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
78,493 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
240,947 |
|
|
|
550,729 |
|
|
|
1,367,369 |
|
|
|
611,673 |
|
|
|
2,770,718 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
7,153,030 |
|
|
$ |
6,355,936 |
|
|
$ |
5,580,920 |
|
|
$ |
(6,640,706 |
) |
|
$ |
12,449,180 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
74
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2010 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
9,273 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
9,281 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers |
|
|
365,758 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
365,758 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
333,323 |
|
|
|
356,564 |
|
|
|
125,716 |
|
|
|
(338,038 |
) |
|
|
477,565 |
|
Other |
|
|
21,010 |
|
|
|
55,758 |
|
|
|
12,782 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
89,550 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
34,331 |
|
|
|
188,796 |
|
|
|
173,643 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
396,770 |
|
Materials and supplies, at average cost |
|
|
40,713 |
|
|
|
276,149 |
|
|
|
228,480 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
545,342 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
181,660 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
181,660 |
|
Prepayments and other |
|
|
47,712 |
|
|
|
11,352 |
|
|
|
1,107 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60,171 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,024,507 |
|
|
|
897,892 |
|
|
|
541,736 |
|
|
|
(338,038 |
) |
|
|
2,126,097 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
96,371 |
|
|
|
6,197,776 |
|
|
|
5,411,852 |
|
|
|
(384,681 |
) |
|
|
11,321,318 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
17,039 |
|
|
|
2,020,463 |
|
|
|
2,162,173 |
|
|
|
(175,395 |
) |
|
|
4,024,280 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
79,332 |
|
|
|
4,177,313 |
|
|
|
3,249,679 |
|
|
|
(209,286 |
) |
|
|
7,297,038 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
8,809 |
|
|
|
519,651 |
|
|
|
534,284 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,062,744 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
88,141 |
|
|
|
4,696,964 |
|
|
|
3,783,963 |
|
|
|
(209,286 |
) |
|
|
8,359,782 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,145,846 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,145,846 |
|
Investment in associated companies |
|
|
4,941,763 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,941,763 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
374 |
|
|
|
11,128 |
|
|
|
202 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,704 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,942,137 |
|
|
|
11,128 |
|
|
|
1,146,048 |
|
|
|
(4,941,763 |
) |
|
|
1,157,550 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income tax benefits |
|
|
42,986 |
|
|
|
412,427 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(455,413 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Customer intangibles |
|
|
133,968 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
133,968 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
24,248 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,248 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,463 |
|
|
|
24,649 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41,112 |
|
Unamortized sale and leaseback costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,828 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62,558 |
|
|
|
73,386 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
97,603 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
97,603 |
|
Other |
|
|
21,018 |
|
|
|
70,810 |
|
|
|
14,463 |
|
|
|
(57,602 |
) |
|
|
48,689 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
319,823 |
|
|
|
510,528 |
|
|
|
39,112 |
|
|
|
(450,457 |
) |
|
|
419,006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6,374,608 |
|
|
$ |
6,116,512 |
|
|
$ |
5,510,859 |
|
|
$ |
(5,939,544 |
) |
|
$ |
12,062,435 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
100,775 |
|
|
$ |
418,832 |
|
|
$ |
632,106 |
|
|
$ |
(19,578 |
) |
|
$ |
1,132,135 |
|
Short-term borrowings- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,561 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,561 |
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
351,172 |
|
|
|
212,620 |
|
|
|
249,820 |
|
|
|
(346,989 |
) |
|
|
466,623 |
|
Other |
|
|
139,037 |
|
|
|
102,154 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
241,191 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
3,358 |
|
|
|
36,187 |
|
|
|
30,726 |
|
|
|
(142 |
) |
|
|
70,129 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
266,411 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
266,411 |
|
Other |
|
|
51,619 |
|
|
|
147,754 |
|
|
|
15,156 |
|
|
|
37,142 |
|
|
|
251,671 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
912,372 |
|
|
|
929,108 |
|
|
|
927,808 |
|
|
|
(329,567 |
) |
|
|
2,439,721 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity |
|
|
3,788,245 |
|
|
|
2,514,775 |
|
|
|
2,413,580 |
|
|
|
(4,928,859 |
) |
|
|
3,787,741 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
1,518,586 |
|
|
|
2,118,791 |
|
|
|
793,250 |
|
|
|
(1,249,752 |
) |
|
|
3,180,875 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,306,831 |
|
|
|
4,633,566 |
|
|
|
3,206,830 |
|
|
|
(6,178,611 |
) |
|
|
6,968,616 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred gain on sale and leaseback transaction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
959,154 |
|
|
|
959,154 |
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
448,115 |
|
|
|
(390,520 |
) |
|
|
57,595 |
|
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
33,280 |
|
|
|
20,944 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54,224 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
26,780 |
|
|
|
865,271 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
892,051 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
48,214 |
|
|
|
236,946 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
285,160 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,463 |
|
|
|
24,649 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41,112 |
|
Lease market valuation liability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
216,695 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
216,695 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
81,393 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
81,393 |
|
Other |
|
|
25,798 |
|
|
|
23,674 |
|
|
|
17,242 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66,714 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
155,405 |
|
|
|
553,838 |
|
|
|
1,376,221 |
|
|
|
568,634 |
|
|
|
2,654,098 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6,374,608 |
|
|
$ |
6,116,512 |
|
|
$ |
5,510,859 |
|
|
$ |
(5,939,544 |
) |
|
$ |
12,062,435 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
75
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2011 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET CASH
PROVIDED FROM (USED FOR) OPERATING ACTIVITIES |
|
$ |
(215,124 |
) |
|
$ |
267,047 |
|
|
$ |
41,702 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
93,625 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
90,190 |
|
|
|
60,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
150,190 |
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
321,134 |
|
|
|
28,509 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
349,643 |
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(130,208 |
) |
|
|
(141,220 |
) |
|
|
(60,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(331,428 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(430 |
) |
|
|
(222 |
) |
|
|
(365 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,017 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) financing activities |
|
|
190,496 |
|
|
|
(22,743 |
) |
|
|
(365 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
167,388 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(2,858 |
) |
|
|
(39,791 |
) |
|
|
(116,357 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(159,006 |
) |
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
215,620 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
215,620 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(230,912 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(230,912 |
) |
Loans from (to) associated companies, net |
|
|
28,589 |
|
|
|
(200,516 |
) |
|
|
90,280 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(81,647 |
) |
Customer acquisition costs |
|
|
(1,103 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,103 |
) |
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,439 |
) |
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,407 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities |
|
|
24,628 |
|
|
|
(246,746 |
) |
|
|
(41,337 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(263,455 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,442 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,442 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,273 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,281 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
6,831 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
6,839 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
76
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2010 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET CASH PROVIDED FROM (USED FOR)
OPERATING ACTIVITIES |
|
$ |
(147,718 |
) |
|
$ |
40,130 |
|
|
$ |
98,692 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(8,896 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(197 |
) |
|
|
(1,081 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,278 |
) |
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9,237 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9,237 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(453 |
) |
|
|
(177 |
) |
|
|
(101 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(731 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for financing activities |
|
|
(650 |
) |
|
|
(10,495 |
) |
|
|
(101 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11,246 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(2,103 |
) |
|
|
(174,163 |
) |
|
|
(125,337 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(301,603 |
) |
Proceeds from asset sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
114,272 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
114,272 |
|
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
272,094 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
272,094 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(284,888 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(284,888 |
) |
Loans from associated companies, net |
|
|
250,908 |
|
|
|
31,232 |
|
|
|
39,540 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
321,680 |
|
Customer acquisition costs |
|
|
(100,615 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(100,615 |
) |
Other |
|
|
178 |
|
|
|
(977 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(799 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities |
|
|
148,368 |
|
|
|
(29,636 |
) |
|
|
(98,591 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,141 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
77
|
|
|
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 Corp. in the first quarter of 2011 were $50 million, or basic and
diluted earnings of $0.15 per share of common stock, compared with $155 million, or basic and
diluted earnings of $0.51 per share of common stock in the first quarter of 2010. The principal
reasons for the decreases are summarized below.
|
|
|
|
|
Change in Basic Earnings Per Share From Prior Year |
|
2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings Per Share First Quarter 2010 |
|
$ |
0.51 |
|
Non-core asset sales/impairments |
|
|
(0.03 |
) |
Trust securities impairments |
|
|
0.01 |
|
Mark-to-market adjustments |
|
|
0.09 |
|
Income tax
charge from healthcare legislation 2010 |
|
|
0.04 |
|
Regulatory
charges 2011 |
|
|
(0.04 |
) |
Regulatory
charges 2010 |
|
|
0.08 |
|
Merger-related costs |
|
|
(0.34 |
) |
Revenues |
|
|
(0.26 |
) |
Fuel and purchased power |
|
|
0.21 |
|
Transmission expense |
|
|
(0.07 |
) |
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
0.07 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
0.03 |
|
Merger accounting commodity contracts |
|
|
(0.04 |
) |
Allegheny earnings contribution* |
|
|
0.13 |
|
Additional shares issued |
|
|
(0.06 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(0.18 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings Per Share First Quarter 2011 |
|
$ |
0.15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Excludes merger accounting
commodity contracts, regulatory charges, mark-to-market
adjustments and merger-related costs that are shown separately. |
Merger
On February 25, 2011, the merger between FirstEnergy and Allegheny closed. Pursuant to the terms of
the Agreement and Plan of Merger between FirstEnergy, Element Merger Sub, Inc., a Maryland
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy (Merger Sub), and AE, Merger Sub merged
with and into AE with AE continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
FirstEnergy. As part of the merger, AE shareholders received 0.667 of a share of FirstEnergy
common stock for each AE share outstanding as of the merger completion date and all outstanding AE
equity-based employee compensation awards were converted into FirstEnergy equity-based awards on the
same basis.
In connection with the merger, FirstEnergy recorded approximately $82 million and $14 million of
merger transaction costs during the first quarter of 2011 and 2010, respectively. FirstEnergys
consolidated financial statements include Alleghenys results of operations and financial position
effective February 25, 2011. In addition, in the three months ended March 31, 2011, $75 million of
pre-tax merger integration costs and $24 million of charges from merger settlements approved by
regulatory agencies have been recognized. Charges resulting from merger settlements are not
expected to be material in future periods.
78
Operational Matters
Fremont Energy Center
On March 14, 2011, FirstEnergy entered into a definitive agreement to sell Fremont Energy Center
(707 MW) to American Municipal Power, Inc. (AMP). Under the terms of the agreement, AMP will
purchase Fremont Energy Center for approximately $485 million, based on 685 MW of output. The
purchase price would be incrementally increased, not to exceed an
additional $16 million, to reflect additional
output and transmission export capacity to its nameplate capacity of 707 MW. In addition, AMP
would reimburse FirstEnergy up to $25.3 million for construction costs incurred from February 1,
2011 through the closing date. On April 19, 2011, FGCO filed an application with the
FERC for authorization to sell the Fremont Energy Center, including related capacity supply obligations,
to AMP. The transaction is expected to close in July 2011.
Perry Refueling
FENOC shutdown the Perry Nuclear Plant on April 18, 2011, for scheduled refueling and maintenance.
During the outage 284 of the 748 fuel assemblies will be exchanged and maintenance safety
inspections will be conducted while the unit is off line. Preventative maintenance to ensure
continued safe and reliable operations will be preformed, including replacing several control rod
blades, rewinding the generator and testing more than 100 valves. On April 25, 2011, the NRC began a Special Inspection to review the circumstances surrounding work activities to remove a source range monitor from the reactor core on April 22, 2011.
Beaver Valley Refueling
On April 11, 2011, FENOC announced that Beaver Valley Unit 2 (911 MW) returned to service following
a March 7, 2011 shutdown for refueling and maintenance. During the outage 60 of the 157 fuel
assemblies were exchanged, safety inspections were conducted, and numerous maintenance and
improvement projects were completed.
Seneca Plant Maintenance
In
March 2011, FirstEnergy announced that the Seneca Pumped-Storage Hydroelectric facility (451 MW) will
repave its Upper Reservoir, overhaul the shutoff valves and perform routine maintenance activities.
TrAIL
On
April 15, 2011, the TrAIL 500 kV line segment from Meadowbrook substation to Loudoun substation
in Virginia was successfully energized and is carrying load. The other segments are planned to be
energized in May. The entire TrAIL line is scheduled to be completed and placed in service no
later than June 2011.
Signal Peak
On
March 16, 2011, Signal Peak Energy received a letter from the
MSHA indicating that its mine is no
longer being considered for a pattern of potential violations notice.
Financial Matters
On March 16, 2011, Penelec and Met-Ed extended for three years the LOCs supporting two series of
PCRBs currently outstanding in a variable interest rate mode totaling $49 million.
On March 17 and April 1, 2011, FES and Penelec completed the remarketing of six series of PCRBs
totaling $328 million. Each of these series either remained in or was converted to a variable
interest rate mode supported by a three-year bank LOC. In connection with the remarketings,
approximately $207 million aggregate principal amount of FMBs previously delivered to LOC providers
were cancelled, and approximately $50 million aggregate
principal amount of FMBs previously delivered to
secure PCRBs are expected to be cancelled on May 31, 2011.
On
March 29, 2011, FES repaid a $100 million two-year
term loan facility secured by FMBs that was scheduled
to mature March 31, 2011. On April 8, 2011, FirstEnergy entered into a new $150 million unsecured
term loan with an April 2013 maturity.
79
Regulatory Matters
Ohio Energy Efficiency (EE) and Peak Demand Reduction (DR) Portfolio Plan
On March 23, 2011, the PUCO approved the three-year EE and DR portfolio plan for the Ohio
Companies. The Ohio Companies plan was developed to comply with the EE mandate in Ohios SB 221,
passed in 2008. This law requires that utilities in Ohio reduce energy usage by 22.2 percent by
2025 and peak demand by 7.75 percent by 2018, develop a portfolio plan, and meet annual benchmarks
to measure progress.
Penn SREC
On March 11, 2011, the PPUC approved the results of the Penn procurement of SRECs to meet
Pennsylvanias Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards through 2020. One SREC represents the solar
renewable energy attributes of one MWH of generation from a solar generating facility. Penn
contracted for 19,800 SRECs. This purchase of SRECs is equivalent to approximately 2,200 MWH of
solar power generation annually over the next nine years. The average cost is $199.09 per SREC,
with deliveries scheduled for June 2011 through May 2020.
FIRSTENERGYS BUSINESS
With the completion of the Allegheny merger in the first quarter of 2011, FirstEnergy reorganized
its management structure, which resulted in changes to its operating segments to be consistent with
the manner in which management views the business. The new structure supports the combined
companys primary operations distribution, transmission, generation and the marketing and sale
of its products. The external segment reporting is consistent with the internal financial reporting
utilized by FirstEnergys chief executive officer (its chief operating decision maker) to regularly
assess the performance of the business and allocate resources. FirstEnergy now has three
reportable operating segments Regulated Distribution, Regulated Independent Transmission and
Competitive Energy Services.
Prior to the change in composition of business segments, FirstEnergys business was comprised of
two reportable operating segments. The Energy Delivery Services segment included FirstEnergys
then eight existing utility operating companies that transmit and distribute electricity to
customers and purchase power to serve their POLR and default service requirements. The Competitive
Energy Services segment was comprised of FES, which supplies electric power to end-use customers
through retail and wholesale arrangements. The Other segment consisted of corporate items and
other businesses that were below the quantifiable threshold for separate disclosure. Disclosures
for FirstEnergys operating segments for 2010 have been reclassified to conform to the current
presentation.
The changes in FirstEnergys reportable segments during the first quarter of 2011 consisted
primarily of the following:
|
|
|
Energy Delivery Services was renamed Regulated Distribution and the
operations of MP, PE and WP, which were acquired as part of the merger with Allegheny,
and certain regulatory asset recovery mechanisms formerly included in the Other
segment, were placed into this segment. |
|
|
|
A new Regulated Independent Transmission segment was created consisting of
ATSI, and the operations of TrAIL Company and FirstEnergys
interest in PATH; TrAIL and PATH
were acquired as part of the merger with Allegheny. The transmission assets and
operations of JCP&L, Met-Ed, Penelec, MP, PE and WP remain within the Regulated
Distribution segment. |
|
|
|
AE Supply, an operator of generation facilities that was acquired as part of
the merger with Allegheny, was placed into the Competitive Energy Services segment. |
Financial information for each of FirstEnergys reportable segments is presented in the table
below, which includes financial results for the Allegheny subsidiaries beginning February 25, 2011.
FES and the Utilities do not have separate reportable operating segments.
80
The Regulated Distribution segment distributes electricity through FirstEnergys ten utility
operating companies, serving approximately 6 million customers within 67,000 square miles of Ohio,
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey and New York, and purchases power for
its POLR and default service requirements in Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. This segment also
includes the transmission operations of JCP&L, Met-Ed, Penelec, WP, MP and PE and the regulated
electric generation facilities in West Virginia and New Jersey which
MP and JCP&L, respectively, own or contractually control.
The Regulated Distribution segments 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 (POLR
or default service) in its Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania franchise areas. Its results
reflect the commodity costs of securing electric generation from FES and AE Supply and from
non-affiliated power suppliers and the deferral and amortization of certain fuel costs.
The Regulated Independent Transmission segment transmits electricity through transmission lines.
Its revenues are primarily derived from the formula rate recovery of costs and a return on debt and
equity for capital expenditures in connection with TrAIL, PATH and other projects and revenues from
providing transmission services to electric energy providers, power marketers and receiving
transmission-related revenues from operation of a portion of the FirstEnergy transmission system.
Its results reflect the net PJM and MISO transmission expenses related to the delivery of the
respective generation loads. On June 1, 2011, the ATSI transmission assets currently dedicated to
MISO are scheduled to be integrated into the PJM market. This integration brings all of
FirstEnergys assets into one RTO.
The Competitive Energy Services segment, through FES, 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,
Illinois, Maryland, Michigan and New Jersey. FES purchases the entire output of the 18 generating
facilities which it owns and operates through its FGCO subsidiary (fossil and hydroelectric
generating facilities) and owns, through its NGC subsidiary, FirstEnergys nuclear generating
facilities. FENOC, a separate subsidiary of FirstEnergy, operates and maintains NGCs nuclear
generating facilities as well as the output relating to leasehold interests of OE and TE in certain
of those facilities that are subject to sale and leaseback arrangements with non-affiliates,
pursuant to full output, cost-of-service PSAs.
The Competitive Energy Services segment also includes Alleghenys unregulated electric generation
operations, including AE Supply and AE Supplys interest in AGC. AE Supply owns, operates and
controls the electric generation capacity of its 18 facilities. AGC owns and sells generation
capacity to AE Supply and MP, which own approximately 59% and 41% of AGC, respectively. AGCs sole
asset is a 40% undivided interest in the Bath County, Virginia pumped-storage hydroelectric
generation facility and its connecting transmission facilities. All of AGCs revenues are derived
from sales of its 1,109 MW share of generation capacity from the Bath County generation facility to
AE Supply and MP.
This business segment controls approximately 20,000 MWs 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 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.
81
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
13 to the consolidated financial statements. Earnings available to FirstEnergy by major business
segment were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31 |
|
|
Increase |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions, except per share data) |
|
Earnings By Business Segment: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated Distribution |
|
$ |
96 |
|
|
$ |
103 |
|
|
$ |
(7 |
) |
Competitive Energy Services |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
(64 |
) |
Regulated Independent Transmission |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
Other and reconciling adjustments* |
|
|
(64 |
) |
|
|
(29 |
) |
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
50 |
|
|
$ |
155 |
|
|
$ |
(105 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic Earnings Per Share |
|
$ |
0.15 |
|
|
$ |
0.51 |
|
|
$ |
(0.36 |
) |
Diluted Earnings Per Share |
|
$ |
0.15 |
|
|
$ |
0.51 |
|
|
$ |
(0.36 |
) |
|
|
|
* |
|
Consists primarily of interest expense related to holding company debt, corporate support
services revenues and expenses, noncontrolling interests and the elimination of intersegment
transactions. |
Summary of Results of Operations First Quarter 2011 Compared with First Quarter 2010
Financial results for FirstEnergys major business segments in the first quarter of 2011 and 2010
were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Competitive |
|
|
Regulated |
|
|
Other and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Independent |
|
|
Reconciling |
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
First Quarter 2011 Financial Results |
|
Distribution |
|
|
Services |
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric |
|
$ |
2,175 |
|
|
$ |
1,162 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
3,337 |
|
Other |
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
(45 |
) |
|
|
207 |
|
Internal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
343 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(311 |
) |
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
|
2,268 |
|
|
|
1,597 |
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
(356 |
) |
|
|
3,576 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
429 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
453 |
|
Purchased power |
|
|
1,179 |
|
|
|
318 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(311 |
) |
|
|
1,186 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
386 |
|
|
|
648 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
1,033 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
220 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
129 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
132 |
|
Deferral of new regulatory assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General taxes |
|
|
176 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
237 |
|
Impairment of long-lived assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Expenses |
|
|
2,010 |
|
|
|
1,527 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
(314 |
) |
|
|
3,261 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
258 |
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
(42 |
) |
|
|
315 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income (Expense): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
21 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(132 |
) |
|
|
(78 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
(231 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Expense |
|
|
(106 |
) |
|
|
(62 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
(192 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
|
152 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
|
123 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss) |
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
(69 |
) |
|
|
45 |
|
Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
$ |
96 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
13 |
|
|
$ |
(64 |
) |
|
$ |
50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
82
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Competitive |
|
|
Regulated |
|
|
Other and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Independent |
|
|
Reconciling |
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
First Quarter 2010 Financial Results |
|
Distribution |
|
|
Services |
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric |
|
$ |
2,398 |
|
|
$ |
669 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
3,067 |
|
Other |
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
165 |
|
Internal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
674 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(607 |
) |
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
|
2,484 |
|
|
|
1,393 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
(635 |
) |
|
|
3,299 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
334 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
334 |
|
Purchased power |
|
|
1,395 |
|
|
|
450 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(607 |
) |
|
|
1,238 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
359 |
|
|
|
352 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
701 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
193 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
209 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
212 |
|
Deferral of new regulatory assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General taxes |
|
|
154 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
205 |
|
Impairment of long-lived assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Expenses |
|
|
2,221 |
|
|
|
1,250 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
(621 |
) |
|
|
2,883 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
263 |
|
|
|
143 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
416 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income (Expense): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
16 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(125 |
) |
|
|
(56 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
(213 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Expense |
|
|
(98 |
) |
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
(156 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
|
165 |
|
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
|
260 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss) |
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
|
149 |
|
Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
$ |
103 |
|
|
$ |
69 |
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
(29 |
) |
|
$ |
155 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
83
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes Between First Quarter 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
Competitive |
|
|
Regulated |
|
|
Other and |
|
|
|
|
and First Quarter 2010 Financial |
|
Regulated |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Independent |
|
|
Reconciling |
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
Results Increase (Decrease) |
|
Distribution |
|
|
Services |
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
Adjustment |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric |
|
$ |
(223 |
) |
|
$ |
493 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
270 |
|
Other |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
42 |
|
Internal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(331 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
296 |
|
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
|
(216 |
) |
|
|
204 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
279 |
|
|
|
277 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
119 |
|
Purchased power |
|
|
(216 |
) |
|
|
(132 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
296 |
|
|
|
(52 |
) |
Other operating expenses |
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
296 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
332 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
(80 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(80 |
) |
Deferral of new regulatory assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General taxes |
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
Impairment of long-lived assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Expenses |
|
|
(211 |
) |
|
|
277 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
307 |
|
|
|
378 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(73 |
) |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
(101 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income (Expense): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
(18 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Expense |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
(36 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
(103 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
(137 |
) |
Income taxes |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(39 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
(33 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss) |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(64 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(34 |
) |
|
|
(104 |
) |
Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
$ |
(7 |
) |
|
$ |
(64 |
) |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
(35 |
) |
|
$ |
(105 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated Distribution First Quarter 2011 Compared with First Quarter 2010
Net income decreased by $7 million in the first quarter of 2011 compared to the first quarter of
2010, primarily due to lower generation and transmission revenues and merger-related costs
associated with the Allegheny merger, partially offset by lower purchased power costs and
amortization of regulatory assets.
84
Revenues
The decrease in total revenues resulted from the following sources:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended March 31 |
|
|
Increase |
|
Revenues by Type of Service |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Pre-merger companies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution services |
|
$ |
909 |
|
|
$ |
883 |
|
|
$ |
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generation sales: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail |
|
|
873 |
|
|
|
1,178 |
|
|
|
(305 |
) |
Wholesale |
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
217 |
|
|
|
(101 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total generation sales |
|
|
989 |
|
|
|
1,395 |
|
|
|
(406 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
160 |
|
|
|
(123 |
) |
Other |
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total pre-merger companies |
|
|
1,993 |
|
|
|
2,484 |
|
|
|
(491 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allegheny companies |
|
|
275 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
275 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
2,268 |
|
|
$ |
2,484 |
|
|
$ |
(216 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in distribution service revenues reflected higher distribution deliveries in the
first quarter of 2011 compared to the same period in 2010. Distribution deliveries (excluding the
Allegheny companies) increased 650,000 MWH (2.4%) to 27,538,000 MWH in the first quarter of 2011
from 26,888,000 MWH in the first quarter of 2010. The increase in distribution deliveries by
customer class is summarized in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Electric Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pre-merger companies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
10,638 |
|
|
|
10,455 |
|
|
|
1.8 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
7,929 |
|
|
|
7,953 |
|
|
|
(0.3 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
8,841 |
|
|
|
8,351 |
|
|
|
5.9 |
% |
Other |
|
|
130 |
|
|
|
129 |
|
|
|
0.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total pre-merger companies |
|
|
27,538 |
|
|
|
26,888 |
|
|
|
2.4 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allegheny companies |
|
|
3,540 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Electric Distribution MWH Deliveries |
|
|
31,078 |
|
|
|
26,888 |
|
|
|
15.6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Higher deliveries to residential customers reflected increased weather-related usage in the
first quarter of 2011, as heating degree days increased by 5.2% from the same period in 2010. The
increase in distribution deliveries to industrial customers was primarily due to recovering
economic conditions in FirstEnergys service territory compared to the first quarter of 2010. In
the industrial sector, KWH deliveries increased by 12.8% to major steel customers, 4.7% to refinery
customers and 8.4% to chemical customers.
The following table summarizes the price and volume factors contributing to the $406 million
decrease in generation revenues in the first quarter of 2011 compared to the first quarter of 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Generation Revenues |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of 32.4% decrease in sales volumes |
|
$ |
(382 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(305 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Wholesale: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of 3.9% increase in sales volumes |
|
|
8 |
|
Change in prices |
|
|
(109 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(101 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
(406 |
) |
|
|
|
|
85
The decrease in retail generation sales volumes was primarily due to an increase in customer
shopping in the Ohio Companies, Met-Eds and Penelecs service territories in the first quarter of
2011, compared to the first quarter of 2010. Total generation provided by alternative suppliers as
a percentage of total KWH deliveries increased to 73% from 53% for the Ohio Companies and to 40%
from 2% in Met-Eds and Penelecs service areas.
The decrease in wholesale generation revenues reflected lower RPM revenues for Met-Ed and Penelec
in the PJM market. Transmission revenues decreased $123 million due to the termination of Met-Eds
and Penelecs transmission
tariff effective January 1, 2011. Transmission costs are now a component of the cost of generation
established under Met-Eds and Penelecs generation procurement plan.
The Allegheny companies added $275 million in revenues for the first quarter of 2011, including $69
million for distribution services, $190 million for generation sales and $16 million relating to
PJM transmission revenues.
Expenses
Total expenses decreased by $140 million due to the following:
|
|
|
Purchased power costs, excluding the Allegheny companies, were $356
million lower in the first quarter of 2011 due primarily to a decrease in sales
volume requirements. The decrease in power purchased from FES reflected the increase
in customer shopping described above and the termination of Met-Eds and Penelecs
partial requirements PSA with FES at the end of 2010. The increase in volumes
purchased from non-affiliates under Met-Eds and Penelecs generation procurement
plan effective January 1, 2011 was offset by a decrease in RPM expenses in the PJM
market. The Allegheny companies added $140 million in purchased power costs in the
first quarter of 2011. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Purchased Power |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Pre-merger companies |
|
|
|
|
Purchases from non-affiliates: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to decreased unit costs |
|
$ |
(186 |
) |
Change due to increased volumes |
|
|
188 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases from FES: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to increased unit costs |
|
|
36 |
|
Change due to decreased volumes |
|
|
(412 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(376 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decrease in costs deferred |
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total pre-merger companies |
|
|
(356 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchases by Allegheny companies |
|
|
140 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Purchased Power Costs |
|
$ |
(216 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission expenses decreased $98 million primarily due to lower PJM network
transmission expenses and congestion costs of $110 million for Met-Ed and Penelec,
partially offset by transmission expenses for the Allegheny companies of $12 million
in the first quarter of 2011. Met-Ed and Penelec defer or amortize the difference
between revenues from their transmission rider and transmission costs incurred with
no material effect on earnings. |
|
|
|
Energy Efficiency program costs, which are also recovered through rates, increased
$16 million. |
|
|
|
Material costs associated with maintenance activities increased $10 million in the
first quarter of 2011 compared to the same period last year. |
|
|
|
A provision for excess and obsolete material of $13 million was recognized in the
first quarter of 2011 relating to revised inventory practices adopted in conjunction
with the Allegheny merger. |
|
|
|
Depreciation expense increased $12 million due to property additions since the
first quarter of 2010. |
86
|
|
|
Net amortization of regulatory assets decreased $80 million due primarily
to generation-related rate deferrals for the Ohio Companies, Met-Ed and Penelec and
reduced net PJM transmission cost amortization. |
|
|
|
General taxes increased $22 million due to higher property taxes and gross
receipts taxes in the first quarter of 2011. |
|
|
|
Fuel expenses for MP were $24 million in the first quarter of 2011. |
|
|
|
Operating expenses for the Allegheny companies were $38 million in the first quarter of 2011. |
|
|
|
Merger-related costs incurred by the Allegheny companies were $48 million in the first quarter of 2011. |
Other Expense
Other expense increased $8 million in the first quarter of 2011 due to interest expense on debt of
the Allegheny companies.
Regulated Independent Transmission First Quarter 2011 Compared with First Quarter 2010
Net income increased by $1 million in the first quarter of 2011 compared to the first quarter of
2010 due to earnings associated with TrAIL and PATH ($5 million), partially offset by reduced
earnings for ATSI ($4 million).
Revenues
Revenues by transmission asset owner are shown in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
|
Revenues by |
|
Ended March 31 |
|
|
Increase |
|
Transmission Asset Owner |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
ATSI |
|
$ |
52 |
|
|
$ |
57 |
|
|
$ |
(5 |
) |
TrAIL |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
PATH |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
67 |
|
|
$ |
57 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses
Total expenses increased by $5 million due primarily to operating expenses associated with TrAIL
and PATH, which were $3 million in the first quarter of 2011.
Other Expense
Other expense increased $4 million in the first quarter of 2011 due to additional interest expense
associated with TrAIL.
Competitive Energy Services First Quarter 2011 Compared with First Quarter 2010
Net income decreased by $64 million in the first quarter of 2011, compared to the first quarter of
2010, primarily due to increased transmission expense, an inventory reserve adjustment, non-core
asset impairments and the effect of mark-to-market adjustments.
Revenues
Total revenues increased $204 million in the first quarter of 2011 primarily due to growth
in direct and government aggregation sales and the inclusion of the Allegheny companies, partially
offset by a decline in POLR sales.
87
The increase in total revenues resulted from the following sources:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended March 31 |
|
|
Increase |
|
Revenues by Type of Service |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Direct and Government Aggregation |
|
$ |
840 |
|
|
$ |
512 |
|
|
$ |
328 |
|
POLR |
|
|
369 |
|
|
|
673 |
|
|
|
(304 |
) |
Wholesale |
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
Transmission |
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
RECs |
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
(35 |
) |
Other |
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
Allegheny Companies |
|
|
193 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
193 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
1,597 |
|
|
$ |
1,393 |
|
|
$ |
204 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allegheny Companies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Direct and Government Aggregation |
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
POLR |
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wholesale |
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
193 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended March 31 |
|
|
Increase |
|
MWH Sales by Type of Service |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
Direct |
|
|
9,671 |
|
|
|
5,854 |
|
|
|
65.2 |
% |
Government Aggregation |
|
|
4,310 |
|
|
|
2,732 |
|
|
|
57.8 |
% |
POLR |
|
|
5,714 |
|
|
|
13,276 |
|
|
|
(57.0 |
)% |
Wholesale |
|
|
1,113 |
|
|
|
898 |
|
|
|
23.9 |
% |
Allegheny Companies |
|
|
2,636 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Sales |
|
|
23,444 |
|
|
|
22,760 |
|
|
|
3.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allegheny Companies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Direct |
|
|
145 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
POLR |
|
|
812 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Structured Sales |
|
|
284 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wholesale |
|
|
1,395 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Sales |
|
|
2,636 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in direct and government aggregation revenues of $328 million resulted from
increased revenue from the acquisition of new commercial and industrial customers as well as new
government aggregation contracts with communities in Ohio that provided generation to approximately
1.5 million residential and small commercial customers at the end of March 2011 compared to
approximately 1.1 million such customers at the end of March 2010. In addition, sales to
residential and small commercial customers were bolstered by weather in the delivery area that was
5.2% colder than in 2010.
88
The decrease in POLR revenues of $304 million was due to lower sales volumes to the Pennsylvania
and Ohio Companies, partially offset by increased sales to non-associated companies and higher unit
prices to the Pennsylvania Companies. Participation in POLR auctions and RFPs are expected to
continue, but the concentration of these sales will primarily be
dependent on our success in our direct retail and aggregation sales
channels.
Wholesale revenues increased $5 million due to increased volumes partially offset by lower
wholesale prices. The higher sales volumes were the result of increased short term (net hourly
positions) transactions in MISO. $22 million of wholesale
revenue resulted from long positions in
MISO that were unable to be netted with short positions in PJM, due to separate settlement
requirements with each RTO.
The following tables summarize the price and volume factors contributing to changes in revenues
(excluding the Allegheny companies):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Direct and Government Aggregation |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Direct Sales: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of 65.2% increase in sales volumes |
|
$ |
223 |
|
Change in prices |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
219 |
|
|
|
|
|
Government Aggregation: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of 57.8% increase in sales volumes |
|
|
100 |
|
Change in prices |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
109 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Direct and Government Aggregation Revenues |
|
$ |
328 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in POLR Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
POLR: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of 57.0% decrease in sales volumes |
|
$ |
(384 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(304 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Wholesale Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Other Wholesale: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of 23.9% increase in sales volumes |
|
|
12 |
|
Change in prices |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission revenues increased $9 million due primarily to higher MISO congestion revenue. The
revenues derived from the sale of RECs declined $35 million in the first quarter of 2011.
Expenses
Total expenses increased $277 million in the first quarter of 2011 due to the following:
|
|
|
Fuel costs increased $13 million primarily due to increased volumes ($31 million),
partially offset by lower unit prices ($18 million). Volumes increased due to higher
generation at the fossil units. Unit prices declined primarily due to improved
generating unit availability at more efficient units, partially offset by increased
coal transportation costs and higher nuclear fuel unit prices following the
refueling outages that occurred in 2010. |
|
|
|
Purchased power costs decreased $153 million due primarily to lower volumes
purchased ($185 million) partially offset by higher unit costs ($32 million). The
decrease in volume primarily relates to the absence in 2011 of a 1,300 MW third party
contract associated with serving Met-Ed and Penelec. $35 million of purchased power
expense resulted from long positions in MISO that were unable to be netted with short
positions in PJM, due to separate settlement requirements with each RTO. |
|
|
|
Fossil operating costs increased $1 million due primarily to higher labor costs
partially offset by lower professional and contractor costs and reduced coal sale
losses. |
|
|
|
Nuclear operating costs increased $15 million due primarily to higher labor and
related benefits, partially offset by lower professional and contractor costs. |
89
|
|
|
Transmission expenses increased $111 million due primarily to increases in PJM of
$108 million from higher congestion, network, and loss expense and MISO transmission
expenses of $3 million due to higher congestion costs. |
|
|
|
General taxes increased $3 million due to an increase in revenue-related taxes. |
|
|
|
Other expenses increased $65 million primarily due to: a $54 million provision for
excess and obsolete material relating to revised inventory practices adopted in
connection with the Allegheny merger; a $13 million impairment charge related to
non-core assets; an $11 million increase in intercompany billings; and reduced
mark-to-market adjustments of $15 million. |
The inclusion of approximately one month of the Allegheny companies operations contributed $222
million to expenses, including a $29 million mark-to-market adjustment relating primarily to power
contracts.
Other Expense
Total other expense in the first quarter of 2011 was $30 million higher than the first quarter of
2010, primarily due to a $35 million increase in net interest expense partially offset by an
increase in nuclear decommissioning trust investment income ($5 million). The increase in interest
expense was primarily due to the inclusion of the Allegheny companies ($20 million) and lower
capitalized interest ($13 million) associated with the completion of the Sammis AQC project in
2010.
Other First Quarter of 2011 Compared with First Quarter of 2010
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 $35
million decrease in earnings available to FirstEnergy in the first quarter of 2011 compared to the
same period in 2010. The decrease resulted primarily from reduced other revenues ($17 million)
representing reconciling adjustments combined with increased income taxes ($12 million).
Regulatory Assets
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 costs that have been deferred because of their probable future
recovery from customers through regulated rates. Regulatory liabilities represent amounts that are
expected to be credited to customers through future regulated rates or amounts collected from
customers for costs not yet incurred. FirstEnergy and the Utilities net their regulatory assets and
liabilities based on federal and state jurisdictions. The following table provides the balance of
net regulatory assets by company as of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010 and changes during the
three months then ended:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
Increase |
|
Regulatory Assets |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
OE |
|
$ |
385 |
|
|
$ |
400 |
|
|
$ |
(15 |
) |
CEI |
|
|
337 |
|
|
|
370 |
|
|
|
(33 |
) |
TE |
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
460 |
|
|
|
513 |
|
|
|
(53 |
) |
Met-Ed |
|
|
285 |
|
|
|
296 |
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
Penelec |
|
|
179 |
|
|
|
163 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
Other* |
|
|
354 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
342 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
2,084 |
|
|
$ |
1,826 |
|
|
$ |
258 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
2011 includes $343 million
related to the Allegheny companies. |
90
The following tables provide information about the composition of net regulatory assets as of
March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010 and the changes during the three months then ended:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
Increase |
|
Regulatory Assets by Source |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Regulatory transition costs |
|
$ |
592 |
|
|
$ |
770 |
|
|
$ |
(178 |
) |
Customer receivables for future income taxes |
|
|
488 |
|
|
|
326 |
|
|
|
162 |
|
Loss on reacquired debt |
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
Employee postretirement benefits |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
Nuclear decommissioning, decontamination
and spent fuel disposal costs |
|
|
(200 |
) |
|
|
(184 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
Asset removal costs |
|
|
(220 |
) |
|
|
(237 |
) |
|
|
17 |
|
MISO/PJM transmission costs |
|
|
280 |
|
|
|
184 |
|
|
|
96 |
|
Deferred generation costs |
|
|
574 |
|
|
|
386 |
|
|
|
188 |
|
Distribution costs |
|
|
333 |
|
|
|
426 |
|
|
|
(93 |
) |
Other |
|
|
167 |
|
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
2,084 |
|
|
$ |
1,826 |
|
|
$ |
258 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy
had $390 million of net regulatory liabilities as of
March 31, 2011, which includes $378 million of net regulatory
liabilities acquired as part of the merger with AE that are
primarily related to asset removal costs.
Regulatory assets that do not earn a current return totaled approximately $297 million as of March
31, 2011.
Regulatory assets not earning a current return primarily for certain all-electric residential
discounts and municipal taxes by OE, CEI and TE are approximately $53 million, $32 million and $4
million, respectively. The timing of expected recovery of these assets cannot be determined at this
time.
Regulatory assets not earning a current return primarily for regulatory transition costs by Met-Ed
and Penelec are approximately $114 million and $5 million, respectively, and are expected to be
recovered by 2020.
Regulatory assets not earning a current return primarily for certain storm damage costs and pension
and postretirement benefits by JCP&L are approximately $37 million. The timing of expected
recovery of these assets cannot be determined at this time.
Regulatory assets not earning a current return primarily for certain deferred generation costs are
approximately $52 million by FirstEnergys other utility subsidiaries are expected to be recovered
over various periods though 2012.
CAPITAL RESOURCES AND LIQUIDITY
As of March 31, 2011, FirstEnergy had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $1.1 billion
available to fund investments, operations and capital expenditures. To fund liquidity and capital
requirements for 2011 and beyond, FirstEnergy may rely on internal and external sources of funds.
Short-term cash requirements not met by cash provided from operations are generally satisfied
through short-term borrowings. Long-term cash needs may be met through issuances of debt and/or
equity securities.
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 2011, FirstEnergy expects to satisfy these
requirements with a combination of internal cash from operations and external 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 along
with continued access to long-term capital markets.
A material adverse change in operations, or in the availability of external financing sources,
could impact FirstEnergys liquidity position and ability to fund its capital resource
requirements. To mitigate risk, FirstEnergys business model stresses financial discipline and a
strong focus on execution. Major elements of this business model include the expectation of:
projected cash from operations, opportunities for favorable long-term earnings growth in the
competitive generation markets, operational excellence, business plan execution, well-positioned
generation fleet, no speculative trading operations, appropriate long-term commodity hedging
positions, manageable capital expenditure program, adequately funded pension plan, minimal
near-term maturities of existing long-term debt, commitment to a secure dividend and a successful
merger integration.
91
As of March 31, 2011, FirstEnergys net deficit in working capital (current assets less current
liabilities) was principally due to the classification of certain variable interest rate PCRBs as
currently payable long-term debt and short-term borrowings. Currently payable long-term debt as of
March 31, 2011, included the following (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Payable Long-term Debt |
|
|
|
|
PCRBs supported by bank LOCs (1) |
|
$ |
827 |
|
FGCO and NGC unsecured PCRBs (1) |
|
|
141 |
|
Penelec unsecured PCRBs |
|
|
25 |
|
FirstEnergy Corp. unsecured note |
|
|
250 |
|
NGC collateralized lease obligation bonds |
|
|
50 |
|
Sinking fund requirements |
|
|
49 |
|
Other notes |
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,385 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Interest rate mode permits individual debt holders to put the respective
debt back to the issuer prior to maturity. |
Short-Term Borrowings
FirstEnergy had approximately $486 million of short-term borrowings as of March 31, 2011 and $700
million as of December 31, 2010. FirstEnergys available liquidity as of April 25, 2011, is
summarized in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available |
|
Company |
|
Type |
|
Maturity |
|
Commitment |
|
|
Liquidity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
FirstEnergy(1) |
|
Revolving |
|
Aug. 2012 |
|
$ |
2,750 |
|
|
$ |
1,983 |
|
AE |
|
Revolving |
|
Apr. 2013 |
|
|
250 |
|
|
|
247 |
|
AE Supply(2) |
|
Revolving |
|
Various |
|
|
1,050 |
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
FE Utilities & TrAIL |
|
Revolving |
|
2013 |
|
|
910 |
|
|
|
475 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal |
|
$ |
4,960 |
|
|
$ |
3,705 |
|
|
|
|
|
Cash |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,134 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
4,960 |
|
|
$ |
4,839 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
FirstEnergy Corp. and subsidiary borrowers. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes $50 million for AGC. |
Revolving Credit Facilities
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.
92
The following table summarizes the borrowing sub-limits for each borrower under the facilities, 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 March 31, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
33 |
(2) |
CEI |
|
|
250 |
(3) |
|
|
500 |
|
TE |
|
|
250 |
(3) |
|
|
500 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
425 |
|
|
|
411 |
(2) |
Met-Ed |
|
|
250 |
|
|
|
300 |
(2) |
Penelec |
|
|
250 |
|
|
|
300 |
(2) |
ATSI |
|
|
50 |
(4) |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
No limitations. |
|
(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 $2.75 billion 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 $2.75 billion 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 March 31, 2011, FirstEnergys and its subsidiaries debt to
total capitalization ratios (as defined under the revolving credit facility) were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Borrower |
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
|
57.6 |
% |
FES |
|
|
53.3 |
% |
OE |
|
|
55.0 |
% |
Penn |
|
|
35.0 |
% |
CEI |
|
|
56.4 |
% |
TE |
|
|
58.1 |
% |
JCP&L |
|
|
34.5 |
% |
Met-Ed |
|
|
44.3 |
% |
Penelec |
|
|
54.5 |
% |
ATSI |
|
|
49.6 |
% |
As of March 31, 2011, FirstEnergy could issue additional debt of approximately $7.1 billion, or
recognize a reduction in equity of approximately $3.8 billion, and remain within the limitations of
the financial covenants required by its $2.75 billion revolving credit facility.
The
$2.75 billion revolving credit facility, does not contain provisions that restrict the
ability to borrow or accelerate payment 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.
93
In
addition to the $2.75 billion revolving credit facility, FirstEnergy also has access to an
additional $2.2 billion of revolving credit facilities relating to the Allegheny companies. The
following table summarizes the borrowing sub-limits for each borrower under the facilities as of
March 31, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revolving |
|
|
|
Credit Facility |
|
Borrower |
|
Sub-Limit |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
AE |
|
$ |
250 |
|
AE Supply |
|
|
1,000 |
|
MP |
|
|
110 |
|
PE |
|
|
150 |
|
WP |
|
|
200 |
|
AGC |
|
|
50 |
|
TrAIL |
|
|
450 |
|
Under the terms of their individual credit facilities, outstanding debt of AE Supply, MP, PE,
WP and AGC may not exceed 65% of the sum of their debt and equity as of the last day of each
calendar quarter. Outstanding debt for TrAIL may not exceed 70% and 65% of the sum of its debt and
equity as of the last day of each calendar quarter through June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2012,
respectively. These provisions limit debt levels of these subsidiaries and also limit the net
assets of each subsidiary that may be transferred to AE.
FirstEnergy, the Utilities, FES and AESC are currently pursuing an
aggregate of up to $4.0 billion in new multi-year revolving credit
facilities to replace a portion of the existing facilities described
above.
FirstEnergy Money Pools
FirstEnergys regulated companies, excluding regulated companies acquired in the Allegheny merger,
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 quarter of 2011 was 0.38% per annum for the regulated
companies money pool and 0.47% per annum for the unregulated companies money pool. In March 2011,
AE Supply invested $200 million into the unregulated money pool. FirstEnergy and its regulated
companies acquired in the Allegheny merger have filed with the appropriate regulatory commissions
to receive approval to be part of the FirstEnergy regulated money pool.
Pollution Control Revenue Bonds
As of March 31, 2011, FirstEnergys currently payable long-term debt included approximately $827
million (FES $778 million, Met-Ed $29 million and Penelec $20 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
March 31, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate LOC |
|
|
|
|
Reimbursements of |
LOC Bank |
|
Amount(1) |
|
|
LOC Termination Date |
|
LOC Draws Due |
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
CitiBank N.A. |
|
$ |
166 |
|
|
June 2014 |
|
June 2014 |
The Bank of Nova Scotia |
|
|
178 |
|
|
Beginning June 2012 |
|
Multiple dates(2) |
The Royal Bank of Scotland |
|
|
131 |
|
|
June 2012 |
|
6 months |
Wachovia Bank |
|
|
152 |
|
|
March 2014 |
|
March 2014 |
US Bank |
|
|
60 |
|
|
April 2014 |
|
6 months |
UBS |
|
|
272 |
|
|
April 2014 |
|
April 2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
959 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes approximately $10 million of applicable interest coverage. |
|
(2) |
|
Shorter of 6 months or LOC termination date ($49 million) and shorter of one year or
LOC termination date ($129 million). |
94
On March 17, 2011, FES completed the remarketing of $207 million variable rate PCRBs. These
PCRBs remained in a variable interest mode, supported by bank LOCs. Also, on March 1, 2011, FES
repurchased $50 million of non-LOC backed fixed rate PCRBs that were subject to purchase on demand
by the owner on that date.
On April 1, 2011, FES completed the remarketing of an additional $97 million of non-LOC backed
commercial paper rate and fixed rate PCRBs (including the $50 million repurchased on March 1) into
variable rate modes with LOC support. Also on April 1, 2011, Penelec completed the remarketing of
$25 million of non-LOC backed commercial paper rate PCRBs into a variable rate mode with LOC
support.
In connection with the remarketings, approximately $207 aggregate principal amount of FMBs
previously delivered to LOC providers were cancelled, and approximately $50 million aggregate
principal amount of FMBs delivered to secure PCRBs will be cancelled
on May 31, 2011.
Long-Term Debt Capacity
As of March 31, 2011, the Ohio Companies and Penn had the aggregate capability to issue
approximately $2.4 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 $118 million and $17 million, respectively. As a result
of its indenture provisions, TE cannot incur any additional secured debt. Met-Ed and Penelec had
the capability to issue secured debt of approximately $365 million and $346 million, respectively,
under provisions of their senior note indentures as of March 31, 2011. In addition, based upon
their respective FMB indentures, net earnings and available bondable property additions as of March
31, 2011, MP, PE and WP had the capability to issue approximately
$685 million of additional FMBs in the aggregate.
Based upon FGCOs FMB indenture, net earnings and available bondable property additions as of March
31, 2011, FGCO had the capability to issue $2.4 billion of additional FMBs under the terms of that
indenture. Based upon NGCs FMB indenture, net earnings and available bondable property additions,
NGC had the capability to issue $1.2 billion of additional FMBs as of March 31, 2011.
FirstEnergys access to capital markets and costs of financing are influenced by the ratings of its
securities. On March 1, 2011, Fitch affirmed the ratings and outlook of FirstEnergy and its
subsidiaries. On February 25, 2011, Moodys affirmed the ratings and stable outlook of FirstEnergy
and its regulated utilities, upgraded AEs senior unsecured ratings to Baa3 from Ba1 and placed the
ratings for FES under review for possible downgrade. The following table displays FirstEnergys and
its subsidiaries securities ratings as of March 31, 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Secured |
|
Senior Unsecured |
Issuer |
|
S&P |
|
Moodys |
|
Fitch |
|
S&P |
|
Moodys |
|
Fitch |
FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BB+ |
|
Baa3 |
|
BBB |
Allegheny |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BB+ |
|
Baa3 |
|
BBB- |
FES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BBB- |
|
Baa2 |
|
BBB |
AE Supply |
|
BBB |
|
Baa2 |
|
BBB |
|
BBB- |
|
Baa3 |
|
BBB- |
AGC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BBB- |
|
Baa3 |
|
BBB- |
ATSI |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BBB- |
|
Baa1 |
|
|
CEI |
|
BBB |
|
Baa1 |
|
BBB |
|
BBB- |
|
Baa3 |
|
BBB- |
JCP&L |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BBB- |
|
Baa2 |
|
BBB+ |
Met-Ed |
|
BBB |
|
A3 |
|
BBB+ |
|
BBB- |
|
Baa2 |
|
BBB |
MP |
|
BBB+ |
|
Baa1 |
|
BBB+ |
|
BBB- |
|
Baa3 |
|
BBB- |
OE |
|
BBB |
|
A3 |
|
BBB+ |
|
BBB- |
|
Baa2 |
|
BBB |
Penelec |
|
BBB |
|
A3 |
|
BBB+ |
|
BBB- |
|
Baa2 |
|
BBB |
Penn |
|
BBB+ |
|
A3 |
|
BBB+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
PE |
|
BBB+ |
|
Baa1 |
|
BBB+ |
|
BBB- |
|
Baa3 |
|
BBB- |
TE |
|
BBB |
|
Baa1 |
|
BBB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
TrAIL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BBB- |
|
Baa2 |
|
BBB |
WP |
|
BBB+ |
|
A3 |
|
BBB+ |
|
BBB- |
|
Baa2 |
|
BBB- |
95
Changes in Cash Position
As of March 31, 2011, FirstEnergy had $1.1 billion of cash and cash equivalents compared to $1
billion as of December 31, 2010. As of March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, FirstEnergy had
approximately $73 million and $13 million, respectively, of restricted cash included in other
current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
During the first three months of 2011, FirstEnergy received $240 million of cash dividends from its
subsidiaries and paid $190 million in cash dividends to common shareholders, including $20 million
paid in March by Allegheny to its former 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 $15 million during the first three
months of 2011 compared to the comparable period in 2010, as summarized in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended March 31 |
|
|
Increase |
|
Operating Cash Flows |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Net income |
|
$ |
45 |
|
|
$ |
149 |
|
|
$ |
(104 |
) |
Non-cash charges and other adjustments |
|
|
515 |
|
|
|
367 |
|
|
|
148 |
|
Pension trust contribution |
|
|
(157 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(157 |
) |
Working capital and other |
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
98 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
491 |
|
|
$ |
506 |
|
|
$ |
(15 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in non-cash charges and other adjustments is primarily due to increased deferred
taxes and investment tax credits ($112 million), increased asset impairments ($19 million), changes
in accrued compensation and retirement benefits ($68 million) and increased depreciation ($27
million), partially offset by lower amortization of regulatory assets ($80 million).
The increase in cash flows from working capital and other is primarily due to decreased receivables
($162 million), decreased prepayments and other current assets
($85 million) and decreased materials
and supplies ($82 million), partially offset by decreased accrued taxes ($189 million) and
decreased accounts payable ($33 million).
Cash Flows From Financing Activities
In the first three months of 2011, cash used for financing activities was $550 million compared to
$594 million in the first three months of 2010. The following table summarizes security issuances
(net of any discounts) and redemptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
Ended March 31 |
|
Securities Issued or Redeemed |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
New Issues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pollution control notes |
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term revolvers |
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
|
|
Unsecured Notes |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
217 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redemptions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pollution control notes |
|
|
(200 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Long-term revolvers |
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Senior secured notes |
|
|
(109 |
) |
|
|
9 |
|
Unsecured notes |
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(359 |
) |
|
$ |
109 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
$ |
(214 |
) |
|
$ |
(295 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On March 29, 2011, FES paid off a $100 million term loan secured by FMBs that was scheduled to
mature on March 31, 2011. On April 8, 2011, FirstEnergy entered into a $150 million unsecured term
loan with an April 2013 maturity.
In March 2011 FES repurchased and retired $20 million of its 6.80% unsecured senior notes and $10
million of its 6.05% unsecured senior notes originally outstanding in the principal amounts of $500
million and $600 million, respectively. Additionally, on April 29, 2011, Met-Ed redeemed
approximately $14 million of FMBs securing PCRBs.
During the remainder of 2011, FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries expect to pursue, from time to time,
continued reductions in outstanding long-term debt of up to approximately $1.0 to $1.5 billion including through redemptions, open market or privately negotiated purchases. Any
such transactions will be subject to prevailing market conditions, liquidity requirements and other
factors.
96
Cash Flows From Investing Activities
Cash flows received from investing activities in the first three months of 2011 resulted primarily
from the cash acquired in the Allegheny merger, partially offset by cash used for property
additions. The following table summarizes investing activities for the first three months of 2011
and 2010 by business segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary of Cash Flows |
|
Property |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provided from (Used for) Investing Activities |
|
Additions |
|
|
Investments |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Sources (Uses) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended March 31, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated distribution |
|
$ |
(177 |
) |
|
$ |
60 |
|
|
$ |
(9 |
) |
|
$ |
(126 |
) |
Competitive energy services |
|
|
(214 |
) |
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(237 |
) |
Regulated independent transmission |
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(28 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
590 |
|
|
|
145 |
|
|
|
704 |
|
Inter-Segment reconciling items |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
(150 |
) |
|
|
(172 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
(449 |
) |
|
$ |
612 |
|
|
$ |
(22 |
) |
|
$ |
141 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended March 31, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated distribution |
|
$ |
(152 |
) |
|
$ |
62 |
|
|
$ |
(6 |
) |
|
$ |
(96 |
) |
Competitive energy services |
|
|
(329 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(330 |
) |
Regulated independent transmission |
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(15 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13 |
) |
Inter-Segment reconciling items |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
(508 |
) |
|
$ |
40 |
|
|
$ |
(8 |
) |
|
$ |
(476 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from investing activities in the first three months of 2011 increased by
$617 million compared to the first three months of 2010. The increase was principally due to cash
acquired in the Allegheny merger ($590 million), a decrease in purchases of customer intangibles
by FES in the customer acquisition process ($100 million) and a decrease in property additions
($59 million), principally due to lower AQC system expenditures, partially offset by decreased
proceeds from asset sales ($114 million).
During the remaining nine months of 2011, capital requirements for property additions and capital
leases are expected to be approximately $1.8 billion. This includes approximately $90 million of
nuclear fuel expenditures.
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
Estimated cash payments for contractual obligations that are considered firm obligations acquired
by FirstEnergy in the AE merger are summarized as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012- |
|
|
2014- |
|
|
|
|
Contractual Obligations |
|
Total |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
2015 |
|
|
Thereafter |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Long-term debt(1) |
|
$ |
4,776 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
1,445 |
|
|
$ |
1,037 |
|
|
$ |
2,286 |
|
Interest on long-term debt(2) |
|
|
2,516 |
|
|
|
240 |
|
|
|
470 |
|
|
|
341 |
|
|
|
1,465 |
|
Fuel and purchased power(3) |
|
|
9,781 |
|
|
|
956 |
|
|
|
2,160 |
|
|
|
1,650 |
|
|
|
5,015 |
|
Capital expenditures |
|
|
141 |
|
|
|
117 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension funding (4) |
|
|
695 |
|
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
175 |
|
|
|
186 |
|
|
|
210 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
17,909 |
|
|
$ |
1,445 |
|
|
$ |
4,274 |
|
|
$ |
3,214 |
|
|
$ |
8,976 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Does not include payments made and debt issued subsequent to March 31, 2011. |
|
(2) |
|
Interest on variable-rate debt is based on interest rates as of March 31, 2011. |
|
(3) |
|
Amounts under contract with fixed or minimum quantities are based on estimated annual
requirements. |
|
(4) |
|
Estimated contributions through 2021 based on current actuarial assumptions. |
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.
97
As of March 31, 2011, FirstEnergys maximum exposure to potential future payments under outstanding
guarantees and other assurances approximated $3.8 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) |
|
$ |
231 |
|
FirstEnergy guarantee of OVEC obligations |
|
|
300 |
|
Other(2) |
|
|
228 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
759 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subsidiaries Guarantees |
|
|
|
|
Energy and Energy-Related Contracts |
|
|
158 |
|
FES guarantee of NGCs nuclear property insurance |
|
|
70 |
|
FES guarantee of FGCOs sale and leaseback obligations |
|
|
2,375 |
|
Other |
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,621 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surety Bonds |
|
|
138 |
|
LOC (non-debt)(3) |
|
|
318 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
456 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Guarantees and Other Assurances |
|
$ |
3,836 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Issued for open-ended terms, with a 10-day termination right by FirstEnergy. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes
guarantees of $15 million for nuclear decommissioning funding assurances, $161 million supporting
OEs sale and leaseback arrangement, and $37 million for railcar leases. |
|
(3) |
|
Includes $146 million issued for various terms pursuant to LOC capacity available under
FirstEnergys revolving credit facilities, $130 million pledged in connection with the sale and
leaseback of Beaver Valley Unit 2 by OE and $42 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.
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 March 31, 2011, FirstEnergys maximum exposure under these collateral
provisions was $557 million, as shown below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collateral Provisions |
|
FES |
|
|
AE Supply |
|
|
Utilities |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Credit rating downgrade to below investment
grade (1) |
|
$ |
357 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
66 |
|
|
$ |
433 |
|
Material adverse event (2) |
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
411 |
|
|
$ |
67 |
|
|
$ |
79 |
|
|
$ |
557 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes $138 million and $46 million that is also considered an acceleration of payment or
funding obligation at FES and the Utilities, respectively. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes $53 million that is also considered an acceleration of payment or funding obligation
at FES. |
98
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 $623 million, as shown below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collateral Provisions |
|
FES |
|
|
AE Supply |
|
|
Utilities |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Credit rating downgrade to below investment grade (1) |
|
$ |
420 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
66 |
|
|
$ |
494 |
|
Material adverse event (2) |
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
129 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
480 |
|
|
$ |
64 |
|
|
$ |
79 |
|
|
$ |
623 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes $138 million and $46 million that is also considered an acceleration of payment or
funding obligation at FES and the Utilities, respectively. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes $53 million that is also considered an acceleration of payment or funding obligation
at FES. |
Most of FirstEnergys surety bonds are backed by various indemnities common within the
insurance industry. Surety bonds and related guarantees of $138 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, contracts entered into by the Competitive Energy
Services segment, including power contracts with affiliates awarded through competitive bidding
processes, typically contain margining provisions that require the posting of cash or LOCs in
amounts determined by future power price movements. Based on FES and AE Supplys power portfolio
as of March 31, 2011 and forward prices as of that date, FES and AE Supply have posted collateral
of $158 million and $5 million, respectively. 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 $52 million of collateral. Depending on the volume of forward contracts and
future price movements, higher amounts for margining could be required to be posted.
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 may have claims against each of FES, FGCO and NGC, regardless of
whether their primary obligor is FES, FGCO or NGC.
Signal Peak and Global Rail are borrowers under a $350 million syndicated two-year senior secured
term loan facility. FirstEnergy, together with WMB Loan Ventures LLC and WMB Loan Ventures II LLC,
the entities that share ownership in the borrowers with FEV, have provided a guaranty of the
borrowers obligations under the facility. In addition, FEV and the other entities that directly
own the equity interest in the borrowers have pledged those interests to the lenders under the term
loan facility as collateral for the facility.
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 $1.7
billion as of March 31, 2011.
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 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 established a Risk Policy Committee, comprised
of members of senior management, which 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 practice. FirstEnergy uses a variety of
derivative instruments for risk management purposes including forward contracts, options, futures
contracts and swaps. In addition to derivatives, FirstEnergy also enters into master netting
agreements with certain third parties.
99
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 6
to the consolidated financial statements). Sources of information for the valuation of commodity
derivative contracts as of March 31, 2011 are summarized by year in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source of Information- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value by Contract Year |
|
2011 |
|
|
2012 |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
2014 |
|
|
2015 |
|
|
Thereafter |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Prices actively quoted(1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Other external sources(2) |
|
|
(315 |
) |
|
|
(152 |
) |
|
|
(44 |
) |
|
|
(36 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(547 |
) |
Prices based on models |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
114 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total(3) |
|
$ |
(326 |
) |
|
$ |
(152 |
) |
|
$ |
(44 |
) |
|
$ |
(36 |
) |
|
$ |
19 |
|
|
$ |
106 |
|
|
$ |
(433 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents exchange traded New York Mercantile Exchange futures and options. |
|
(2) |
|
Primarily represents contracts based on broker and IntercontinentalExchange quotes. |
|
(3) |
|
Includes $366 million in non-hedge commodity derivative contracts that are
primarily related to NUG contracts. NUG contracts are generally subject to regulatory accounting
and do not materially 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 March 31, 2011, an adverse 10% change
in commodity prices would decrease net income by approximately $12 million ($7 million net of tax)
during the next 12 months.
Equity Price Risk
FirstEnergy provides a noncontributory qualified defined benefit pension plan that covers
substantially all of its employees other than Allegheny employees employed by FirstEnergy and
non-qualified pension plans that cover certain employees (the FirstEnergy Pension Plan). In
addition, effective on the date of the merger, FirstEnergy provides noncontributory qualified defined
pension plan benefits that cover substantially all of Allegheny employees employed by FirstEnergy
and a supplemental executive retirement plan that covers certain Allegheny executives employed by
FirstEnergy (the Allegheny Pension Plan). The FirstEnergy Pension Plan and the Allegheny Pension
Plan provide defined benefits based on years of service and compensation levels.
Eligible FirstEnergy retirees, their dependents and, under certain circumstances, their survivors
are provided other postretirement benefits such as a minimum amount of noncontributory life
insurance, optional contributory insurance and certain health care benefits. These other
postretirement benefits are not provided in retirement for employees hired on or after January 1,
2005.
Eligible Allegheny retirees and dependents are provided other postretirement benefits such as
subsidies for medical and life insurance plans. Subsidized medical coverage is not provided in
retirement to Allegheny employees employed by FirstEnergy that were hired on or after January 1,
1993, with the exception of certain union employees who were hired or became members before May 1,
2006.
The benefit plan assets and obligations are remeasured annually using a December 31 measurement
date or as significant triggering events occur. As of March 31, 2011, the FirstEnergy pension plan
was invested in approximately 32% of equity securities, 47% of fixed income securities, 10% of
absolute return strategies, 5% of real estate, 2% of private equity and 4% of cash. The FirstEnergy
Pension Plan and the Allegheny Pension Plan were 86% and 78%, respectively, funded on an
accumulated benefit obligation basis as of March 31, 2011. A decline in the value of pension plan
assets could result in additional funding requirements. FirstEnergys funding policy is based on
actuarial computations using the projected unit credit method. During the first quarter of 2011,
FirstEnergy made a $157 million contribution to its qualified pension plans. FirstEnergy intends to
make additional contributions of $220 million and $6 million to its qualified pension plans and
postretirement benefit plans, respectively, in the last three quarters of 2011.
100
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds have been established to satisfy NGCs and the Utilities
nuclear decommissioning obligations. As of March 31, 2011, approximately 85% of the funds were
invested in fixed income securities, 9% of the funds were invested in equity securities and 6% were
invested in short-term investments, with limitations related to concentration and investment grade
ratings. The investments are carried at their market values of approximately $1,741 million, $194
million and $115 million for fixed income securities, equity securities and short-term investments,
respectively, as of Mach 31, 2011, excluding $(31) million of receivables, payables, deferred taxes
and accrued income. A hypothetical 10% decrease in prices quoted by stock exchanges would result in
a $19 million reduction in fair value as of March 31, 2011. 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 or a significant escalation in estimated
decommissioning costs could result in additional funding requirements. In the first three months of
2011, approximately $1 million was contributed to JCP&Ls nuclear decommissioning trusts. During
the second quarter of 2011, FirstEnergy intends to contribute approximately $4 million and $1
million to the OE and TE nuclear decommissioning trusts, respectively, to comply with requirements
under certain sale-leaseback transactions in which OE and TE continue as lessees. On March 28,
2011, FENOC submitted its biennial report on nuclear decommissioning funding to the NRC. This
submittal identified a total shortfall in nuclear decommissioning funding for Beaver Valley Unit 1
and Perry of approximately $93 million. This estimate encompasses the shortfall covered by the
existing $15 million parental guarantee. FENOC agreed to increase the parental guarantee to $95
million within 90 days of the submittal.
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 March
31, 2011, the largest credit concentration was with J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., which is currently
rated investment grade, representing 13.4% of FirstEnergys total approved credit risk comprised of
5.9% for FES, 2.1% for JCP&L, 2.7% for Met-Ed and a combined 2.7% for OE, TE and CEI.
OUTLOOK
Reliability Initiatives
Federally-enforceable mandatory reliability standards apply to the bulk electric system and impose
certain operating, record-keeping and reporting requirements on the Utilities, FES, FGCO, FENOC,
and ATSI and TrAIL Company. The NERC, as the ERO is charged with establishing and enforcing these
reliability standards, although it 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 generally is in compliance with all currently-effective and
enforceable reliability standards. Nevertheless, in the course of operating its extensive electric
utility systems and facilities, FirstEnergy occasionally learns of isolated facts or circumstances
that could be interpreted as excursions from the reliability standards. If and when such items are
found, FirstEnergy develops information about the item and develops a remedial response to the
specific circumstances, including in appropriate cases self-reporting an item to
ReliabilityFirst. Moreover, it is clear 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.
101
On August 23, 2010, FirstEnergy self-reported to ReliabilityFirst a vegetation encroachment event
on a Met-Ed 230 kV line. This event did not result in a fault, outage, operation of protective
equipment, or any other meaningful electric effect on any FirstEnergy transmission facilities or
systems. On August 25, 2010, ReliabilityFirst issued a Notice of Enforcement to investigate the
incident. FirstEnergy submitted a data response to ReliabilityFirst on September 27, 2010. In
March 2011, ReliabilityFirst submitted its proposed findings and settlement. At this time,
FirstEnergy is evaluating ReliabilityFirsts proposal and is unable to predict the final outcome of
this investigation.
Allegheny has been subject to routine audits with respect to its compliance with applicable
reliability standards and has settled certain related issues. In addition, ReliabilityFirst is
currently conducting certain violation investigations with regard to matters of compliance by
Allegheny.
Maryland
In 1999, Maryland adopted electric industry restructuring legislation, which gave PEs Maryland
retail electric customers the right to choose their electricity generation suppliers. PE remained
obligated to provide standard offer generation service (SOS) at capped rates to residential and
non-residential customers for various periods. The longest such period, for residential customers,
expired on December 31, 2008. PE implemented a rate stabilization plan in 2007 that was designed
to transition customers from capped generation rates to rates based on market prices and that
concluded on December 31, 2010. PEs transmission and distribution rates for all customers are
subject to traditional regulated utility ratemaking (i.e., cost-based rates).
By statute enacted in 2007, the obligation of Maryland utilities to provide SOS to residential and
small commercial customers, in exchange for recovery of their costs plus a reasonable profit, was
extended indefinitely. The legislation also established a five-year cycle (to begin in 2008) for
the MDPSC to report to the legislature on the status of SOS. In August 2007, PE filed a plan for
seeking bids to serve its Maryland residential load for the period after the expiration of rate
caps. The MDPSC approved the plan and PE now conducts rolling auctions to procure the power supply
necessary to serve its customer load. However, the terms on which PE will provide SOS to
residential customers after the settlement beyond 2012 will depend on developments with respect to SOS
in Maryland between now and then, including but not limited to possible MDPSC decisions in the
proceedings discussed below.
The MDPSC opened a new docket in August 2007 to consider matters relating to possible managed
portfolio approaches to SOS and other matters. Phase II of the case addressed utility purchases
or construction of generation, bidding for procurement of demand response resources and possible
alternatives if the TrAIL and PATH projects were delayed or defeated. It is unclear when the MDPSC
will issue its findings in this and other SOS-related pending proceedings discussed below.
In September 2009, the MDPSC opened a new proceeding to receive and consider proposals for
construction of new generation resources in Maryland. In December 2009, Governor Martin OMalley
filed a letter in this proceeding in which he characterized the electricity market in Maryland as a
failure and urged the MDPSC to use its existing authority to order the construction of new
generation in Maryland, vary the means used by utilities to procure generation and include more
renewables in the generation mix. In August 2010, the MDPSC opened another new proceeding to
solicit comments on the PJM RPM process. Public hearings on the comments were held in October 2010.
In December 2010, the MDPSC issued an order soliciting comments on a model request for proposal for
solicitation of long-term energy commitments by Maryland electric utilities. PE and numerous other
parties filed comments, and at this time no further proceedings have been set by the MDPSC in this
matter.
In September 2007, the MDPSC issued an order that required the Maryland utilities to file detailed
plans for how they will meet the EmPOWER Maryland proposal that, in Maryland, electric
consumption be reduced by 10% and electricity demand be reduced by 15%, in each case by 2015. In
October 2007, PE filed its initial report on energy efficiency, conservation and demand reduction
plans in connection with this order. The MDPSC conducted hearings on PEs and other utilities
plans in November 2007 and May 2008.
In a related development, the Maryland legislature in 2008 adopted a statute codifying the EmPOWER
Maryland goals. In 2008, PE filed its comprehensive plans for attempting to achieve those goals,
asking the MDPSC to approve programs for residential, commercial, industrial, and governmental
customers, as well as a customer education program, and a pilot deployment of Advanced Utility
Infrastructure (AUI) that Allegheny had previously tested in West Virginia. The MDPSC ultimately
approved the programs in August 2009 after certain modifications had been made as required by the
MDPSC, and approved cost recovery for the programs in October 2009. Expenditures were estimated to
be approximately $101 million and would be recovered over the following six years. The AUI pilot
was placed on a separate track to be re-examined after further discussion with the Staff of the
MDPSC and other stakeholders. Meanwhile, extensive meetings with the MDPSC Staff and other
stakeholders to discuss details of PEs plans for additional and improved programs for the period
2012-2014 began in April 2011.
102
In March 2009, the Maryland PSC issued an order suspending until further notice the right of all
electric and gas utilities in the state to terminate service to residential customers for
non-payment of bills. The MDPSC subsequently issued an order making various rule changes relating
to terminations, payment plans, and customer deposits that make it more difficult for Maryland
utilities to collect deposits or to terminate service for non-payment. PE and several other
utilities filed requests for reconsideration of various parts of the order, which were denied. The
MDPSC is continuing to conduct hearings and collect data on payment plan and related issues and has
adopted a set of proposed regulations that expand the summer and winter severe weather
termination moratoria when temperatures are very high or very low, from one day, as provided by
statute, to three days on each occurrence.
On March 24, 2011, the MDPSC held an initial hearing to discuss possible new regulations relating
to service interruptions, storm response, call center metrics, and related reliability standards.
The proposed rules included provisions for civil penalties for non-compliance. Numerous parties
filed comments on the proposed rules and participated in the hearing, with many noting issues of
cost and practicality relating to implementation. Concurrently, the Maryland legislature is
considering a bill addressing the same topics. The final bill passed on April 11, 2011, requires
the MDPSC to promulgate rules by July 1, 2012 that address service interruptions, downed wire
response, customer communication, vegetation management, equipment inspection, and annual
reporting. In crafting the regulations, the MDPSC is directed to consider cost-effectiveness, and
may adopt different standards for different utilities based on such factors as system design and
existing infrastructure, geography, and customer density. Beginning in July 2013, the MDPSC is to
assess each utilitys compliance with the standards, and may assess penalties of up to $25,000 per
day per violation. The MDPSC has ordered that a working group of utilities, regulators, and other
interested stakeholders meet to address the topics of the proposed rules.
In December 2009, PE filed an application with the MDPSC for authorization to construct the
Maryland portions of the PATH Project to be owned by PATH Allegheny Maryland Transmission Company,
LLC, which is owned by Potomac Edison and PATH-Allegheny. On February 28, 2011, PE withdrew its
application. See Transmission Expansion in the Federal Regulation and Rate Matters section for
further discussion of this matter.
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 NUG rates and market sales of NUG energy
and capacity. As of March 31, 2011, the accumulated deferred cost balance was a credit of
approximately $102 million. To better align the recovery of expected costs, in July 2010, JCP&L
filed a request to decrease the amount recovered for the costs incurred under the NUG agreements by
$180 million annually, which the NJBPU approved, allowing the change in rates to become effective
March 1, 2011.
In March 2009 and again in February 2010, JCP&L filed annual SBC Petitions with the NJBPU that
included a requested zero 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).
Both matters are currently pending before the NJBPU.
Ohio
The Ohio Companies operate under an ESP, which expires on May 31, 2011, that provides for
generation supplied through a CBP. The 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 May 2009 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).
In March 2010, the Ohio Companies filed an application for a new ESP, which the PUCO approved in
August 2010, with certain modifications. The new ESP will go into effect on June 1, 2011 and
conclude on May 31, 2014. The material terms of the new ESP include: a CBP similar to the one
used in May 2009 and the one proposed on the October 2009 MRO filing (initial auctions held on
October 20, 2010 and January 25, 2011); a load cap of no less than 80%, which also applies to
tranches assigned post-auction; 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.
Rider DCR substitutes for Rider DSI which terminates under the current ESP. The Ohio Companies
also agreed not to recover from retail customers certain costs related to the companies
integration into PJM for the longer of the five-year period from June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2015
or when the amount of costs avoided by customers for certain types of products totals $360 million
dependent on the outcome of certain PJM proceedings, agreed to establish a $12 million fund to
assist low income customers over the term of the ESP and agreed to additional matters related to
energy efficiency and alternative energy requirements. Many of the existing riders approved in the
previous ESP remain in effect, with some modifications. The new ESP resolved proceedings pending
at the PUCO regarding corporate separation, elements of the smart grid proceeding and expenses
related to the ESP.
103
Under the provisions of SB221, the Ohio Companies are required to implement energy efficiency
programs that will achieve a total annual energy savings equivalent to 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.
In December 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. The Ohio Companies expect that all costs associated with
compliance will be recoverable from customers. The PUCO issued an Opinion and Order generally
approving the Ohio Companies 3-year plan, and the Companies are in the process of implementing
those programs included in the Plan. Because of the delay in issuing the Order, the launch of the
programs included in the plan for 2010 was delayed and will launch during the second quarter of
this year. As a result, OE fell short of its statutory 2010 energy efficiency and peak
demand reduction benchmarks. Therefore, on January 11, 2011, it requested that its 2010 energy
efficiency and peak demand reduction benchmarks be amended to actual levels achieved in 2010.
Moreover, because the PUCO indicated, when approving the 2009 benchmark request, that it
would modify the Companies 2010 (and 2011 and 2012) energy efficiency benchmarks when addressing
the portfolio plan, the Ohio Companies were not certain of their 2010 energy efficiency
obligations. Therefore, CEI and TE (each of which achieved its 2010 energy efficiency
and peak demand reduction statutory benchmarks) also requested an amendment if and only to the
degree one was deemed necessary to bring these them into compliance with their yet-to-be-defined
modified benchmarks. Failure to comply with the benchmarks or to obtain such an amendment may
subject the Companies to an assessment by the PUCO of a penalty. In addition to approving the
programs included in the plan, with only minor modifications, the PUCO authorized the
Companies to recover all costs related to the original CFL program that the Ohio Companies had
previously suspended at the request of the PUCO. Applications for Rehearing were filed on April
22, 2011, regarding portions of the PUCOs decision, including the method for calculating
savings and certain changes made by the PUCO to specific programs.
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 served 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 were used to help meet the renewable energy requirements established under
SB221 for 2009, 2010 and 2011. In March 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 Ohio Companies 2010 alternative energy requirements be
increased to include the shortfall for the 2009 solar REC benchmark. FES also applied for a force
majeure determination from the PUCO regarding a portion of their compliance with the 2009 solar
energy resource benchmark. On February 23, 2011, the PUCO granted FES force majeure request for
2009 and increased its 2010 benchmark by the amount of SRECs that FES was short of in its 2009
benchmark. In July 2010, the Ohio Companies initiated an additional RFP to secure RECs and solar
RECs needed to meet the Ohio Companies alternative energy requirements as set forth in SB221 for
2010 and 2011 and executed related contracts in August 2010. On April 15, 2011, the Ohio Companies
filed an application seeking an amendment to each of their 2010 alternative energy requirements for
solar RECs generated in Ohio on the basis that an insufficient quantity of solar resources are
available in the market but reflecting solar RECs that they have obtained and providing additional
information regarding efforts to secure solar RECs. The PUCO has not yet acted on that
application.
In February 2010, OE and CEI filed an application with the PUCO to establish a new credit for
all-electric customers. In March 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 in March 2010. In
April 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 it expected 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 in May 2010 and the
proceeding remains open. The hearing on the matter was held in February 2011. The matter has
now been briefed and the Ohio Companies await the PUCOs decision.
104
Pennsylvania
The PPUC entered an Order on March 3, 2010 that denied the recovery of marginal transmission losses
through the TSC rider for the period of June 1, 2007 through March 31, 2008, directed Met-Ed and
Penelec to submit a new tariff or tariff supplement reflecting the removal of marginal transmission
losses from the TSC, and instructed 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. In March 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 costs for marginal transmission losses. The PPUC
granted the requested stay until December 31, 2010. Pursuant to the PPUCs order, Met-Ed and
Penelec filed plans to establish separate accounts for marginal transmission loss revenues and
related interest and carrying charges and for the use of these funds to mitigate future generation
rate increases which the PPUC approved. In April 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a Petition for
Review with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania appealing the PPUCs March 3, 2010 Order. The
argument before the Commonwealth Court, en banc, was held in December 2010. Although the ultimate
outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time, Met-Ed and Penelec believe that they
should prevail in the appeal and therefore expect to fully recover the approximately $252.7 million
($188.0 million for Met-Ed and $64.7 million for Penelec) in marginal transmission losses for the
period prior to January 1, 2011.
In May 2008, May 2009 and May 2010, the PPUC approved Met-Eds and Penelecs annual updates to
their TSC rider for the annual periods between June 1, 2008 to 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
PPUCs approval in May 2010 authorized an increase to the TSC for Met-Eds customers to provide for
full recovery by December 31, 2010.
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 through a
prudent mix of long-term, short-term and spot market generation supply with a staggered procurement
schedule that varies by customer class, using a descending clock auction. In August 2009, the
parties to the proceeding filed a settlement agreement of all but two issues, and the PPUC entered
an Order approving the settlement and the generation procurement plan in November 2009. Generation
procurement began in January 2010.
In February 2010, Penn filed a Petition for Approval of its Default Service Plan for the period
June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2013. In July 2010, the parties to the proceeding filed a Joint
Petition for Settlement of all issues. Although the PPUCs Order approving the Joint Petition held
that the provisions relating to the recovery of MISO exit fees and one-time PJM integration costs
(resulting from Penns June 1, 2011 exit from MISO and integration into PJM) were approved, it made
such provisions subject to the approval of cost recovery by FERC. Therefore, Penn may not put these
provisions into effect until FERC has approved the recovery and allocation of MISO exit fees and
PJM integration costs.
Pennsylvania adopted Act 129 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. Act 129 also required utilities to file with the
PPUC a Smart Meter Implementation Plan (SMIP).
The PPUC entered an Order in February 2010 giving final approval to all aspects of the EE&C Plans
of Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn and the tariff rider with rates effective March 1, 2010.
WP filed its original EE&C Plan in June 2009, which the PPUC approved, in large part, by Opinion
and Order entered in October 2009. In November 2009, the Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA) filed an
appeal with the Commonwealth Court of the PPUCs October Order. The OCA
contends that the PPUCs Order failed to include WPs costs for smart meter implementation in the
EE&C Plan, and that inclusion of such costs would cause the EE&C Plan to exceed the statutory cap
for EE&C expenditures. The OCA also contends that WPs EE&C plan does not meet the Total Resource Cost
Test. The appeal remains pending but has been stayed by the Commonwealth Court pending possible
settlement of WPs SMIP. In September, 2010, WP filed an amended EE&C
Plan that is less reliant on smart meter deployment, which the PPUC approved in January 2011.
105
Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn jointly filed a SMIP with the PPUC in August 2009. This plan proposed 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 of
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 SMIP as modified by
the ALJ, including: ensuring that the smart meters to be deployed include the capabilities listed
in the PPUCs Implementation Order; denying the recovery of interest through the automatic
adjustment clause; providing for the recovery of reasonable and prudent costs net of resulting
savings from installation and use of smart meters; and requiring that administrative start-up costs
be expensed and the costs incurred for research and development in the assessment period be
capitalized. In April 2010, the PPUC adopted a Motion by Chairman Cawley that modified the ALJs
initial decision, and decided various issues regarding the SMIP for Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn. The
PPUC entered its Order in June 2010, consistent with the Chairmans Motion. Met-Ed, Penelec and
Penn filed a Petition for Reconsideration of a single portion of the PPUCs Order regarding the
future ability to include smart meter costs in base rates, which the PPUC granted in part by
deleting language from its original order that would have precluded Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn from
seeking to include smart meter costs in base rates at a later time. The costs to implement the
SMIP could be material. However, assuming these costs satisfy a just and reasonable standard, they
are expected to be recovered in a rider (Smart Meter Technologies Charge Rider) which was approved
when the PPUC approved the SMIP.
In August 2009, WP filed its original SMIP, which provided for extensive deployment of smart meter
infrastructure with replacement of all of WPs approximately 725,000 meters by the end of 2014. In
December 2009, WP filed a motion to reopen the evidentiary record to submit an alternative smart
meter plan proposing, among other things, a less-rapid deployment of smart meters. In an Initial
Decision dated April 29, 2010, an ALJ determined that WPs alternative smart meter deployment plan,
which contemplated deployment of 375,000 smart meters by May 2012, complied with the requirements
of Act 129 and recommended approval of the alternative plan, including WPs proposed cost recovery
mechanism.
In light of the significant expenditures that would be associated with its smart meter deployment
plans and related infrastructure upgrades, as well as its evaluation of recent PPUC decisions
approving less-rapid deployment proposals by other utilities, WP re-evaluated its Act 129
compliance strategy, including both its plans with respect to smart meter deployment and certain
smart meter dependent aspects of the EE&C Plan. In October 2010, WP and Pennsylvanias Office of
Consumer Advocate filed a Joint Petition for Settlement addressing WPs smart meter implementation
plan with the PPUC. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, WP proposed to decelerate its
previously contemplated smart meter deployment schedule and to target the installation of
approximately 25,000 smart meters in support of its EE&C Plan, based on customer requests, by
mid-2012. The proposed settlement also contemplates that WP take advantage of the 30-month grace
period authorized by the PPUC to continue WPs efforts to re-evaluate full-scale smart meter
deployment plans. WP currently anticipates filing its plan for full-scale deployment of smart
meters in June 2012. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, WP would be permitted to recover
certain previously incurred and anticipated smart-meter related expenditures through a levelized
customer surcharge, with certain expenditures amortized over a ten-year period. Additionally, WP
would be permitted to seek recovery of certain other costs as part of its revised SMIP that it
currently intends to file in June 2012, or in a future base distribution rate case.
In December 2010, the PPUC directed that the SMIP proceeding be referred to the ALJ for further
proceedings to ensure that the impact of the proposed merger with FirstEnergy is considered and
that the Joint Petition for Settlement has adequate support in the record. On March 9, 2011, WP
submitted an Amended Joint Petition for Settlement which restates the Joint Petition for Settlement
filed in October 2010, adds the PPUCs Office of Trial Staff as a signatory party, and confirms the
support or non-opposition of all parties to the settlement. The
proposed settlement also obligates OCA to
withdraw its November 2009 appeal of the PPUCs Order in WPs EE&C plan proceeding. A Joint
Stipulation with the OSBA was also filed on March 9, 2011. The proposed settlement remains subject
to review by the ALJ, who will prepare an Initial Decision for consideration by the PPUC.
By Tentative Order entered in September 2009, the PPUC provided for an additional 30-day comment
period on whether the 1998 Restructuring Settlement, which addressed how Met-Ed and Penelec were
going to implement direct access to a competitive market for the generation of electricity, 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.
In the PPUC Order approving the FirstEnergy and Allegheny merger, the PPUC announced that a
separate statewide investigation into Pennsylvanias retail electricity market will be conducted
with the goal of making recommendations for improvements to ensure that a properly functioning and
workable competitive retail electricity market exists in the state. The PPUC has not yet initiated
that investigation.
106
Virginia
In September 2010, PATH-VA filed an application with the Virginia SCC for authorization to
construct the Virginia portions of the PATH Project. On February 28, 2011, PATH-VA filed a motion
to withdraw the application. See Transmission Expansion in the Federal Regulation and Rate
Matters section for further discussion of this matter.
West Virginia
In August 2009, MP and PE filed with the WVPSC a request to increase retail rates by approximately
$122.1 million annually, effective June 10, 2010. In January 2010, MP and PE filed supplemental
testimony discussing a tax treatment change that would result in a revenue requirement
approximately $7.7 million lower than the requirement included in the original filing. In addition,
in December 2009, subsidiaries of MP and PE completed a securitization transaction to finance
certain costs associated with the installation of scrubbers at the Fort Martin generating station,
which costs would otherwise have been included in the request for rate recovery. Consequently, MP
and PE ultimately requested an annual increase in retail rates of approximately $95 million, rather than
$122.1 million. In April 2010, MP and PE filed with the WVPSC a Joint Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement reached with the other parties in the proceeding that provided for:
|
|
|
a $40 million annualized base rate increase effective June 29, 2010; |
|
|
|
a deferral of February 2010 storm restoration expenses in West Virginia over a
maximum five-year period; |
|
|
|
an additional $20 million annualized base rate increase effective in January 2011; |
|
|
|
a decrease of $20 million in ENEC rates effective January 2011, which amount is
deferred for later recovery in 2012; and |
|
|
|
a moratorium on filing for further increases in base rates before December 1, 2011,
except under specified circumstances. |
The WVPSC approved the Joint Petition and Agreement of Settlement in June 2010.
In 2009, the West Virginia Legislature enacted the Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Act
(Portfolio Act), which generally requires that a specified minimum percentage of electricity sold
to retail customers in West Virginia by electric utilities each year be derived from alternative
and renewable energy resources according to a predetermined schedule of increasing percentage
targets, including ten percent by 2015, fifteen percent by 2020, and twenty-five percent by 2025.
In November 2010, the WVPSC issued Rules Governing Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio
Standard (RPS Rules), which became effective on January 4, 2011. Under the RPS Rules, on or before
January 1, 2011, each electric utility subject to the provisions of this rule was required to
prepare an alternative and renewable energy portfolio standard compliance plan and file an
application with the WVPSC seeking approval of such plan. MP and PE filed their combined
compliance plan in December 2010. Additionally, in January 2011, MP and PE filed an application
with the WVPSC seeking to certify three facilities as Qualified Energy Resource Facilities. If
the application is approved, the three facilities would then be capable of generating renewable
credits which would assist the Companies in meeting their combined requirements under the Portfolio
Act. Further, in February 2011, MP and PE filed a petition with
the WVPSC seeking an Order
declaring that MP is entitled to all alternative & renewable energy resource credits associated
with the electric energy, or energy and capacity, that MP is required to purchase pursuant to
electric energy purchase agreements between MP and three non-utility electric generating facilities
in WV. The City of New Martinsville, the owner of one of the contracted resources, has filed an
opposition to the Petition.
FERC Matters
Rates for Transmission Service Between MISO and PJM
In November 2004, the FERC issued an order eliminating the through and out rate for transmission
service between the MISO and PJM regions. The FERCs intent was to eliminate multiple transmission
charges for a single transaction between the MISO and PJM regions. The FERC also ordered MISO, PJM
and the transmission owners within MISO and PJM to submit compliance filings containing a rate
mechanism to recover lost transmission revenues created by elimination of this charge (referred to
as SECA) during a 16-month transition period. In 2005, the FERC set the SECA for hearing. The
presiding ALJ issued an initial decision in August 2006, rejecting the compliance filings made by
MISO, PJM and the transmission owners, and directing new compliance filings. This decision was
subject to review and approval by the FERC. In May 2010, FERC issued an order denying pending
rehearing requests and an Order on Initial Decision which reversed the presiding ALJs rulings in
many respects. Most notably, these orders affirmed the right of transmission owners to collect
SECA charges with adjustments that modestly reduce the level of such charges, and changes to the
entities deemed responsible for payment of the SECA charges. The Ohio Companies were identified as
load serving entities responsible for payment of additional SECA charges for a portion of the SECA
period (Green Mountain/Quest issue). FirstEnergy executed settlements with AEP, Dayton and the
Exelon parties to fix FirstEnergys liability for SECA charges originally billed to Green Mountain
and Quest for load that returned to regulated service during the SECA period. The AEP, Dayton and
Exelon, settlements were approved by the FERC in November 2010, and the relevant payments made.
The Utilities have refund obligations that are under review by FERC as part of a compliance
filing. Potential refund obligations of FirstEnergy are not expected to be material. Rehearings
remain pending in this proceeding.
107
PJM Transmission Rate
In April 2007, 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, 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 (DFAX), which is generally referred to as a beneficiary pays approach to
allocating the cost of high voltage transmission facilities.
The FERCs Opinion 494 order was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,
which issued a decision in August 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 and then
reply comments on later dates. 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 the 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. This
matter is awaiting action by the FERC.
RTO Realignment
On February 1, 2011, ATSI in conjunction with PJM filed its proposal with FERC for moving its
transmission rate into PJMs tariffs. FirstEnergy expects ATSI to enter PJM on June 1, 2011, and
that if legal proceedings regarding its rate are outstanding at that time, ATSI will be permitted
to start charging its proposed rates, subject to refund. On April 1, 2011, the MISO Transmission
Owners (including ATSI) filed proposed tariff language that describes the mechanics of collecting
and administering MTEP costs from ATSI-zone ratepayers. From March 20, 2011 through April 1, 2011,
FirstEnergy, PJM and the MISO submitted numerous filings for the purpose of effecting movement of
the ATSI zone to PJM on June 1, 2011. These filings include clean-up of the MISOs tariffs (to
remove the ATSI zone), submission of load and generation interconnection agreements to reflect the
move into PJM, and submission of changes to PJMs tariffs to support the move into PJM.
FERC proceedings are pending in which ATSIs transmission rate, the exit fee payable to MISO,
transmission cost allocations and costs associated with long term firm transmission rights payable
by the ATSI zone upon its departure from the MISO are under review. The outcome of these
proceedings cannot be predicted.
MISO Multi-Value Project Rule Proposal
In July 2010, MISO and certain MISO transmission owners jointly filed with FERC their proposed cost
allocation methodology for certain new transmission projects. The new transmission
projectsdescribed as MVPsare a class of MTEP projects. The filing parties proposed to allocate
the costs of MVPs by means of a usage-based charge that will be applied to all loads within the
MISO footprint, and to energy transactions that call for power to be wheeled through the MISO as
well as to energy transactions that source in the MISO but sink outside of MISO. The filing
parties expect that the MVP proposal will fund the costs of large transmission projects designed to
bring wind generation from the upper Midwest to load centers in the east. The filing parties
requested an effective date for the proposal of July 16, 2011. On August 19, 2010, MISOs Board
approved the first MVP project the Michigan Thumb Project. Under MISOs proposal, the costs of
MVP projects approved by MISOs Board prior to the anticipated June 1, 2011 effective date of
FirstEnergys integration into PJM would continue to be allocated to FirstEnergy. MISO estimated
that approximately $15 million in annual revenue requirements would be allocated to the ATSI zone
associated with the Michigan Thumb Project upon its completion.
In September 2010, FirstEnergy filed a protest to the MVP proposal arguing that MISOs proposal to
allocate costs of MVP projects across the entire MISO footprint does not align with the established
rule that cost allocation is to be based on cost causation (the beneficiary pays approach).
FirstEnergy also argued that, in light of progress to date in the ATSI integration into PJM, it
would be unjust and unreasonable to allocate any MVP costs to the ATSI zone, or to ATSI. Numerous
other parties filed pleadings on MISOs MVP proposal.
108
In December 2010, FERC issued an order approving the MVP proposal without significant change.
FERCs order was not clear, however, as to whether the MVP costs would be payable by ATSI or load
in the ATSI zone. FERC stated that the MISOs tariffs obligate ATSI to pay all charges that attach
prior to ATSIs exit but ruled that the question of the amount of costs that are to be allocated to
ATSI or to load in the ATSI zone were beyond the scope of FERCs order and would be addressed in
future proceedings.
On January 18, 2011, FirstEnergy filed for rehearing of FERCs order. In its rehearing request,
FirstEnergy argued that because the MVP rate is usage-based, costs could not be applied to ATSI,
which is a stand-alone transmission company that does not use the transmission system. FirstEnergy
also renewed its arguments regarding cost causation and the impropriety of allocating costs to the
ATSI zone or to ATSI. FirstEnergy cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings at this time.
PJM Calculation Error
In March 2010, MISO filed two complaints at FERC against PJM relating to a previously-reported
modeling error in PJMs system that impacted the manner in which market-to-market power flow
calculations were made between PJM and MISO since April 2005. MISO claimed that this error
resulted in PJM underpaying MISO by approximately $130 million over the time period in question.
Additionally, MISO alleged that PJM did not properly trigger market-to-market settlements between
PJM and MISO during times when it was required to do so, which MISO claimed may have cost it $5
million or more. As PJM market participants, AE Supply and MP may be liable for a portion of any
refunds ordered in this case. PJM, Allegheny and other PJM market participants filed responses to
MISO complaints and PJM filed a related complaint at FERC against MISO claiming that MISO
improperly called for market-to-market settlements several times during the same time period
covered by the two MISO complaints filed against PJM, which PJM claimed may have cost PJM market
participants $25 million or more. On January 4, 2011, an Offer of Settlement was filed at FERC
that, if approved, would resolve all pending issues in the dispute. The Offer of Settlement calls
for the withdrawal of all pending complaints with no payments being made by any parties. Initial
comments on the Offer of Settlement were filed at FERC on
January 24, 2011. FirstEnergy and
Allegheny Energy filed comments supporting the proposed settlement. A report on the partially
contested settlement was issued by the settlement judge to the FERC on March 9, 2011. On March 16,
2011, the settlement judge terminated the settlement proceedings and forwarded the partially
contested settlement to the FERC for review. The case is awaiting a decision by the FERC.
California Claims Matters
In October 2006, several California governmental and utility parties presented AE Supply with a
settlement proposal to resolve alleged overcharges for power sales by AE Supply to the California
Energy Resource Scheduling division of the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) during
2001. The settlement proposal claims that CDWR is owed approximately $190 million for these alleged
overcharges. This proposal was made in the context of mediation efforts by the FERC and the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in pending proceedings to resolve all outstanding
refund and other claims, including claims of alleged price manipulation in the California energy
markets during 2000 and 2001. The Ninth Circuit has since remanded one of those proceedings to the
FERC, which arises out of claims previously filed with the FERC by the California Attorney General
on behalf of certain California parties against various sellers in the California wholesale power
market, including AE Supply (the Lockyer case). AE Supply and several other sellers have filed
motions to dismiss the Lockyer case. In March 2010, the judge assigned to the case entered an
opinion that granted the motions to dismiss filed by AE Supply and other sellers and dismissed the
claims of the California Parties. In April 2010, the California parties filed exceptions to the
judges ruling with the FERC, and briefing is complete on those exceptions. The parties are
awaiting a ruling from the FERC on the exceptions.
In June 2009, the California Attorney General, on behalf of certain California parties, filed a
second lawsuit with the FERC against various sellers, including AE Supply (the Brown case), again
seeking refunds for trades in the California energy markets during 2000 and 2001. The above-noted
trades with CDWR are the basis for the joining of AE Supply in this new lawsuit. AE Supply has
filed a motion to dismiss the Brown case that is pending before the FERC. No scheduling order has
been entered in the Brown case. Allegheny intends to vigorously defend against these claims but
cannot predict their outcome.
Transmission Expansion
TrAIL Project. TrAIL is a 500 kV transmission line currently under construction that will extend
from southwest Pennsylvania through West Virginia and into northern Virginia. On April 15, 2011,
the TrAIL 500 kV line segment from Meadowbrook substation to Loudoun substation in Virginia was
successfully energized and is carrying load. The other segments are planned to be energized in May.
The entire TrAIL line is scheduled to be completed and placed in service no later than June 2011.
PATH Project. The PATH Project is comprised of a 765 kV transmission line that is proposed to
extend from West Virginia through Virginia and into Maryland, modifications to an existing
substation in Putnam County, West Virginia, and the construction of new substations in Hardy
County, West Virginia and Frederick County, Maryland.
109
PJM initially authorized construction of the PATH Project in June 2007 and, on June 17, 2010,
requested that PATH, LLC proceed with all efforts related to the PATH Project, including state
regulatory proceedings, assuming a required in-service date of June 1, 2015. In December 2010, PJM
advised that its 2011 Load Forecast Report included load projections that are different from
previous forecasts and that may have an impact on the proposed in-service date for the PATH
Project. As part of its 2011 RTEP, and in response to a January 19, 2011 directive by a Virginia
Hearing Examiner, PJM conducted a series of analyses using the most current economic forecasts and
demand response commitments, as well as potential new generation resources. Preliminary analysis
revealed the expected reliability violations that necessitated the PATH Project had moved several
years into the future. Based on those results, PJM announced on February 28, 2011 that its Board
of Managers had decided to hold the PATH Project in abeyance in its 2011 RTEP and directed
FirstEnergy and AEP, as the sponsoring transmission owners, to suspend current development efforts
on the project, subject to those activities necessary to maintain the project in its current state,
while PJM conducts more rigorous analysis of the potential need for the project as part of its
continuing RTEP process. PJM stated that its action did not constitute a directive to FirstEnergy
and AEP to cancel or abandon the PATH Project. PJM further stated that it will complete a more
rigorous analysis of the PATH Project and other transmission requirements and its Board will review
this comprehensive analysis as part of its consideration of the 2011 RTEP. On February 28, 2011,
affiliates of FirstEnergy and AEP filed motions or notices to withdraw applications for
authorization to construct the project that were pending before state commissions in West Virginia,
Virginia and Maryland. Withdrawal was deemed effective upon filing the notice with the MDPSC and
the WVPSC has granted the motion to withdraw. The VSCC has not ruled on the motion to withdraw.
PATH, LLC submitted a filing to FERC to implement a formula rate tariff effective March 1, 2008.
In a November 19, 2010 order addressing various matters relating to the formula rate, FERC set the
projects base return on equity for hearing and reaffirmed its prior authorization of a return on
CWIP, recovery of start-up costs and recovery of abandonment costs. In the order, FERC also
granted a 1.5% return on equity incentive adder and a 0.50% return on equity adder for RTO
participation. These adders will be applied to the base return on equity determined as a result of
the hearing. PATH, LLC is currently engaged in settlement discussions with the staff of FERC and
intervenors regarding resolution of the base return on equity. FirstEnergy cannot predict the
outcome of this proceeding or whether it will have a material impact on its operating results.
Sales to Affiliates
FES has received authorization from the FERC to make wholesale power sales to affiliated regulated
utilities in New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. FES actively participates in auctions conducted
by or on behalf the regulated affiliates to obtain power necessary to meet the utilities POLR
obligations. AE Supply, a merchant affiliate acquired in the FirstEnergy-Allegheny merger, also
participates in these auctions, and obtains prior FERC authorization when necessary to make sales
to FE affiliates.
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 SIP(s) 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, 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 in accordance with that agreement.
In July 2008, three complaints were filed against FGCO in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania 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. FGCO believes the claims are without
merit and intends to defend itself against the allegations made in these three complaints.
110
The states of New Jersey and Connecticut filed CAA citizen suits in 2007 alleging NSR violations at
the Portland Generation Station against GenOn Energy, Inc. (formerly RRI Energy, Inc. and the
current owner and operator), Sithe Energy (the purchaser of the Portland Station from Met-Ed in
1999) and Met-Ed. Specifically, these suits allege that modifications at Portland Units 1 and 2
occurred between 1980 and 2005 without preconstruction NSR permitting in violation of 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, and Met-Ed is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
In January 2009, the EPA issued a NOV to GenOn Energy, Inc. 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.
(Mission) alleging that modifications at the Homer City Power Station occurred from 1988 to the
present without preconstruction NSR permitting in violation of the CAAs PSD program. In May 2010,
the EPA issued a second NOV to Mission, Penelec, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation and
others that have had an ownership interest in the Homer City Power Station containing in all
material respects allegations identical to those included in the June 2008 NOV. On July 20, 2010,
the states of New York and Pennsylvania provided Mission, Penelec, NYSEG and others that have had
an ownership interest in the Homer City Power Station a notification that was required 60 days
prior to filing a citizen suit under the CAA. In January 2011, the DOJ filed a complaint against
Penelec in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking injunctive
relief against Penelec based on alleged modifications at the Homer City Power Station between
1991 to 1994 without preconstruction NSR permitting in violation of the CAAs PSD and Title V
permitting programs. The complaint was also filed against the former co-owner, New York State
Electric and Gas Corporation, and various current owners of the Homer City Station, including EME
Homer City Generation L.P. and affiliated companies, including Edison International. In January
2011, another complaint was filed against Penelec and the other entities described above in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on the Homer
City Stations air emissions as well as certification as a class action and to enjoin the Homer
City Station from operating except in a safe, responsible, prudent and proper manner. Penelec
believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself against the allegations made in
the complaint, but, at this time, is unable to predict the outcome of this matter. In addition, the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the States of New Jersey and New York intervened and have filed
separate complaints regarding the Homer City Station seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties.
Mission 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
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 maintenance at the Eastlake generating plant may
constitute a major modification under the NSR provision of the CAA. Later in 2009, FGCO also
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.
In August 2000, AE received a letter from the EPA requesting that it provide information and
documentation relevant to the operation and maintenance of the following ten electric generation
facilities, which collectively include 22 generation units: Albright, Armstrong, Fort Martin,
Harrison, Hatfields Ferry, Mitchell, Pleasants, Rivesville, R. Paul Smith and Willow Island. The
letter requested information under Section 114 of the CAA to determine compliance with the CAA and
related requirements, including potential application of the NSR standards under the CAA, which can
require the installation of additional air emission control equipment when the major modification
of an existing facility results in an increase in emissions. AE has provided responsive information
to this and a subsequent request but is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
In May 2004, AE, AE Supply, MP and WP received a Notice of Intent to Sue Pursuant to CAA §7604 from
the Attorneys General of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut and from the PA DEP, alleging that
Allegheny performed major modifications in violation of the PSD provisions of the CAA at the
following West Virginia coal-fired facilities: Albright Unit 3; Fort Martin Units 1 and 2; Harrison
Units 1, 2 and 3; Pleasants Units 1 and 2 and Willow Island Unit 2. The Notice also alleged PSD
violations at the Armstrong, Hatfields Ferry and Mitchell generation facilities in Pennsylvania
and identifies PA DEP as the lead agency regarding those facilities. In September 2004, AE, AE
Supply, MP and WP received a separate Notice of Intent to Sue from the Maryland Attorney General
that essentially mirrored the previous Notice.
111
In June 2005, the PA DEP and the Attorneys General of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and
Maryland filed suit against AE, AE Supply, MP, PE and WP in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging, among other things, that Allegheny performed major
modifications in violation of the CAA and the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act at the
Hatfields Ferry, Armstrong and Mitchell facilities in Pennsylvania. On January 17, 2006, the PA
DEP and the Attorneys General filed an amended complaint. In May 2006, the District Court denied
Alleghenys motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In July 2006, the Court determined that
discovery would proceed regarding liability issues, but not remedies. Discovery on the liability
phase closed on December 31, 2007, and summary judgment briefing was completed during the first
quarter of 2008. In November 2008, the District Court issued a Memorandum Order denying all
motions for summary judgment and establishing certain legal standards to govern at trial. In
December 2009, a new trial judge was assigned to the case, who then entered an order granting a
motion to reconsider the rulings in the November 2008 Memorandum Order. In April 2010, the new
judge issued an opinion, again denying all motions for summary judgment and establishing certain
legal standards to govern at trial. The non-jury trial on liability only was held in September
2010. Plaintiffs filed their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in December 2010,
Allegheny made its related filings in February 2011 and plaintiffs filed their responses in April
2011. The parties are awaiting a decision from the District Court, but there is no deadline for
that decision.
In September 2007, Allegheny also received a NOV from the EPA alleging NSR and PSD violations under
the CAA, as well as Pennsylvania and West Virginia state laws at the Hatfields Ferry and Armstrong
generation facilities in Pennsylvania and the Fort Martin and Willow Island generation facilities
in West Virginia.
FirstEnergy intends to vigorously defend against the CAA matters described above but cannot predict
their outcomes.
State Air Quality Compliance
In early 2006, Maryland passed the Healthy Air Act, which imposes state-wide emission caps on
SO2 and NOX, requires mercury emission reductions and mandates that Maryland
join the RGGI and participate in that coalitions regional efforts to reduce CO2
emissions. On April 20, 2007, Maryland became the 10th state to join the RGGI. The Healthy Air Act
provides a conditional exemption for the R. Paul Smith power station for NOX,
SO2 and mercury, based on a PJM declaration that the station is vital to reliability in
the Baltimore/Washington DC metropolitan area, which PJM determined in 2006. Pursuant to the
legislation, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) passed alternate NOX
and SO2 limits for R. Paul Smith, which became effective in April 2009. However, R. Paul
Smith is still required to meet the Healthy Air Act mercury reductions of 80% beginning in 2010.
The statutory exemption does not extend to R. Paul Smiths CO2 emissions. Maryland
issued final regulations to implement RGGI requirements in February 2008. Ten RGGI auctions have
been held through the end of calendar year 2010. RGGI allowances are also readily available in the
allowance markets, affording another mechanism by which to secure necessary allowances. On March
14, 2011, MDE requested PJM perform an analysis to determine if termination of operation at R. Paul
Smith would adversely impact the reliability of electrical service in the PJM region under current
system conditions. FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
In
January 2010, the WVDEP issued a NOV for opacity emissions at
Alleghenys Pleasants generating
facility. FirstEnergy is discussing with WVDEP steps to resolve the NOV including installing a
reagent injection system to reduce opacity.
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 Circuit 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 and severely
limits interstate trading of NOx and SO2 emission allowances. The EPA also requested
comment on 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, as disclosed herein, management
decided to idle certain units or operate them on a seasonal basis until developments clarify.
112
Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions
On March 16, 2011, the EPA released its MACT proposal to establish emission
standards for mercury, hydrochloric acid and various metals for electric generating units.
Depending on the action taken by the EPA and how any future regulations are ultimately implemented,
FirstEnergys future cost of compliance with MACT regulations may be substantial and changes to
FirstEnergys operations may result.
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, in June 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, proposals
to ensure that 10% of electricity used in the United States comes from renewable sources by 2012,
to increase to 25% by 2025, to implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce GHG
emissions by 80% by 2050. Certain states, primarily the northeastern states participating in the
RGGI and western states, led by California, have coordinated efforts to develop regional strategies
to control emissions of certain GHGs.
In September 2009, the EPA finalized a national GHG emissions collection and reporting rule that
required FirstEnergy to measure GHG emissions commencing in 2010 and will require it to 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 GHGs increase the threat of climate change and may be regulated as
air pollutants under the CAA. 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 would 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 CAAs NSR 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
PSD program. Until July 1, 2011, this emissions applicability threshold will only apply if PSD is
triggered by non-CO2 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 that
recognized the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below two degrees
Celsius; includes 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 establishes the
Copenhagen Green Climate Fund to support mitigation, adaptation, and other climate-related
activities in developing countries. To the extent that 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.
In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and 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.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Second Circuit.
Oral argument was held on April 19, 2011, and a decision is expected by July 2011. While
FirstEnergy is not a party to this litigation, 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 of its regional competitors due to its diversified generation
sources, which include low or non-CO2 emitting gas-fired and nuclear generators.
113
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, the states in which FirstEnergy
operates 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. In April 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. On March 28, 2011, the EPA released a new proposed regulation under Section 316(b) of
the Clean Water Act generally requiring fish impingement to be reduced to a 12% annual average and
studies to be conducted at the majority of our existing generating facilities to assist permitting
authorities to determine whether and what site-specific controls, if any, would be required to
reduce entrainment of aquatic life. 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. In November
2010, the Ohio EPA issued a 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
April 2011, the U.S. Attorneys Office in Cleveland, Ohio
advised FGCO that it is no longer 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. This matter has been referred back to
EPA for civil enforcement and FGCO is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
Monongahela River Water Quality
In late 2008, the PA DEP imposed water quality criteria for certain effluents, including TDS and
sulfate concentrations in the Monongahela River, on new and modified sources, including the
scrubber project at the Hatfields Ferry generation facility. These criteria are reflected in the
current PA DEP water discharge permit for that project. AE Supply appealed the PA DEPs permitting
decision, which would require it to incur significant costs or negatively affect its ability to
operate the scrubbers as designed. Preliminary studies indicate an initial capital investment in
excess of $150 million in order to install technology to meet the TDS and sulfate limits in the
permit. The permit has been independently appealed by Environmental Integrity Project and Citizens
Coal Council, which seeks to impose more stringent technology-based effluent limitations. Those
same parties have intervened in the appeal filed by AE Supply, and both appeals have been
consolidated for discovery purposes. An order has been entered that stays the permit limits that AE
Supply has challenged while the appeal is pending. The hearing is scheduled to begin on September
13, 2011. AE Supply intends to vigorously pursue these issues, but cannot predict the outcome of
these appeals.
In a parallel rulemaking, the PA DEP recommended, and in August 2010, the Pennsylvania
Environmental Quality Board issued, a final rule imposing end-of-pipe TDS effluent limitations.
FirstEnergy could incur significant costs for additional control equipment to meet the requirements
of this rule, although its provisions do not apply to electric generating units until the end of
2018, and then only if the EPA has not promulgated TDS effluent limitation guidelines applicable to
such units.
In December 2010, PA DEP submitted its Clean Water Act 303(d) list to the EPA with a recommended
sulfate impairment designation for an approximately 68 mile stretch of the Monongahela River north
of the West Virginia border. EPA has not acted on PA DEPs recommendation. If the designation is
approved, Pennsylvania will then need to develop a TMDL limit for the river, a process that will
take about five years. Based on the stringency of the TMDL, FirstEnergy may incur significant
costs to reduce sulfate discharges into the
Monongahela River from its Hatfields Ferry and Mitchell facilities in Pennsylvania and its Fort
Martin facility in West Virginia.
114
In October 2009, the WVDEP issued the water discharge permit for the Fort Martin generation
facility. Similar to the Hatfields Ferry water discharge permit issued for the scrubber project,
the Fort Martin permit imposes effluent limitations for TDS and sulfate concentrations. The permit
also imposes temperature limitations and other effluent limits for heavy metals that are not
contained in the Hatfields Ferry water permit. Concurrent with the issuance of the Fort Martin
permit, WVDEP also issued an administrative order that sets deadlines for MP to meet certain of the
effluent limits that are effective immediately under the terms of the permit. MP appealed the Fort
Martin permit and the administrative order. The appeal included a request to stay certain of the
conditions of the permit and order while the appeal is pending, which was granted pending a final
decision on appeal and subject to WVDEP moving to dissolve the stay. The appeals have been
consolidated. MP moved to dismiss certain of the permit conditions for the failure of the WVDEP to
submit those conditions for public review and comment during the permitting process. An agreed-upon
order that suspends further action on this appeal, pending WVDEPs release for public review and
comment on those conditions, was entered on August 11, 2010. The stay remains in effect during that
process. The current terms of the Fort Martin permit would require MP to incur significant costs or
negatively affect operations at Fort Martin. Preliminary information indicates an initial capital
investment in excess of the capital investment that may be needed at Hatfields Ferry in order to
install technology to meet the TDS and sulfate limits in the Fort Martin permit, which technology
may also meet certain of the other effluent limits in the permit. Additional technology may be
needed to meet certain other limits in the permit. MP intends to vigorously pursue these issues but
cannot predict the outcome of these appeals.
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.
In December 2009, in an advanced notice of public rulemaking, the EPA asserted that the large
volumes of coal combustion residuals produced by electric utilities pose significant financial risk
to the industry. In May 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. FirstEnergys future cost of compliance
with any coal combustion residuals regulations that 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 Utility Registrants 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 March 31, 2011, based on estimates of the total costs of cleanup,
the Utility Registrants proportionate responsibility for such costs and the financial ability of
other unaffiliated entities to pay. Total liabilities of approximately $104 million (JCP&L $69
million, TE $1 million, CEI $1 million, FGCO $1 million and FirstEnergy $32 million) have
been accrued through March 31, 2011. Included in the total are accrued liabilities of approximately
$64 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&L. 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. On July 29, 2010, the Appellate Division upheld the trial courts decision decertifying
the class. Plaintiffs have filed, and JCP&L has opposed, a motion for leave to appeal to the New
Jersey Supreme Court. In November 2010, the Supreme Court issued an order denying Plaintiffs
motion. The Courts order effectively ends the class action attempt, and leaves only nine (9)
plaintiffs to pursue their respective individual claims. The remaining individual plaintiffs have
not taken any affirmative steps to pursue their individual claims.
115
Nuclear Plant Matters
Under NRC regulations, FirstEnergy must ensure that adequate funds will be available to
decommission its nuclear facilities. As of March 31, 2011, FirstEnergy had approximately $2 billion
invested in external trusts to be used for the decommissioning and environmental remediation of
Davis-Besse, Beaver Valley, Perry and TMI-2. FirstEnergy provides an additional $15 million
parental guarantee associated with the funding of decommissioning costs for these units. As
required by the NRC, FirstEnergy annually recalculates and adjusts the amount of its parental
guarantee, as appropriate. The values of FirstEnergys nuclear decommissioning trusts fluctuate
based on market conditions. If the value of the trusts decline by a material amount, FirstEnergys
obligation to fund the trusts may increase. Disruptions in the capital markets and their effects on
particular businesses and the economy could also affect the values of the nuclear decommissioning
trusts. The NRC issued guidance anticipating an increase in low-level radioactive waste disposal
costs associated with the decommissioning of FirstEnergys nuclear facilities. On March 28, 2011,
FENOC submitted its biennial report on nuclear decommissioning funding to the NRC. This submittal
identified a total shortfall in nuclear decommissioning funding for Beaver Valley Unit 1 and Perry
of approximately $92.5 million. This estimate encompasses the shortfall covered by the existing $15
million parental guarantee. FENOC agreed to increase the parental guarantee to $95 million within
90 days of the submittal.
In August 2010, FENOC submitted an application to the NRC for renewal of the Davis-Besse Nuclear
Power Station operating license for an additional twenty years, until
2037. By an order dated April 26, 2011, the NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) granted a
hearing on the Davis-Besse license renewal application to a group of petitioners. By this order,
the ASLB also admitted two contentions regarding (1) a combination of renewable alternatives to the
renewal of Davis-Besses operating license, and (2) the cost of mitigating a severe accident at
Davis-Besse. FENOC is currently evaluating these developments and considering an appropriate
response. On April 14, 2011, a group of environmental organizations petitioned the NRC
Commissioners to suspend all pending nuclear license renewal proceedings, including the Davis-Besse
proceeding, to ensure that any safety and environmental implications of the Fukushima Daiichi
Nuclear Power Station event in Japan are considered.
In January 2004, subsidiaries of FirstEnergy filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims
seeking damages in connection with costs incurred at the Beaver Valley, Davis-Besse and Perry
Nuclear facilities as a result of the DOE failure to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel on January
31, 1998. DOE was required to so commence accepting spent nuclear fuel by the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act (42 USC 10101 et seq) and the contracts entered into by the DOE and the owners and
operators of these facilities pursuant to the Act. On January 18, 2011, the parties, FirstEnergy
and DOJ, filed a joint status report that established a schedule for the litigation of these
claims. FirstEnergy filed damages schedules and disclosures with the DOJ on February 11, 2011,
seeking approximately $57 million in damages for delay costs incurred through September 30, 2010.
The damage claim is subject to review and audit by DOE.
Other Legal Matters
In February 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. In March 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 granted the motion
to dismiss on September 7, 2010. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals of
Ohio, which has not yet rendered an opinion.
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.
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 12 of the Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) for
discussion of new accounting pronouncements.
116
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, operates and maintains
FirstEnergys fossil and hydroelectric generation facilities (excluding the Allegheny 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, and its participation in affiliated and non-affiliated
POLR auctions. FES sales are primarily concentrated in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Maryland,
Michigan and New Jersey. In 2010, FES also supplied the POLR default service requirements of
Met-Ed and Penelec.
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
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 decreased by $44 million in the first three months of 2011 compared to
the same period of 2010. The decrease was primarily due to increased transmission expenses, an
inventory valuation adjustment, non-core asset impairments and mark-to-market accounting.
Revenues
Total revenues increased $3 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the
same period of 2010, primarily due to growth in direct and government aggregation sales, partially
offset by decreases in POLR sales.
The increase in revenues resulted from the following sources:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended March 31 |
|
|
Increase |
|
Revenues by Type of Service |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Direct and Government Aggregation |
|
$ |
840 |
|
|
$ |
512 |
|
|
$ |
328 |
|
POLR |
|
|
369 |
|
|
|
673 |
|
|
|
(304 |
) |
Other Wholesale |
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
Transmission |
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
RECs |
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
(35 |
) |
Other |
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
1,391 |
|
|
$ |
1,388 |
|
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended March 31 |
|
|
Increase |
|
MWH Sales by Type of Service |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
Direct |
|
|
9,671 |
|
|
|
5,854 |
|
|
|
65.2 |
% |
Government Aggregation |
|
|
4,310 |
|
|
|
2,732 |
|
|
|
57.8 |
% |
POLR |
|
|
5,714 |
|
|
|
13,276 |
|
|
|
(57.0 |
)% |
Wholesale |
|
|
1,113 |
|
|
|
898 |
|
|
|
23.9 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Sales |
|
|
20,808 |
|
|
|
22,760 |
|
|
|
(8.6 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
117
The increase in direct and government aggregation revenues of $328 million resulted from the
acquisition of new commercial and industrial customers and new government aggregation contracts
with communities in Ohio, in addition, sales to residential and small commercial customers were
bolstered by weather in the delivery area that was 5.2% colder than in 2010.
The decrease in POLR revenues of $304 million was due to lower sales volumes to the Pennsylvania
and Ohio Companies, partially offset by increased sales to non-associated companies and higher unit
prices to the Pennsylvania Companies. Participation in POLR auctions and RFPs are expected to
continue, but the concentration of these sales
will primarily be dependent on our success in our direct retail and aggregation sales channels.
Wholesale revenues increased $5 million due to increased volumes partially offset by lower
wholesale prices. The higher sales volumes were the result of increased short term (net hourly
position) transactions in MISO. $22 million of wholesale revenue resulted from long positions in
MISO that were unable to be netted with short positions in PJM, due to separate settlement
requirements within each RTO.
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 |
|
$ |
223 |
|
Change in prices |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
219 |
|
|
|
|
|
Government Aggregation: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of increase in sales volumes |
|
|
100 |
|
Change in prices |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
109 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Direct and Government Aggregation Revenues |
|
$ |
328 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in POLR Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
POLR: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of decrease in sales volumes |
|
$ |
(384 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(304 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Wholesale Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Wholesale: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of increase in sales volumes |
|
|
12 |
|
Change in prices |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission revenues increased $9 million due primarily to higher MISO congestion revenues.
The revenues derived from the sale of RECs declined $35 million in the first quarter of 2011.
Expenses
Total operating expenses increased $81 million in the first three months of 2011, compared with the
same period of 2010.
118
The following table summarizes the factors contributing to the changes in fuel and purchased power
costs in the first three months of 2011, compared with the same period last year:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Fuel and Purchased Power |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Fossil Fuel: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to decreased unit costs |
|
$ |
(22 |
) |
Change due to volume consumed |
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear Fuel: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to increased unit costs |
|
|
6 |
|
Change due to volume consumed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Non-affiliated Purchased Power: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to increased unit costs |
|
|
32 |
|
Change due to volume purchased |
|
|
(185 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(153 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Affiliated Purchased Power: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to increased unit costs |
|
|
20 |
|
Change due to volume purchased |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Fuel and Purchased Power Costs |
|
$ |
(130 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Fossil fuel costs increased $9 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same
period of 2010, as a result of higher generation at the fossil units, partially offset by decreased
fossil unit costs. Fossil unit prices declined primarily due to improved generating unit
availability at more efficient units, partially offset by increased
coal transportation costs.
Nuclear fuel expenses increased primarily due to higher unit prices following the refueling outages
that occurred in 2010.
Non-affiliated purchased power costs decreased $153 million due primarily to lower volumes
purchased, partially offset by higher unit costs. The decrease in volume relates to the absence in
2011 of a 1,300 MW third party contract associated with serving Met-Ed and Penelec. $35 million of
purchased power expense resulted from long positions in MISO that were unable to be netted with
short positions in PJM, due to separate settlement requirements within each RTO.
Other operating expenses increased $191 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the
same period of 2010, as a result of increased RTO transmission costs ($111 million), an inventory
valuation adjustment ($54 million) and increased nuclear operating costs ($15 million) related to
higher labor and related benefits, partially offset by lower professional and contractor costs.
In the first three month of 2011, impairment charges of long-lived assets increased expenses by $14
million.
General taxes increased $2 million due to an increase in revenue-related taxes.
Other Expense
Total other expense decreased $9 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same
period of 2010, primarily due to an increase in miscellaneous income ($16 million) and increased
investment income ($5 million), partially offset by an increase in interest expense (net of
capitalized interest $12 million). Increased miscellaneous income was the result of
mark-to-market adjustments on power related derivatives. Increased investment income was the result of
higher nuclear decommissioning trust investment income. The increase in interest expense was the
result of reduced capitalized interest associated with the completion of the Sammis AQC project in
2010 combined with increased interest expense associated with the restructuring of certain variable
rate PCRBs into fixed rate modes.
119
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
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 decreased by $6 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to
the same period of 2010. The decrease primarily resulted from lower revenues and higher other
operating costs, partially offset by lower purchased power costs and amortization of regulatory
assets.
Revenues
Revenues decreased $116 million, or 23%, in the first three months of 2011, compared with the same
period in 2010, due primarily to a decrease in generation revenues, partially offset by higher
distribution revenues.
Distribution revenues increased $10 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same
period in 2010, primarily due to an increase in KWH deliveries and higher average prices in all
customer classes. The higher KWH deliveries in the residential class were influenced by increased
weather-related usage in the first three months of 2011, reflecting a 5% increase in heating degree
days in OEs service territory.
Changes in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first three months of 2011, compared to
the same period in 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
1.4 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
1.2 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
9.3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Increase in Distribution Deliveries |
|
|
3.7 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution Revenues |
|
Increase |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
7 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
1 |
|
Industrial |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Increase in Distribution Revenues |
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
Retail generation revenues decreased $127 million primarily due to a decrease in KWH sales and
lower average prices in all customer classes. Retail generation obligations are attributable to non-shopping customers and are procured through
full-requirements auctions. OE defers the difference between retail generation revenues and costs,
resulting in no material effect to current period earnings. Lower KWH sales were primarily the result of
increased customer shopping, partially offset by increased weather-related usage in the first three
months of 2011, as described above.
120
Changes in retail generation KWH sales and revenues in the first three months of 2011, compared to
the same period in 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation KWH Sales |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
(33.0 |
)% |
Commercial |
|
|
(43.2 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
(16.3 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Sales |
|
|
(32.0 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation Revenues |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
(85 |
) |
Commercial |
|
|
(30 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
(127 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Expenses
Total expenses decreased $108 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same
period of 2010. The following table presents changes from the prior period by expense category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Expenses Changes |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Purchased power costs |
|
$ |
(94 |
) |
Other operating expenses |
|
|
13 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(29 |
) |
General taxes |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Expenses |
|
$ |
(108 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchased power costs decreased in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period
of 2010, primarily due to lower KWH purchases resulting from reduced generation sales requirements
in the first three months of 2011 coupled with lower unit costs. The increase in other operating
costs for the first three months of 2011 was primarily due to expenses associated with the 2011
Beaver Valley Unit 2 refueling outage that were absent in 2010. The amortization of regulatory
assets decreased primarily due to higher deferred residential generation credits in 2011.
121
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 available to parent decreased by $1 million in the first three months of 2011,
compared to the same period of 2010. The decrease in earnings was primarily due to lower revenues,
partially offset by lower purchased power and amortization of regulatory assets.
Revenues
Revenues decreased $105 million, or 32%, in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same
period of 2010, due to lower retail generation and distribution revenues.
Distribution revenues decreased $5 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same
period of 2010, due to lower average unit prices for the industrial and residential customer
classes offset by increased KWH deliveries across all sectors. The lower average unit prices were
the result of the absence of transition charges in 2011. Higher KWH deliveries in the residential
class were influenced by increased weather-related usage in the first three months of 2011,
reflecting a 10% increase in heating degree days in CEIs service territory.
Changes in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first three months of 2011, compared to
the same period of 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
2.3 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
3.1 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
0.9 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Increase in Distribution Deliveries |
|
|
2.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Distribution Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
|
|
Commercial |
|
|
7 |
|
Industrial |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Distribution Revenues |
|
$ |
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
122
Retail generation revenues decreased $101 million in the first three months of 2011, compared
to the same period of 2010, primarily due to lower KWH sales and lower average unit prices across
all customer classes. Retail generation obligations are attributable to non-shopping customers and are procured through
full-requirements auctions. CEI defers the difference between retail generation revenues and
costs, resulting in no material effect to current period earnings.
Reduced KWH sales were primarily the result of increased customer shopping
in the first three months of 2011, partially offset by higher residential KWH deliveries resulting
from the colder weather conditions. Lower average unit prices in the residential customer class
were the result of generation credits in place for 2011.
Changes in retail generation sales and revenues in the first three months of 2011, compared to the
same period of 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation KWH Sales |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
(48.4 |
)% |
Commercial |
|
|
(48.3 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
(62.8 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Sales |
|
|
(53.3 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation Revenues |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
(46 |
) |
Commercial |
|
|
(29 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
(101 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Expenses
Total expenses decreased $98 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period
of 2010. The following table presents the change from the prior period by expense category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Expenses Changes |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Purchased power costs |
|
$ |
(82 |
) |
Other operating costs |
|
|
4 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(22 |
) |
General taxes |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Expenses |
|
$ |
(98 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchased power costs decreased in the first three months of 2011 due to lower KWH purchases
resulting from reduced sales requirements in the first three months of 2011. Other operating
expenses increased due to 2011 inventory valuation adjustments. Decreased amortization of
regulatory assets was primarily due to completion of transition cost recovery at the end of 2010
and 2011 and deferred residential generation credits, partially offset by increased recovery of
non-residential distribution deferrals and the absence in 2010 of deferred renewable energy credit
expenses. General taxes increased in the first three months of 2011 due to increased property
taxes in 2011.
123
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 decreased by $2 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to
the same period of 2010. The decrease primarily resulted from lower revenues and higher other
operating costs, partially offset by lower purchased power costs and deferral of regulatory assets.
Revenues
Revenues decreased $19 million, or 14%, in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same
period of 2010, due to a decrease in retail generation revenues, partially offset by higher
distribution revenues and wholesale generation revenues.
Distribution revenues increased $2 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same
period of 2010, due to higher residential and industrial revenues, partially offset by lower
commercial revenues. Residential and industrial revenues were the result of higher average unit
prices and higher KWH deliveries. The higher KWH deliveries in the residential class were
influenced by increased weather-related usage in the first three months of 2011, reflecting a 9%
increase in heating degree days in TEs service territory. Commercial revenues were impacted by
lower KWH deliveries and lower average unit prices.
Changes in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first three months of 2011, compared to
the same period of 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
3.6 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
(2.3 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
5.3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Distribution Deliveries |
|
|
3.3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Distribution Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
2 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
(1 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Distribution Revenues |
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Retail generation revenues decreased $25 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to
the same period of 2010, due to lower KWH sales to all customer classes and lower unit prices to
residential and industrial customers. Retail generation obligations are attributable to non-shopping customers and are procured through
full-requirements auctions. TE defers the difference between retail generation revenues and costs,
resulting in no material effect to current period earnings.
Lower KWH sales were the result of increased customer
shopping, partially offset by increased weather-related usage in the first three months of 2011, as
described above.
124
Changes in retail generation KWH sales and revenues in the first three months of 2011, compared to
the same period of 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation KWH Sales |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
(28.5 |
)% |
Commercial |
|
|
(49.5 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
(13.1 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Sales |
|
|
(24.0 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation Revenues |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
(10 |
) |
Commercial |
|
|
(6 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
(25 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Wholesale revenues increased $3 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same
period of 2010, primarily due to higher revenues from sales to NGC from TEs leasehold interest in
Beaver Valley Unit 2.
Expenses
Total expenses decreased $15 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period
of 2010. The following table presents changes from the prior period by expense category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Expenses Changes |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Purchased power costs |
|
$ |
(24 |
) |
Other operating expenses |
|
|
11 |
|
Deferral of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(3 |
) |
General Taxes |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Expenses |
|
$ |
(15 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchased power costs decreased in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period
of 2010, due to lower KWH purchases resulting from reduced generation sales requirements in the
first three months of 2011 coupled with lower unit costs. The increase in other operating costs for
the first three months of 2011 was primarily due to expenses associated with the 2011 Beaver Valley
Unit 2 refueling outage that were absent in 2010 and higher storm restoration expenses. The
deferral of regulatory assets increased due to higher PUCO-approved cost deferrals in the first
three months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010.
125
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, Market Risk Information, Credit Risk, Outlook, Regulatory Matters, Environmental Matters, Other
Legal Proceedings and New Accounting Standards and Interpretations.
Results of Operations
Net income decreased by $10 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period
of 2010. The decrease was primarily due to lower revenues and increased net amortization of
regulatory assets, partially offset by lower purchased power costs and other operating costs.
Revenues
In the first three months of 2011, revenues decreased $57 million, or 8%, compared to the same
period of 2010. The decrease in revenues was primarily due to lower distribution and retail
generation revenues, partially offset by an increase in wholesale generation and other revenues.
Distribution revenues decreased $17 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same
period of 2010, primarily due to a NJBPU-approved rate adjustment which became effective March 1,
2011 for all customer classes, partially offset by higher KWH deliveries in the residential class
resulting from a 6% increase in heating degree days.
Changes in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first three months of 2011 compared to
the same period of 2010 are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
1.4 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
(3.4 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
(2.0 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Distribution Deliveries |
|
|
(1.1 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution Revenues |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
(5 |
) |
Commercial |
|
|
(10 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Distribution Revenues |
|
$ |
(17 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Retail generation revenues decreased $47 million due to lower
retail generation KWH sales in all customer classes. Retail
generation obligations are attributable to non-shopping customers and
are procured through full-requirements auctions. JCP&L defers the difference between retail generation
revenues and costs, resulting in no material effect to current period earnings.
These lower sales were primarily due to an increase in customer shopping.
126
Changes in retail generation KWH sales and revenues in the first three months of 2011, compared to
the same period of 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation KWH Sales |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
(7.5 |
)% |
Commercial |
|
|
(26.4 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
(23.1 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Sales |
|
|
(13.7 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation Revenues |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
(15 |
) |
Commercial |
|
|
(29 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
(47 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Wholesale generation revenues increased $3 million in the first three months of 2011, compared
to the same period of 2010, due primarily to an increase in sales volumes.
Other revenues increased $4 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period
of 2010, primarily due to an increase in transition bond revenues as a result of higher KWH
deliveries to residential customers.
Expenses
Total expenses decreased $43 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period
of 2010. The following table presents changes from the prior period by expense category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Expenses Changes |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Purchased power costs |
|
$ |
(44 |
) |
Other operating costs |
|
|
(9 |
) |
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
(3 |
) |
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
12 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Expenses |
|
$ |
(43 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchased power costs decreased in the first three months of 2011 primarily due to lower
requirements from reduced sales. Other operating costs decreased in the first three months of 2011
primarily due to lower storm restoration costs, partially offset by inventory valuation
adjustments. The amortization of regulatory assets increased primarily due to lower storm cost
deferrals and the write-off of nonrecoverable NUG costs, partially offset by lower purchased power
deferrals in the first quarter of 2011.
127
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. In 2011, Met-Ed procures power under its Default Service Plan (DSP) in which full
requirements products (energy, capacity, ancillary services, and applicable transmission services)
are procured through descending clock auctions.
As authorized by Met-Eds Board of Directors, Met-Ed repurchased 118,595 shares of its common stock
from its parent, FirstEnergy, for $150 million on January 28, 2011.
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: Market Risk Information, Credit Risk, Outlook, Capital Resources and Liquidity, Regulatory Matters,
Environmental Matters, Other Legal Proceedings and New Accounting Standards and Interpretations.
Results of Operations
Net income increased by $10 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period
of 2010. The increase was primarily due to decreased purchased power, other operating expenses and
amortization of net regulatory assets, partially offset by decreased revenues.
Revenues
Revenue decreased $116 million, or 24%, in the first three months of 2011 compared to the same
period of 2010, reflecting lower distribution, wholesale generation and transmission revenues,
partially offset by an increase in retail generation revenues.
Distribution revenues decreased $72 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same
period of 2010, primarily due to lower rates resulting from the DSP
that began in 2011 that
eliminated the transmission component from the distribution rate. Higher KWH deliveries to
industrial customers were due to improving economic conditions in Met-Eds service territory.
Higher residential and commercial KWH deliveries reflect increased weather-related usage due to an
8% increase in heating degree days in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period
in 2010.
Changes in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first three months of 2011, compared to
the same period of 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
3.4 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
2.5 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
5.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Increase in Distribution Deliveries |
|
|
4.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution Revenues |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
(29 |
) |
Commercial |
|
|
(17 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Distribution Revenues |
|
$ |
(72 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Retail generation revenues increased $18 million in the first three months of 2011 compared to
the same period of 2010, due to an increase in generation rates from
the auctions and now including
transmission services in the rates under the DSP effective January 1, 2011. The DSP resulted in
higher composite unit prices across all customer classes. Higher KWH sales to residential customers
were primarily due to weather-related usage as described above. Increased customer shopping in the
commercial and industrial classes of 36% and 81%, respectively,
reduced KWH sales to these classes. Retail generation obligations are attributable to non-shopping
customers and are procured through full-requirements auctions. Met-Ed defers the difference between retail generation
revenues and costs, resulting in no material effect to current period earnings.
128
Changes in retail generation KWH sales and revenues in the first three months of 2011, compared to
the same period of 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Retail Generation KWH Sales |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
2.7 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
(34.1 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
(80.0 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Retail Generation Sales |
|
|
(34.5 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Retail Generation Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
53 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
3 |
|
Industrial |
|
|
(38 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Retail Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
Wholesale revenues decreased $54 million in the first three months of 2011 compared to the same
period of 2010, primarily due to Met-Ed ending certain capacity purchase for resale contracts.
Transmission revenues decreased $8 million in the first three months of 2011 compared to the same
period of 2010 primarily due to decreased FTR 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 decreased $121 million in the first three months of 2011 compared to the same period
of 2010. The following table presents changes from the prior year by expense category:
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses Changes |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Purchased power costs |
|
$ |
(50 |
) |
Other operating costs |
|
|
(54 |
) |
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Expenses |
|
$ |
(121 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchased power costs decreased $50 million in the first three months of 2011 due to a decrease
in KWH purchased to source generation sales requirements, partially offset by higher unit costs.
Other operating costs decreased $54 million in the first three months of 2011 compared to the same
period in 2010 primarily due to lower transmission congestion and transmission loss expenses (see
reference to deferral accounting above). The amortization of regulatory assets decreased $17
million in the first three months of 2011 primarily due to the termination of transmission and
transition tariff riders at the end of 2010.
Other Expense
In the first three months of 2011, interest income decreased due to reduced CTC stranded asset
balances compared to the same period of 2010.
129
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 service for those customers electing to retain Penelec
as their power supplier. Beginning in 2011, Penelec procures power under its Default Service Plan
(DSP) in which full requirements products (energy, capacity, ancillary services, and applicable
transmission services) are procured through descending clock auctions.
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, Market Risk Information, Credit Risk, Outlook,
Regulatory Matters, Environmental Matters, Other Legal Proceedings and New Accounting Standards and
Interpretations.
Results of Operations
Net income increased slightly in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same period of
2010. The increase was primarily due to lower purchased power and other operating costs, partially
offset by lower revenues, net amortization of regulatory assets and higher general taxes.
Revenues
Revenue decreased $79 million, or 19.5%, in the first three months of 2011 compared to the same
period of 2010. The decrease in revenue was primarily due to lower retail and wholesale generation
revenues and lower transmission revenues, partially offset by higher distribution revenues.
Distribution revenues increased by $1 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the
same period of 2010, primarily due to an increase in the retail transition rates and energy
efficiency rates for all customer classes, partially offset by decreased KWH sales in the
residential and commercial classes.
Changes in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first three months of 2011, compared to
the same period of 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
(0.2 |
)% |
Commercial |
|
|
(3.0 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
10.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Distribution Deliveries |
|
|
3.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Distribution Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
3 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
(5 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Distribution Revenues |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Retail generation revenues decreased $22 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to
the same period of 2010, primarily due to lower KWH sales to all customer classes, partially offset
by higher generation rates for all customer classes. Retail generation obligations are attributable to non-shopping customers and are procured through
full-requirements auctions. Penelec defers the difference between retail generation revenues and costs,
resulting in no material effect to current period earnings.
Lower sales to all customer classes were
primarily due to an increase in customer shopping following the expiration of generation rate caps
at the end of 2010. Higher generation rates reflect the inclusion of transmission services in
generation rates under the DSP, effective January 1, 2011.
130
Changes in retail generation KWH sales and revenues in the first three months of 2011, compared to
the same period of 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation KWH Sales |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
(0.4 |
)% |
Commercial |
|
|
(38.3 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
(78.5 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Sales |
|
|
(39.1 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Retail Generation Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
31 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
(9 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(44 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Retail Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
(22 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Wholesale generation revenues decreased $49 million in the first three months of 2011, compared
to the same period of 2010, due to Penelec no longer purchasing non-NUG capacity for
resale to the PJM market beginning in 2011.
Transmission revenues decreased $8 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the same
period of 2010, primarily due to lower Financial Transmission Rights revenues. Penelec defers the
difference between transmission revenues and transmission costs incurred, resulting in no material
effect to current period earnings.
Expenses
Total expenses decreased by $75 million in the first three months of 2011, as compared with the
same period of 2010. The following table presents changes from the prior year by expense category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Expenses Changes |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Purchased power costs |
|
$ |
(71 |
) |
Other operating costs |
|
|
(31 |
) |
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
23 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Expenses |
|
$ |
(75 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchased power costs decreased $71 million in the first three months of 2011, compared to the
same period of 2010, primarily due to decreased KWH purchased to source generation sales
requirements. Other operating costs decreased $31 million in the first three months of 2011,
primarily due to lower transmission congestion and transmission loss expenses (see reference to
deferral accounting above). The amortization of net regulatory assets increased $23 million in the
first three months of 2011, primarily due to reduced NUG deferrals as
a result of a NUG Rider
implemented in January 2011. General taxes increased $4 million primarily due to higher
Pennsylvania Sales and Use Taxes and the absence of a favorable ruling on a property tax appeal in
the first quarter of 2010.
131
|
|
|
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 CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
During the quarter ended March 31, 2011, other than changes resulting from the Allegheny merger
discussed below, there have been no changes in internal control over financial reporting that have
materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, FirstEnergys internal control
over financial reporting.
On February 25, 2011, the merger between FirstEnergy and Allegheny closed. FirstEnergy is
currently in the process of integrating Alleghenys operations, processes, and internal controls.
See Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements in Part I, Item I for additional information
relating to the merger.
132
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
|
|
|
ITEM 1. |
|
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS |
ICG Litigation
On December 28, 2006, AE Supply and
MP filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania against
International Coal Group, Inc. (ICG), Anker West Virginia Mining Company, Inc. (Anker WV), and
Anker Coal Group, Inc. (Anker Coal). Anker WV, now known as Wolf Mining Company, entered into a
long term Coal Sales Agreement with AE Supply and MP for the supply of coal to the Harrison
generating facility. Anker Coal, now known as Hunter Ridge Holdings Inc., guaranteed performance
under the contract. Prior to the time of trial, ICG was dismissed as a defendant by the
Court, which issue can be the subject of a future appeal. As a result of defendants past and
continued failure to supply the contracted coal, AE Supply and MP have incurred and will continue
to incur significant additional costs for purchasing replacement coal. A non-jury trial was held
on January 10, 2011 through February 1, 2011. At trial, AE Supply and MP presented evidence that
they have incurred damages for replacement coal purchased through the end of 2010 and will incur
additional damages for future shortfalls. The total damages claimed were in excess
of $150 million. Defendants primarily claim that their performance is excused under a force
majeure clause in the coal sales agreement and presented evidence at trial that they will continue
to not provide the contracted yearly tonnage amounts. On May 2, 2011, the court entered a verdict
in favor of AE Supply and MP for $104 million, which may be challenged in post-trial filings and
an appeal.
Additional Information required for Part II, Item 1 is incorporated by reference to the discussions
in Notes 10 and 11 of the Consolidated Financial Statements in Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-Q.
FirstEnergys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, includes a detailed
discussion of its risk factors. In connection with the recent acquisition of Allegheny and the
current events in Japan, the information presented below updates and supplements the risk factors
appearing in our annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.
Potential NRC Regulation in Response to the Incident at Japans Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear
Plant
As a result of the NRCs investigation of the incident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant,
potential exists for the NRC to promulgate new or revised requirements with respect to nuclear
plants located in the United States, which could necessitate additional expenditures at our
nuclear plants. It is also possible that the NRC could suspend or otherwise delay pending nuclear
relicensing proceedings, including the Davis-Besse relicensing
proceeding. FirstEnergy cannot
currently estimate the impact of any such regulatory actions on its financial condition or results
of operations.
Risks Associated With Our Recently Completed Merger
Our Merger with AE May Not Achieve Its Intended Results.
We entered into the merger agreement with AE with the expectation that the merger would result in
various benefits, including, among other things, cost savings and operating efficiencies relating
to the regulated segments and the unregulated competitive segment. Our ability to achieve the
anticipated benefits of the merger is subject to a number of uncertainties, including whether the
business of Allegheny is integrated in an efficient and effective manner and maintenance of the
current credit ratings of the combined company and its subsidiaries. Failure to achieve these
anticipated benefits could result in increased costs, decreases in the amount of expected revenues
generated by the combined company and diversion of managements time and energy and could have an
adverse effect on the combined companys business, financial results and prospects.
As a Result of the Merger We Will be Subject to Business Uncertainties That Could Adversely Affect
Our Financial Results.
Although we are taking steps designed to reduce any adverse effects, uncertainty about the effect
of the merger with AE on employees and customers may have an adverse effect on us. Employee
retention and recruitment may be particularly challenging, as employees and prospective employees
may experience uncertainty about their future roles with the combined company. Despite our
retention and recruiting efforts, key employees may depart or fail to accept employment with us
because of issues relating to the uncertainty and difficulty of integration or a desire not to
remain with the combined company. Additionally, customers, suppliers and others that deal with us
may seek to change existing relationships.
Furthermore, the integration of Allegheny into our company may place a significant burden on
management and internal resources. The diversion of management attention away from day-to-day
business concerns and any difficulties encountered in the transition and integration process could
affect our financial results. In each case, our business results could be affected.
133
The Combined Company Will Have a Higher Percentage of Coal-Fired Generation Capacity Compared to
FirstEnergys Previous Generation Mix. As a Result, FirstEnergy May Be Exposed to Greater Risk from
Regulations of Coal and Coal Combustion By-Products Than it Faced Prior to the Merger
The combined companys generation fleet has a higher percentage of coal-fired generation capacity
compared to FirstEnergys previous generation mix. As a result, FirstEnergys exposure to new or
changing legislation, regulation or other legal requirements related to greenhouse gas or other
emissions may be increased compared to its previous exposure. Approximately 52% of FirstEnergys
pre-merger generation fleet capacity was coal-fired, with the remainder being low-emitting natural
gas, oil fired or non-emitting nuclear and pumped storage. Approximately 78% of Alleghenys
generation fleet capacity is coal-fired. Approximately 62% of the combined companys fleet capacity
is coal-fired. Historically, coal-fired generating plants face greater exposure to the costs of
complying with federal, state and local environmental statutes, rules and regulations relating to
emissions of substances such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury. In addition, there are
currently a number of federal, state and international initiatives under consideration to, among
other things, require reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from power generation or other
facilities and to regulate coal combustion by-products, such as coal ash, as hazardous waste. These
legal requirements and initiatives could require substantial additional costs, extensive mitigation
efforts and, in the case of greenhouse gas legislation, could raise uncertainty about the future
viability of fossil fuels as an energy source for new and existing electric generation facilities.
Failure to comply with any such existing or future legal requirements may also result in the
assessment of fines and penalties. Significant resources also may be expended to defend against
allegations of violations of any such requirements. FirstEnergy expects approximately 70% of its
generation fleet to be non-emitting or low-emitting by the end of 2011. All of Alleghenys
supercritical coal-fired generation assets are scrubbed, and its generation portfolio also includes
pumped storage and natural gas generation capacity. The combined companys generation fleet
nevertheless could face greater exposure to risks relating to the foregoing legal requirements than
FirstEnergys pre-merger fleet due to the combined companys increased percentage of coal-fired
generation facilities.
|
|
|
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 first quarter of 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period |
|
|
|
January |
|
|
February |
|
|
March |
|
|
First Quarter |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Number of
Shares
Purchased(a) |
|
|
32,053 |
|
|
|
543,138 |
|
|
|
1,344,212 |
|
|
|
1,919,403 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Price Paid
per Share |
|
$ |
38.36 |
|
|
$ |
38.44 |
|
|
$ |
37.55 |
|
|
$ |
37.81 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 for some or all
of the following: 2007 Incentive Plan, Deferred Compensation Plan
for Outside Directors, Executive Deferred Compensation Plan,
Savings Plan, Director Compensation, Allegheny Energy, Inc. 1998
Long-Term Incentive Plan, Allegheny Energy, Inc. 2008 Long-Term
Incentive Plan, Allegheny Energy, Inc, Non-Employee Director Stock
Plan, Allegheny Energy, Inc, amended and Restated Revised Plan for
Deferral of Compensation of Directors, and Stock Investment Plan. |
134
|
|
|
ITEM 5. |
|
OTHER INFORMATION |
Signal Peak Mine Safety
FirstEnergy, through its FEV wholly-owned subsidiary, has a 50% interest in Global Mining Group
LLC, a joint venture that owns Signal Peak which is a company that constructed and operates the
Bull Mountain Mine No. 1 (Mine), an underground coal mine near Roundup, Montana. The operation of
the Mine is subject to regulation by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) under
the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act).
Section 1503 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act),
which was enacted on July 21, 2010, contains new reporting requirements regarding mine safety,
including, to the extent applicable, disclosing in periodic reports filed under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 the receipt of certain notifications from the MSHA.
On November 19, 2010, Signal Peak received a letter from MSHA placing it on notice that the Mine
has a potential pattern of violations of mandatory health or safety standards under Section 104(e)
of the Mine Act. If implemented, Section 104(e) requires all subsequent violations designated as
Significant and Substantial be issued as closure orders with all persons withdrawn from the
affected area except those necessary to correct the violation. On March 16, 2011, Signal Peak Mine
received a letter from MSHA indicating that the mine is no longer being considered for a pattern of
potential violations notice.
Signal Peak received the following notices of violation and proposed assessments for the Mine under
the Mine Act during the three months ended March 31, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signal |
|
|
|
Peak |
|
Number of significant and substantial violations of mandatory health
or safety standards under 104* |
|
|
22 |
|
Number of orders issued under 104(b)* |
|
|
|
|
Number of citations and orders for unwarrantable failure to comply
with mandatory health or safety standards under 104(d)* |
|
|
|
|
Number of flagrant violations under 110(b)(2)* |
|
|
|
|
Number of imminent danger orders issued under 107(a)* |
|
|
|
|
MSHA written notices under Mine Act section 104(e)* of a pattern
of violation of mandatory health or safety standards or of the
potential to have such a pattern |
|
|
|
|
Pending Mine Safety Commission legal actions (including any
contested citations issued) |
|
|
13 |
|
Number of mining related fatalities |
|
|
|
|
Total dollar value of proposed assessments |
|
$ |
1,892 |
|
|
|
|
* |
|
References to sections under Mine Act |
The inclusion of this information in this report is not an admission by FirstEnergy that it
controls Signal Peak or that Signal Peak is FirstEnergys subsidiary for purposes of Section 1503
or for any other purpose,
More detailed information about the Mine, including safety-related data, can be found at MSHAs
website, www.MSHA.gov. Signal Peak operates the Mine under the MSHA identification number 2401950.
135
Exhibit Number
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.1 |
|
|
Amendment to the Amended Articles of Incorporation of FirstEnergy Corp. dated
as of February 25, 2011 (incorporated by reference to FirstEnergys Form 8-K
filed February 25, 2011, Exhibit 3.1, File No. 21011) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.1 |
|
|
Allegheny Energy, Inc. 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by
reference to FirstEnergys Form 8-K filed February 25, 2011, Exhibit 10.2,
File No. 21011) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.2 |
|
|
Allegheny Energy, Inc. 2008 Long-Term Incentive Plan (incorporated by
reference to FirstEnergys Form 8-K filed February 25, 2011, Exhibit 10.3,
File No. 21011) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.3 |
|
|
Allegheny Energy, Inc. Non-Employee Director Stock Plan (incorporated by
reference to FirstEnergys Form 8-K filed February 25, 2011, Exhibit 10.4,
File No. 21011) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.4 |
|
|
Allegheny Energy, Inc. Amended and Restated Revised Plan for Deferral of
Compensation of directors (incorporated by reference to FirstEnergys Form 8-K
filed February 25, 2011, Exhibit 10.5, File No. 21011) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.5 |
|
|
Amendment to FirstEnergy Corp. 2007 Incentive Compensation Plan, effective
January 1, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.6 |
|
|
Amendment to FirstEnergy Corp. Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, effective
January 1, 2012 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.7 |
|
|
Amendment to FirstEnergy Corp. Deferred Compensation Plan for Outside
Directors, effective January 1, 2012 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.8 |
|
|
Amendment to FirstEnergy Corp. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan,
effective January 1, 2012 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.9 |
|
|
FirstEnergy Corp. Change in Control Severance Plan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.10 |
|
|
Amendment to Employment Agreement, dated February 25, 2011, between
FirstEnergy Service Company and Gary R. Leidich |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 March 31, 2011, 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.1 |
|
|
Asset Purchase Agreement dated as of March 11, 2011 by and between FirstEnergy
Generation Corp. and American Municipal Power, Inc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
136
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Users of these 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 these
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.
137
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.
May 3, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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/ K. Jon Taylor
K. Jon Taylor
|
|
|
|
|
Controller |
|
|
|
|
(Principal Accounting Officer) |
|
|
138