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 September 30, 2010
OR
|
|
|
o |
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the transition period from to
|
|
|
|
|
Commission |
|
Registrant; State of Incorporation; |
|
I.R.S. Employer |
File Number |
|
Address; and Telephone Number |
|
Identification No. |
|
|
|
|
|
333-21011
|
|
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
(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 OCTOBER 22, 2010 |
|
FirstEnergy Corp., $10 par value |
|
|
304,835,407 |
|
FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., no par value |
|
|
7 |
|
Ohio Edison Company, no par value |
|
|
60 |
|
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, no par value |
|
|
67,930,743 |
|
The Toledo Edison Company, $5 par value |
|
|
29,402,054 |
|
Jersey Central Power & Light Company, $10 par value |
|
|
13,628,447 |
|
Metropolitan Edison Company, no par value |
|
|
859,500 |
|
Pennsylvania Electric Company, $20 par value |
|
|
4,427,577 |
|
FirstEnergy Corp. is the sole holder of FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., Ohio Edison Company, The
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, The Toledo Edison Company, Jersey Central Power & Light
Company, Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company common stock.
This combined Form 10-Q is separately filed by FirstEnergy Corp., FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., Ohio
Edison Company, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, The Toledo Edison Company, Jersey
Central Power & Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company.
Information contained herein relating to any individual registrant is filed by such registrant on
its own behalf. No registrant makes any representation as to information relating to any other
registrant, except that information relating to any of the FirstEnergy subsidiary registrants is
also attributed to FirstEnergy Corp.
FirstEnergy Web Site
Each of the registrants Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current
Reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed with or furnished to the SEC pursuant to
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are also made available free of
charge on or through FirstEnergys Internet web site at www.firstenergycorp.com.
These reports are posted on the web site as soon as reasonably practicable after they are
electronically filed with the SEC. Additionally, the registrants routinely post important
information on FirstEnergys Internet web site and recognize FirstEnergys Internet web site as
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 and
legislative and regulatory changes affecting how generation rates will be determined
following the expiration of existing rate plans in Pennsylvania. |
|
|
|
The impact of the regulatory process on the pending matters in Ohio, Pennsylvania and
New Jersey. |
|
|
|
Business and regulatory impacts from ATSIs realignment into PJM. |
|
|
|
Economic or weather conditions affecting future sales and margins. |
|
|
|
Changes in markets for energy services. |
|
|
|
Changing energy and commodity market prices and availability. |
|
|
|
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 recover regulatory assets
or increased costs. |
|
|
|
Operation and maintenance costs being higher than anticipated. |
|
|
|
Other legislative and regulatory changes, and revised environmental requirements,
including possible GHG emission and coal combustion residual regulations. |
|
|
|
The potential impacts of the proposed rules promulgated by the EPA on July 6, 2010, in
response to the U.S. Court of Appeals July 11, 2008 decision requiring revisions to the
CAIR rules or any final laws, rules or regulations that may ultimately replace CAIR. |
|
|
|
The uncertainty of the timing and amounts of the capital expenditures needed to, among
other things, implement the Air Quality Compliance Plan (including that such amounts could
be higher than anticipated or that certain generating units may need to be shut down) or
levels of emission reductions related to the Consent Decree resolving the NSR litigation or
other potential similar regulatory initiatives or actions. |
|
|
|
Adverse regulatory or legal decisions and outcomes (including, but not limited to, the
revocation of necessary licenses or operating permits and oversight) by the NRC. |
|
|
|
Ultimate resolution of Met-Eds and Penelecs TSC filings with the PPUC. |
|
|
|
The continuing availability of generating units and their ability to operate at or near
full capacity. |
|
|
|
The ability to comply with applicable state and federal reliability standards and energy
efficiency mandates. |
|
|
|
The ability to accomplish or realize anticipated benefits from strategic goals
(including employee workforce initiatives). |
|
|
|
The ability to improve electric commodity margins and to experience growth in the
distribution business. |
|
|
|
The changing market conditions that could affect the value of assets held in the
registrants nuclear decommissioning trusts, pension trusts and other trust funds, and
cause FirstEnergy to make additional contributions sooner, or in amounts that are larger
than currently anticipated. |
|
|
|
The ability to access the public securities and other capital and credit markets in
accordance with FirstEnergys financing plan and the cost of such capital. |
|
|
|
Changes in general economic conditions affecting the registrants. |
|
|
|
The state of the capital and credit markets affecting the registrants. |
|
|
|
Interest rates and any actions taken by credit rating agencies that could negatively
affect the registrants access to financing or their costs and increase requirements to
post additional collateral to support outstanding commodity positions, LOCs and other
financial guarantees. |
|
|
|
The state of the national and regional economies and associated impacts on the
registrants major industrial and commercial customers. |
|
|
|
Issues concerning the soundness of financial institutions and counterparties with which
the registrants do business. |
|
|
|
The expected timing and likelihood of completion of the proposed merger with Allegheny
Energy, Inc., including the timing, receipt and terms and conditions of any required
governmental and regulatory approvals of the proposed merger that could reduce anticipated
benefits or cause the parties to abandon the merger, the diversion of managements time and
attention from FirstEnergys ongoing business during this time period, the ability to
maintain relationships with customers, employees or suppliers as well as the ability to
successfully integrate the businesses and realize cost savings and any other synergies and
the risk that the credit ratings of the combined company or its subsidiaries may be
different from what the companies expect. |
|
|
|
The risks and other factors discussed from time to time in the registrants SEC filings,
and other similar factors. |
The foregoing review of factors should not be construed as exhaustive. New factors emerge from time
to time, and it is not possible for management to predict all such factors, nor assess the impact
of any such factor on the registrants business or the extent to which any factor, or combination
of factors, may cause results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking
statements. A security rating is not a recommendation to buy, sell or hold securities that may be
subject to revision or withdrawal at any time by the assigning rating organization. Each rating
should be evaluated independently of any other rating. The registrants expressly disclaim any
current intention to update any forward-looking statements contained herein as a result of new
information, future events or otherwise.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
ATSI
|
|
American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, owns and operates transmission facilities |
CEI
|
|
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, an Ohio electric utility operating subsidiary |
FENOC
|
|
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, operates nuclear generating facilities |
FES
|
|
FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., provides energy-related products and services |
FESC
|
|
FirstEnergy Service Company, provides legal, financial and other corporate support services |
FEV
|
|
FirstEnergy Ventures Corp., invests in certain unregulated enterprises and business ventures |
FGCO
|
|
FirstEnergy Generation Corp., owns and operates non-nuclear generating facilities |
FirstEnergy
|
|
FirstEnergy Corp., a public utility holding company |
Global Rail
|
|
A
joint venture between FirstEnergy Ventures Corp. 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, which merged with FirstEnergy on
November 7, 2001 |
JCP&L
|
|
Jersey Central Power & Light Company, a New Jersey electric utility operating subsidiary |
Met-Ed
|
|
Metropolitan Edison Company, a Pennsylvania electric utility operating subsidiary |
NGC
|
|
FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation Corp., owns nuclear generating facilities |
OE
|
|
Ohio Edison Company, an Ohio electric utility operating subsidiary |
Ohio Companies
|
|
CEI, OE and TE |
Penelec
|
|
Pennsylvania Electric Company, a Pennsylvania electric utility operating subsidiary |
Penn
|
|
Pennsylvania Power Company, a Pennsylvania electric utility operating subsidiary of OE |
Pennsylvania Companies
|
|
Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn |
PNBV
|
|
PNBV Capital Trust, a special purpose entity created by OE in 1996 |
Shippingport
|
|
Shippingport Capital Trust, a special purpose entity created by CEI and TE in 1997 |
Signal Peak
|
|
A joint venture between FirstEnergy Ventures Corp. and WMB Loan Ventures LLC, that owns mining
operations near Roundup, Montana |
TE
|
|
The Toledo Edison Company, an Ohio electric utility operating subsidiary |
Utilities
|
|
OE, CEI, TE, Penn, JCP&L, Met-Ed and Penelec |
The following abbreviations and acronyms are used to identify frequently used terms in this report:
|
|
|
ALJ
|
|
Administrative Law Judge |
AOCL
|
|
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss |
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 |
CO2
|
|
Carbon Dioxide |
CTC
|
|
Competitive Transition Charge |
DOE
|
|
United States Department of Energy |
DOJ
|
|
United States Department of Justice |
DPA
|
|
Department of the Public Advocate, Division of Rate Counsel (New Jersey) |
EE&C
|
|
Energy Efficiency and Conservation |
EMP
|
|
Energy Master Plan |
EPA
|
|
United States Environmental Protection Agency |
iii
GLOSSARY OF TERMS, Contd.
|
|
|
ESP
|
|
Electric Security Plan |
FASB
|
|
Financial Accounting Standards Board |
FERC
|
|
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission |
FMB
|
|
First Mortgage Bond |
FPA
|
|
Federal Power Act |
FRR
|
|
Fixed Resource Requirement |
GAAP
|
|
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the United States |
GHG
|
|
Greenhouse Gases |
IRS
|
|
Internal Revenue Service |
JOA
|
|
Joint Operating Agreement |
kV
|
|
Kilovolt |
KWH
|
|
Kilowatt-hours |
LED
|
|
Light-Emitting Diode |
LOC
|
|
Letter of Credit |
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 |
MTEP
|
|
MISO Regional Transmission Expansion Plan |
MW
|
|
Megawatts |
MWH
|
|
Megawatt-hours |
NAAQS
|
|
National Ambient Air Quality Standards |
NERC
|
|
North American Electric Reliability Corporation |
NJBPU
|
|
New Jersey Board of Public Utilities |
NNSR
|
|
Non-Attainment New Source Review |
NOAC
|
|
Northwest Ohio Aggregation Coalition |
NOPEC
|
|
Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council |
NOV
|
|
Notice of Violation |
NOX
|
|
Nitrogen Oxide |
NRC
|
|
Nuclear Regulatory Commission |
NSR
|
|
New Source Review |
NUG
|
|
Non-Utility Generation |
NUGC
|
|
Non-Utility Generation Charge |
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 |
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 |
PSCWV
|
|
Public Service Commission of West Virginia |
PSA
|
|
Power Supply Agreement |
PSD
|
|
Prevention of Significant Deterioration |
PUCO
|
|
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio |
RECs
|
|
Renewable Energy Credits |
RFP
|
|
Request for Proposal |
RTEP
|
|
Regional Transmission Expansion Plan |
RTC
|
|
Regulatory Transition Charge |
RTO
|
|
Regional Transmission Organization |
S&P
|
|
Standard & Poors Ratings Service |
SB221
|
|
Amended Substitute Senate Bill 221 |
SBC
|
|
Societal Benefits Charge |
iv
GLOSSARY OF TERMS, Contd.
|
|
|
SEC
|
|
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission |
SIP
|
|
State Implementation Plan(s) Under the Clean Air Act |
SNCR
|
|
Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction |
SO2
|
|
Sulfur Dioxide |
TBC
|
|
Transition Bond Charge |
TMI-2
|
|
Three Mile Island Unit 2 |
TSC
|
|
Transmission Service Charge |
VIE
|
|
Variable Interest Entity |
VSCC
|
|
Virginia State Corporation Commission |
v
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
Nine Months |
|
|
|
Ended September 30 |
|
|
Ended September 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In millions, except per share amounts) |
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric utilities |
|
$ |
2,757 |
|
|
$ |
2,940 |
|
|
$ |
7,673 |
|
|
$ |
8,751 |
|
Unregulated businesses |
|
|
936 |
|
|
|
468 |
|
|
|
2,449 |
|
|
|
1,262 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues* |
|
|
3,693 |
|
|
|
3,408 |
|
|
|
10,122 |
|
|
|
10,013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
400 |
|
|
|
302 |
|
|
|
1,084 |
|
|
|
890 |
|
Purchased power |
|
|
1,284 |
|
|
|
1,313 |
|
|
|
3,574 |
|
|
|
3,480 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
738 |
|
|
|
665 |
|
|
|
2,112 |
|
|
|
2,103 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
182 |
|
|
|
188 |
|
|
|
565 |
|
|
|
550 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
176 |
|
|
|
261 |
|
|
|
549 |
|
|
|
903 |
|
Deferral of new regulatory assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(136 |
) |
General taxes |
|
|
206 |
|
|
|
192 |
|
|
|
587 |
|
|
|
587 |
|
Impairment of long-lived assets |
|
|
292 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
294 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
3,278 |
|
|
|
2,921 |
|
|
|
8,765 |
|
|
|
8,377 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
415 |
|
|
|
487 |
|
|
|
1,357 |
|
|
|
1,636 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
191 |
|
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
207 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(208 |
) |
|
|
(355 |
) |
|
|
(628 |
) |
|
|
(755 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
122 |
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(121 |
) |
|
|
(129 |
) |
|
|
(413 |
) |
|
|
(452 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
294 |
|
|
|
358 |
|
|
|
944 |
|
|
|
1,184 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
119 |
|
|
|
128 |
|
|
|
364 |
|
|
|
430 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
|
175 |
|
|
|
230 |
|
|
|
580 |
|
|
|
754 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EARNINGS AVAILABLE TO FIRSTENERGY CORP. |
|
$ |
179 |
|
|
$ |
234 |
|
|
$ |
599 |
|
|
$ |
768 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK |
|
$ |
0.59 |
|
|
$ |
0.77 |
|
|
$ |
1.97 |
|
|
$ |
2.52 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF BASIC SHARES OUTSTANDING |
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK |
|
$ |
0.59 |
|
|
$ |
0.77 |
|
|
$ |
1.96 |
|
|
$ |
2.51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF DILUTED SHARES OUTSTANDING |
|
|
305 |
|
|
|
306 |
|
|
|
305 |
|
|
|
306 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DIVIDENDS DECLARED PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK |
|
$ |
1.10 |
|
|
$ |
1.10 |
|
|
$ |
1.65 |
|
|
$ |
1.65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Includes excise tax collections of $120 million and $106 million in the three months ended
September 30, 2010 and 2009, respectively, and $328 million and $310 million in the nine months
ended September 30, 2010 and 2009, respectively. |
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of
these financial statements.
1
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
Nine Months |
|
|
|
Ended September 30 |
|
|
Ended September 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
175 |
|
|
$ |
230 |
|
|
$ |
580 |
|
|
$ |
754 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
(480 |
) |
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
Unrealized gain on derivative hedges |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
Change in unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
(108 |
) |
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
(76 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss) |
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
(569 |
) |
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
Income tax expense (benefit) related to other comprehensive income |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
(216 |
) |
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax |
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
(353 |
) |
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS) |
|
|
204 |
|
|
|
(123 |
) |
|
|
645 |
|
|
|
733 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE LOSS ATTRIBUTABLE
TO NONCONTROLLING INTEREST |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS) AVAILABLE TO FIRSTENERGY CORP. |
|
$ |
208 |
|
|
$ |
(119 |
) |
|
$ |
664 |
|
|
$ |
747 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of
these financial statements.
2
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
632 |
|
|
$ |
874 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers (less allowances of $39 million in 2010 and $33 million in 2009) |
|
|
1,414 |
|
|
|
1,244 |
|
Other (less allowances of $7 million in 2010 and 2009) |
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
153 |
|
Materials and supplies, at average cost |
|
|
652 |
|
|
|
647 |
|
Prepaid taxes |
|
|
291 |
|
|
|
248 |
|
Other |
|
|
252 |
|
|
|
154 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,391 |
|
|
|
3,320 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
27,590 |
|
|
|
27,826 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
11,206 |
|
|
|
11,397 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,384 |
|
|
|
16,429 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
3,154 |
|
|
|
2,735 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19,538 |
|
|
|
19,164 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
1,965 |
|
|
|
1,859 |
|
Investments in lease obligation bonds |
|
|
486 |
|
|
|
543 |
|
Other |
|
|
564 |
|
|
|
621 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,015 |
|
|
|
3,023 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
5,575 |
|
|
|
5,575 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
2,246 |
|
|
|
2,356 |
|
Power purchase contract asset |
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
200 |
|
Other |
|
|
826 |
|
|
|
666 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,763 |
|
|
|
8,797 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
34,707 |
|
|
$ |
34,304 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
1,590 |
|
|
$ |
1,834 |
|
Short-term borrowings |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
|
1,181 |
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
813 |
|
|
|
829 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
230 |
|
|
|
314 |
|
Other |
|
|
1,339 |
|
|
|
1,130 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,972 |
|
|
|
5,288 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $0.10 par value, authorized 375,000,000 shares-
304,835,407 shares outstanding |
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
Other paid-in capital |
|
|
5,445 |
|
|
|
5,448 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(1,350 |
) |
|
|
(1,415 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
4,591 |
|
|
|
4,495 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
8,717 |
|
|
|
8,559 |
|
Noncontrolling interest |
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity |
|
|
8,691 |
|
|
|
8,557 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
12,104 |
|
|
|
11,908 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,795 |
|
|
|
20,465 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
2,824 |
|
|
|
2,468 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
1,541 |
|
|
|
1,534 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
1,394 |
|
|
|
1,425 |
|
Deferred gain on sale and leaseback transaction |
|
|
968 |
|
|
|
993 |
|
Power purchase contract liability |
|
|
756 |
|
|
|
643 |
|
Lease market valuation liability |
|
|
228 |
|
|
|
262 |
|
Other |
|
|
1,229 |
|
|
|
1,226 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,940 |
|
|
|
8,551 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
34,707 |
|
|
$ |
34,304 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an
integral part of these financial statements.
3
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
580 |
|
|
$ |
754 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
565 |
|
|
|
550 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
549 |
|
|
|
903 |
|
Deferral of new regulatory assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(136 |
) |
Nuclear fuel and lease amortization |
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
92 |
|
Deferred purchased power and other costs |
|
|
(192 |
) |
|
|
(235 |
) |
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
259 |
|
|
|
421 |
|
Impairment of long-lived assets |
|
|
294 |
|
|
|
|
|
Investment impairment |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
Gain on investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(39 |
) |
|
|
(172 |
) |
Loss on debt redemption |
|
|
|
|
|
|
142 |
|
Deferred rents and lease market valuation liability |
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
(20 |
) |
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
Interest rate swap transactions |
|
|
129 |
|
|
|
|
|
Commodity derivative transactions, net |
|
|
(40 |
) |
|
|
26 |
|
Cash collateral paid, net |
|
|
(54 |
) |
|
|
(85 |
) |
Pension trust contribution |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(500 |
) |
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
(172 |
) |
|
|
78 |
|
Materials and supplies |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
30 |
|
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(349 |
) |
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
(103 |
) |
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
(97 |
) |
Accrued interest |
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
121 |
|
Other |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from operating activities |
|
|
2,073 |
|
|
|
1,464 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
251 |
|
|
|
4,151 |
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(422 |
) |
|
|
(2,213 |
) |
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
(171 |
) |
|
|
(764 |
) |
Common stock dividend payments |
|
|
(503 |
) |
|
|
(503 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
(54 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) financing activities |
|
|
(870 |
) |
|
|
617 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(1,467 |
) |
|
|
(1,575 |
) |
Proceeds from asset sales |
|
|
117 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
2,577 |
|
|
|
3,039 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(2,610 |
) |
|
|
(3,101 |
) |
Customer acquisition costs |
|
|
(110 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Cash investments |
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
Restricted funds for debt redemption |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(150 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for investing activities |
|
|
(1,445 |
) |
|
|
(1,788 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(242 |
) |
|
|
293 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
874 |
|
|
|
545 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
632 |
|
|
$ |
838 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales to affiliates |
|
$ |
599,695 |
|
|
$ |
616,300 |
|
|
$ |
1,745,542 |
|
|
$ |
2,348,741 |
|
Electric sales to non-affiliates |
|
|
904,752 |
|
|
|
443,819 |
|
|
|
2,302,240 |
|
|
|
928,944 |
|
Other |
|
|
49,230 |
|
|
|
44,453 |
|
|
|
208,662 |
|
|
|
394,145 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
1,553,677 |
|
|
|
1,104,572 |
|
|
|
4,256,444 |
|
|
|
3,671,830 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
391,087 |
|
|
|
294,693 |
|
|
|
1,061,719 |
|
|
|
871,160 |
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
116,381 |
|
|
|
35,290 |
|
|
|
246,232 |
|
|
|
149,746 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
411,084 |
|
|
|
205,200 |
|
|
|
1,160,119 |
|
|
|
551,155 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
309,793 |
|
|
|
305,935 |
|
|
|
916,366 |
|
|
|
891,555 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
59,298 |
|
|
|
66,041 |
|
|
|
185,535 |
|
|
|
192,962 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
21,804 |
|
|
|
21,700 |
|
|
|
70,822 |
|
|
|
66,361 |
|
Impairment of long-lived assets |
|
|
291,934 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
293,767 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
1,601,381 |
|
|
|
928,859 |
|
|
|
3,934,560 |
|
|
|
2,722,939 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) |
|
|
(47,704 |
) |
|
|
175,713 |
|
|
|
321,884 |
|
|
|
948,891 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
29,895 |
|
|
|
158,857 |
|
|
|
43,978 |
|
|
|
135,723 |
|
Miscellaneous income |
|
|
4,765 |
|
|
|
2,804 |
|
|
|
10,468 |
|
|
|
12,840 |
|
Interest expense affiliates |
|
|
(2,497 |
) |
|
|
(2,209 |
) |
|
|
(7,362 |
) |
|
|
(8,503 |
) |
Interest expense other |
|
|
(49,544 |
) |
|
|
(42,187 |
) |
|
|
(150,560 |
) |
|
|
(90,985 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
22,955 |
|
|
|
17,869 |
|
|
|
66,550 |
|
|
|
41,975 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense) |
|
|
5,574 |
|
|
|
135,134 |
|
|
|
(36,926 |
) |
|
|
91,050 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
(42,130 |
) |
|
|
310,847 |
|
|
|
284,958 |
|
|
|
1,039,941 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
(5,404 |
) |
|
|
111,164 |
|
|
|
107,833 |
|
|
|
372,175 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME (LOSS) |
|
|
(36,726 |
) |
|
|
199,683 |
|
|
|
177,125 |
|
|
|
667,766 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
886 |
|
|
|
(61,085 |
) |
|
|
(8,063 |
) |
|
|
13,604 |
|
Unrealized gain on derivative hedges |
|
|
2,818 |
|
|
|
790 |
|
|
|
7,109 |
|
|
|
26,847 |
|
Change in unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities |
|
|
17,445 |
|
|
|
(89,401 |
) |
|
|
28,533 |
|
|
|
(51,374 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss) |
|
|
21,149 |
|
|
|
(149,696 |
) |
|
|
27,579 |
|
|
|
(10,923 |
) |
Income taxes related to other comprehensive income (loss) |
|
|
7,694 |
|
|
|
(58,883 |
) |
|
|
9,898 |
|
|
|
(3,549 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax |
|
|
13,455 |
|
|
|
(90,813 |
) |
|
|
17,681 |
|
|
|
(7,374 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS) |
|
$ |
(23,271 |
) |
|
$ |
108,870 |
|
|
$ |
194,806 |
|
|
$ |
660,392 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers (less accumulated provisions of $16,277,000 and $12,041,000,
respectively, for uncollectible accounts) |
|
|
325,265 |
|
|
|
195,107 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
269,986 |
|
|
|
318,561 |
|
Other (less accumulated provisions of $6,702,000 for uncollectible accounts) |
|
|
57,407 |
|
|
|
51,872 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
501,648 |
|
|
|
805,103 |
|
Materials and supplies, at average cost |
|
|
554,043 |
|
|
|
539,541 |
|
Prepayments and other |
|
|
204,065 |
|
|
|
107,782 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,912,424 |
|
|
|
2,017,978 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
9,663,264 |
|
|
|
10,357,632 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
4,114,381 |
|
|
|
4,531,158 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,548,883 |
|
|
|
5,826,474 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
2,736,635 |
|
|
|
2,423,446 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,285,518 |
|
|
|
8,249,920 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
1,158,376 |
|
|
|
1,088,641 |
|
Other |
|
|
7,400 |
|
|
|
22,466 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,165,776 |
|
|
|
1,111,107 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income tax benefits |
|
|
3,357 |
|
|
|
86,626 |
|
Customer intangibles |
|
|
127,420 |
|
|
|
16,566 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
24,248 |
|
|
|
24,248 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
50,125 |
|
|
|
50,125 |
|
Unamortized sale and leaseback costs |
|
|
61,934 |
|
|
|
72,553 |
|
Other |
|
|
164,332 |
|
|
|
121,665 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
431,416 |
|
|
|
371,783 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
11,795,134 |
|
|
$ |
11,750,788 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
1,396,792 |
|
|
$ |
1,550,927 |
|
Short-term borrowings- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
9,642 |
|
|
|
9,237 |
|
Other |
|
|
100,000 |
|
|
|
100,000 |
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
472,018 |
|
|
|
466,078 |
|
Other |
|
|
204,928 |
|
|
|
245,363 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
59,422 |
|
|
|
83,158 |
|
Other |
|
|
430,824 |
|
|
|
359,057 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,673,626 |
|
|
|
2,813,820 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, without par value, authorized 750 shares,
7 shares outstanding |
|
|
1,490,010 |
|
|
|
1,468,423 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(85,320 |
) |
|
|
(103,001 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
2,326,274 |
|
|
|
2,149,149 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
3,730,964 |
|
|
|
3,514,571 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
2,819,150 |
|
|
|
2,711,652 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,550,114 |
|
|
|
6,226,223 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred gain on sale and leaseback transaction |
|
|
967,583 |
|
|
|
992,869 |
|
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits |
|
|
55,267 |
|
|
|
58,396 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
877,522 |
|
|
|
921,448 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
228,779 |
|
|
|
204,035 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
50,125 |
|
|
|
50,125 |
|
Lease market valuation liability |
|
|
228,119 |
|
|
|
262,200 |
|
Other |
|
|
163,999 |
|
|
|
221,672 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,571,394 |
|
|
|
2,710,745 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
11,795,134 |
|
|
$ |
11,750,788 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part
of these financial statements.
6
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
177,125 |
|
|
$ |
667,766 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
185,535 |
|
|
|
192,962 |
|
Nuclear fuel and lease amortization |
|
|
126,071 |
|
|
|
94,244 |
|
Deferred rents and lease market valuation liability |
|
|
(41,493 |
) |
|
|
(40,143 |
) |
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
96,152 |
|
|
|
268,812 |
|
Impairment of long-lived assets |
|
|
293,767 |
|
|
|
|
|
Investment impairment |
|
|
21,089 |
|
|
|
36,169 |
|
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
15,887 |
|
|
|
5,860 |
|
Commodity derivative transactions, net |
|
|
(40,048 |
) |
|
|
25,794 |
|
Gain on asset sales |
|
|
(2,213 |
) |
|
|
(9,832 |
) |
Gain on investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(34,292 |
) |
|
|
(154,723 |
) |
Cash collateral, net |
|
|
(53,900 |
) |
|
|
(92,618 |
) |
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
(91,134 |
) |
|
|
(55,774 |
) |
Materials and supplies |
|
|
(15,324 |
) |
|
|
38,543 |
|
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
36,004 |
|
|
|
(35,315 |
) |
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
(50,114 |
) |
|
|
(72,181 |
) |
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(8,404 |
) |
|
|
23,846 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
(14,130 |
) |
|
|
31,770 |
|
Other |
|
|
23,349 |
|
|
|
(43,369 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from operating activities |
|
|
623,927 |
|
|
|
881,811 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
249,520 |
|
|
|
2,356,762 |
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
405 |
|
|
|
|
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(296,339 |
) |
|
|
(618,213 |
) |
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,164,823 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(798 |
) |
|
|
(20,006 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) financing activities |
|
|
(47,212 |
) |
|
|
553,720 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(801,238 |
) |
|
|
(842,600 |
) |
Proceeds from asset sales |
|
|
117,213 |
|
|
|
16,129 |
|
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
1,478,086 |
|
|
|
2,152,717 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(1,511,273 |
) |
|
|
(2,175,135 |
) |
Loans from (to) associated companies, net |
|
|
303,455 |
|
|
|
(298,841 |
) |
Customer acquisition costs |
|
|
(110,073 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Leasehold improvement payments to associated companies |
|
|
(51,204 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
(1,683 |
) |
|
|
(20,882 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for investing activities |
|
|
(576,717 |
) |
|
|
(1,168,612 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
266,919 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
266,958 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
STATEMENTS OF INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales |
|
$ |
456,531 |
|
|
$ |
575,377 |
|
|
$ |
1,351,893 |
|
|
$ |
1,942,612 |
|
Excise and gross receipts tax collections |
|
|
30,058 |
|
|
|
27,127 |
|
|
|
82,482 |
|
|
|
81,055 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
486,589 |
|
|
|
602,504 |
|
|
|
1,434,375 |
|
|
|
2,023,667 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
136,804 |
|
|
|
200,506 |
|
|
|
424,530 |
|
|
|
847,712 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
84,264 |
|
|
|
161,732 |
|
|
|
257,322 |
|
|
|
397,875 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
94,804 |
|
|
|
102,463 |
|
|
|
271,934 |
|
|
|
372,231 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
21,990 |
|
|
|
22,407 |
|
|
|
65,884 |
|
|
|
65,916 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
9,704 |
|
|
|
17,404 |
|
|
|
48,473 |
|
|
|
59,910 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
48,909 |
|
|
|
45,164 |
|
|
|
139,763 |
|
|
|
138,187 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
396,475 |
|
|
|
549,676 |
|
|
|
1,207,906 |
|
|
|
1,881,831 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
90,114 |
|
|
|
52,828 |
|
|
|
226,469 |
|
|
|
141,836 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
5,438 |
|
|
|
20,285 |
|
|
|
16,991 |
|
|
|
39,796 |
|
Miscellaneous income |
|
|
1,673 |
|
|
|
237 |
|
|
|
2,676 |
|
|
|
2,108 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(21,975 |
) |
|
|
(22,961 |
) |
|
|
(66,440 |
) |
|
|
(67,717 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
335 |
|
|
|
231 |
|
|
|
838 |
|
|
|
730 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(14,529 |
) |
|
|
(2,208 |
) |
|
|
(45,935 |
) |
|
|
(25,083 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
75,585 |
|
|
|
50,620 |
|
|
|
180,534 |
|
|
|
116,753 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
29,332 |
|
|
|
15,885 |
|
|
|
60,797 |
|
|
|
36,742 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
|
46,253 |
|
|
|
34,735 |
|
|
|
119,737 |
|
|
|
80,011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from noncontrolling interest |
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
140 |
|
|
|
386 |
|
|
|
429 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EARNINGS AVAILABLE TO PARENT |
|
$ |
46,129 |
|
|
$ |
34,595 |
|
|
$ |
119,351 |
|
|
$ |
79,582 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
46,253 |
|
|
$ |
34,735 |
|
|
$ |
119,737 |
|
|
$ |
80,011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME LOSS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
321 |
|
|
|
(49,043 |
) |
|
|
4,658 |
|
|
|
46,559 |
|
Change in unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities |
|
|
2,178 |
|
|
|
(7,695 |
) |
|
|
2,989 |
|
|
|
(9,676 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss) |
|
|
2,499 |
|
|
|
(56,738 |
) |
|
|
7,647 |
|
|
|
36,883 |
|
Income tax expense (benefit) related to other comprehensive income |
|
|
562 |
|
|
|
(21,924 |
) |
|
|
1,229 |
|
|
|
15,915 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax |
|
|
1,937 |
|
|
|
(34,814 |
) |
|
|
6,418 |
|
|
|
20,968 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS) |
|
|
48,190 |
|
|
|
(79 |
) |
|
|
126,155 |
|
|
|
100,979 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO
NONCONTROLLING INTEREST |
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
140 |
|
|
|
386 |
|
|
|
429 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS) AVAILABLE TO PARENT |
|
$ |
48,066 |
|
|
$ |
(219 |
) |
|
$ |
125,769 |
|
|
$ |
100,550 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
288,092 |
|
|
$ |
324,175 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers (less accumulated provisions of $4,951,000 and $5,119,000,
respectively, for uncollectible accounts) |
|
|
182,894 |
|
|
|
209,384 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
38,499 |
|
|
|
98,874 |
|
Other |
|
|
20,777 |
|
|
|
14,155 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
16,234 |
|
|
|
118,651 |
|
Prepayments and other |
|
|
9,490 |
|
|
|
15,964 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
555,986 |
|
|
|
781,203 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UTILITY PLANT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
3,118,239 |
|
|
|
3,036,467 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
1,199,401 |
|
|
|
1,165,394 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,918,838 |
|
|
|
1,871,073 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
38,915 |
|
|
|
31,171 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,957,753 |
|
|
|
1,902,244 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in lease obligation bonds |
|
|
204,707 |
|
|
|
216,600 |
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
129,685 |
|
|
|
120,812 |
|
Other |
|
|
96,897 |
|
|
|
96,861 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
431,289 |
|
|
|
434,273 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
413,596 |
|
|
|
465,331 |
|
Pension assets |
|
|
39,271 |
|
|
|
19,881 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
67,037 |
|
|
|
67,037 |
|
Unamortized sale and leaseback costs |
|
|
31,376 |
|
|
|
35,127 |
|
Other |
|
|
17,540 |
|
|
|
39,881 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
568,820 |
|
|
|
627,257 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,513,848 |
|
|
$ |
3,744,977 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
1,479 |
|
|
$ |
2,723 |
|
Short-term borrowings- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
47,648 |
|
|
|
92,863 |
|
Other |
|
|
320 |
|
|
|
807 |
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
32,084 |
|
|
|
102,763 |
|
Other |
|
|
23,994 |
|
|
|
40,423 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
55,236 |
|
|
|
81,868 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
25,354 |
|
|
|
25,749 |
|
Other |
|
|
133,060 |
|
|
|
81,424 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
319,175 |
|
|
|
428,620 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, without par value, authorized 175,000,000 shares -
60 shares outstanding |
|
|
951,839 |
|
|
|
1,154,797 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(157,159 |
) |
|
|
(163,577 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
104,241 |
|
|
|
29,890 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
898,921 |
|
|
|
1,021,110 |
|
Noncontrolling interest |
|
|
6,225 |
|
|
|
6,442 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity |
|
|
905,146 |
|
|
|
1,027,552 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
1,152,370 |
|
|
|
1,160,208 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,057,516 |
|
|
|
2,187,760 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
678,815 |
|
|
|
660,114 |
|
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits |
|
|
10,521 |
|
|
|
11,406 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
169,070 |
|
|
|
174,925 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
83,194 |
|
|
|
85,926 |
|
Other |
|
|
195,557 |
|
|
|
196,226 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,137,157 |
|
|
|
1,128,597 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,513,848 |
|
|
$ |
3,744,977 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part
of these financial statements.
9
OHIO EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
119,737 |
|
|
$ |
80,011 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
65,884 |
|
|
|
65,916 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
48,473 |
|
|
|
59,910 |
|
Purchased power cost recovery reconciliation |
|
|
3,906 |
|
|
|
15,372 |
|
Amortization of lease costs |
|
|
28,314 |
|
|
|
28,394 |
|
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
7,612 |
|
|
|
32,658 |
|
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
(16,659 |
) |
|
|
(3,542 |
) |
Accrued regulatory obligations |
|
|
1,301 |
|
|
|
19,172 |
|
Electric service prepayment programs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,634 |
) |
Cash collateral from suppliers |
|
|
23,286 |
|
|
|
6,469 |
|
Pension trust contributions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(103,035 |
) |
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
91,971 |
|
|
|
128,688 |
|
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
10,331 |
|
|
|
(2,553 |
) |
Decrease in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
(87,108 |
) |
|
|
(60,125 |
) |
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(26,425 |
) |
|
|
(17,196 |
) |
Accrued interest |
|
|
(395 |
) |
|
|
(59 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(9,695 |
) |
|
|
(8,596 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from operating activities |
|
|
260,533 |
|
|
|
236,850 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
100,000 |
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
74,514 |
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(9,628 |
) |
|
|
(101,088 |
) |
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
(45,702 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Common stock dividend payments |
|
|
(250,000 |
) |
|
|
(150,000 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(892 |
) |
|
|
(2,138 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for financing activities |
|
|
(306,222 |
) |
|
|
(78,712 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(110,645 |
) |
|
|
(108,253 |
) |
Leasehold improvement payments from associated companies |
|
|
18,375 |
|
|
|
|
|
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
78,599 |
|
|
|
207,280 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(83,725 |
) |
|
|
(214,592 |
) |
Loan repayments from associated companies, net |
|
|
102,417 |
|
|
|
134,975 |
|
Cash investments |
|
|
12,296 |
|
|
|
7,070 |
|
Other |
|
|
(7,711 |
) |
|
|
(1,216 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from investing activities |
|
|
9,606 |
|
|
|
25,264 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(36,083 |
) |
|
|
183,402 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
324,175 |
|
|
|
146,343 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
288,092 |
|
|
$ |
329,745 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
STATEMENTS OF INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales |
|
$ |
309,236 |
|
|
$ |
417,900 |
|
|
$ |
901,913 |
|
|
$ |
1,307,592 |
|
Excise tax collections |
|
|
19,480 |
|
|
|
17,629 |
|
|
|
52,548 |
|
|
|
52,748 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
328,716 |
|
|
|
435,529 |
|
|
|
954,461 |
|
|
|
1,360,340 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
89,389 |
|
|
|
153,556 |
|
|
|
298,204 |
|
|
|
635,927 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
35,151 |
|
|
|
87,689 |
|
|
|
105,200 |
|
|
|
208,849 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
36,441 |
|
|
|
37,822 |
|
|
|
96,613 |
|
|
|
141,829 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
18,057 |
|
|
|
17,753 |
|
|
|
54,504 |
|
|
|
53,885 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
45,136 |
|
|
|
39,313 |
|
|
|
121,082 |
|
|
|
325,630 |
|
Deferral of new regulatory assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(134,587 |
) |
General taxes |
|
|
39,878 |
|
|
|
37,752 |
|
|
|
107,207 |
|
|
|
112,749 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
264,052 |
|
|
|
373,885 |
|
|
|
782,810 |
|
|
|
1,344,282 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
64,664 |
|
|
|
61,644 |
|
|
|
171,651 |
|
|
|
16,058 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
6,604 |
|
|
|
7,565 |
|
|
|
20,756 |
|
|
|
23,599 |
|
Miscellaneous income |
|
|
533 |
|
|
|
645 |
|
|
|
1,790 |
|
|
|
3,437 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(33,384 |
) |
|
|
(34,740 |
) |
|
|
(100,267 |
) |
|
|
(100,819 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
145 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(26,237 |
) |
|
|
(26,503 |
) |
|
|
(77,678 |
) |
|
|
(73,638 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
38,427 |
|
|
|
35,141 |
|
|
|
93,973 |
|
|
|
(57,580 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAX EXPENSE (BENEFIT) |
|
|
13,479 |
|
|
|
9,755 |
|
|
|
33,107 |
|
|
|
(25,290 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME (LOSS) |
|
|
24,948 |
|
|
|
25,386 |
|
|
|
60,866 |
|
|
|
(32,290 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from noncontrolling interest |
|
|
366 |
|
|
|
418 |
|
|
|
1,151 |
|
|
|
1,295 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EARNINGS (LOSS) AVAILABLE TO PARENT |
|
$ |
24,582 |
|
|
$ |
24,968 |
|
|
$ |
59,715 |
|
|
$ |
(33,585 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME (LOSS) |
|
$ |
24,948 |
|
|
$ |
25,386 |
|
|
$ |
60,866 |
|
|
$ |
(32,290 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
3,228 |
|
|
|
(48,024 |
) |
|
|
(16,129 |
) |
|
|
(154 |
) |
Unrealized loss on derivative hedges |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,451 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,451 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss) |
|
|
3,228 |
|
|
|
(49,475 |
) |
|
|
(16,129 |
) |
|
|
(1,605 |
) |
Income tax expense (benefit) related to other
comprehensive income |
|
|
976 |
|
|
|
(17,854 |
) |
|
|
(6,325 |
) |
|
|
1,452 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax |
|
|
2,252 |
|
|
|
(31,621 |
) |
|
|
(9,804 |
) |
|
|
(3,057 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS) |
|
|
27,200 |
|
|
|
(6,235 |
) |
|
|
51,062 |
|
|
|
(35,347 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO
NONCONTROLLING INTEREST |
|
|
366 |
|
|
|
418 |
|
|
|
1,151 |
|
|
|
1,295 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS) AVAILABLE TO PARENT |
|
$ |
26,834 |
|
|
$ |
(6,653 |
) |
|
$ |
49,911 |
|
|
$ |
(36,642 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
247 |
|
|
$ |
86,230 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers (less accumulated provisions of $5,271,000 and $5,239,000,
respectively, for uncollectible accounts) |
|
|
186,044 |
|
|
|
209,335 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
59,339 |
|
|
|
98,954 |
|
Other |
|
|
4,910 |
|
|
|
11,661 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
23,905 |
|
|
|
26,802 |
|
Prepayments and other |
|
|
4,362 |
|
|
|
9,973 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
278,807 |
|
|
|
442,955 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UTILITY PLANT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
2,373,419 |
|
|
|
2,310,074 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
921,040 |
|
|
|
888,169 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,452,379 |
|
|
|
1,421,905 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
30,482 |
|
|
|
36,907 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,482,861 |
|
|
|
1,458,812 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in lessor notes |
|
|
340,031 |
|
|
|
388,641 |
|
Other |
|
|
10,084 |
|
|
|
10,220 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
350,115 |
|
|
|
398,861 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
1,688,521 |
|
|
|
1,688,521 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
420,144 |
|
|
|
545,505 |
|
Pension assets (Note 6) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,380 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
77,319 |
|
|
|
77,319 |
|
Other |
|
|
12,897 |
|
|
|
12,777 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,198,881 |
|
|
|
2,337,502 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
4,310,664 |
|
|
$ |
4,638,130 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
148 |
|
|
$ |
117 |
|
Short-term borrowings- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
129,912 |
|
|
|
339,728 |
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
14,803 |
|
|
|
68,634 |
|
Other |
|
|
13,725 |
|
|
|
17,166 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
64,492 |
|
|
|
90,511 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
39,261 |
|
|
|
18,466 |
|
Other |
|
|
63,732 |
|
|
|
45,440 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
326,073 |
|
|
|
580,062 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, without par value, authorized 105,000,000 shares,
67,930,743 shares outstanding |
|
|
886,927 |
|
|
|
884,897 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(147,962 |
) |
|
|
(138,158 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
556,963 |
|
|
|
597,248 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
1,295,928 |
|
|
|
1,343,987 |
|
Noncontrolling interest |
|
|
17,651 |
|
|
|
20,592 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity |
|
|
1,313,579 |
|
|
|
1,364,579 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
1,852,511 |
|
|
|
1,872,750 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,166,090 |
|
|
|
3,237,329 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
628,244 |
|
|
|
644,745 |
|
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits |
|
|
11,205 |
|
|
|
11,836 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
82,070 |
|
|
|
69,733 |
|
Other |
|
|
96,982 |
|
|
|
94,425 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
818,501 |
|
|
|
820,739 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
4,310,664 |
|
|
$ |
4,638,130 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
12
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss) |
|
$ |
60,866 |
|
|
$ |
(32,290 |
) |
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
54,504 |
|
|
|
53,885 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
121,082 |
|
|
|
325,630 |
|
Deferral of new regulatory assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(134,587 |
) |
Purchased power cost recovery reconciliation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,478 |
) |
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
(24,283 |
) |
|
|
(41,939 |
) |
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
10,467 |
|
|
|
10,311 |
|
Pension trust contribution |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(89,789 |
) |
Electric service prepayment programs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,510 |
) |
Cash collateral from suppliers, net |
|
|
19,245 |
|
|
|
5,404 |
|
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
86,725 |
|
|
|
30,977 |
|
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
5,421 |
|
|
|
(633 |
) |
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
(57,272 |
) |
|
|
(32,240 |
) |
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(23,876 |
) |
|
|
(17,003 |
) |
Accrued interest |
|
|
20,795 |
|
|
|
29,816 |
|
Other |
|
|
740 |
|
|
|
11,489 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from operating activities |
|
|
274,414 |
|
|
|
112,043 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
298,398 |
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(84 |
) |
|
|
(558 |
) |
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
(230,132 |
) |
|
|
(111,128 |
) |
Common stock dividend payments |
|
|
(100,000 |
) |
|
|
(93,000 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(4,100 |
) |
|
|
(6,161 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) financing activities |
|
|
(334,316 |
) |
|
|
87,551 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(70,812 |
) |
|
|
(73,577 |
) |
Restricted cash |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(155,573 |
) |
Loan repayments from (to) associated companies, net |
|
|
2,897 |
|
|
|
(4,638 |
) |
Redemptions of lessor notes |
|
|
48,610 |
|
|
|
37,072 |
|
Other |
|
|
(6,776 |
) |
|
|
(2,871 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for investing activities |
|
|
(26,081 |
) |
|
|
(199,587 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(85,983 |
) |
|
|
7 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
86,230 |
|
|
|
226 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
247 |
|
|
$ |
233 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
STATEMENTS OF INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales |
|
$ |
136,058 |
|
|
$ |
206,086 |
|
|
$ |
376,180 |
|
|
$ |
663,082 |
|
Excise tax collections |
|
|
7,979 |
|
|
|
7,422 |
|
|
|
21,079 |
|
|
|
21,448 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
144,037 |
|
|
|
213,508 |
|
|
|
397,259 |
|
|
|
684,530 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
42,338 |
|
|
|
86,278 |
|
|
|
144,062 |
|
|
|
342,166 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
16,663 |
|
|
|
56,494 |
|
|
|
50,377 |
|
|
|
115,275 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
28,746 |
|
|
|
30,238 |
|
|
|
79,790 |
|
|
|
110,722 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
7,800 |
|
|
|
7,847 |
|
|
|
23,763 |
|
|
|
23,136 |
|
Amortization (deferral) of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
6,591 |
|
|
|
9,253 |
|
|
|
(3,708 |
) |
|
|
30,921 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
14,023 |
|
|
|
13,205 |
|
|
|
39,766 |
|
|
|
39,804 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
116,161 |
|
|
|
203,315 |
|
|
|
334,050 |
|
|
|
662,024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
27,876 |
|
|
|
10,193 |
|
|
|
63,209 |
|
|
|
22,506 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
3,018 |
|
|
|
9,302 |
|
|
|
11,875 |
|
|
|
22,315 |
|
Miscellaneous expense |
|
|
(502 |
) |
|
|
(1,725 |
) |
|
|
(2,853 |
) |
|
|
(1,690 |
) |
Interest expense |
|
|
(10,479 |
) |
|
|
(10,854 |
) |
|
|
(31,421 |
) |
|
|
(25,649 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
252 |
|
|
|
138 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(7,869 |
) |
|
|
(3,231 |
) |
|
|
(22,147 |
) |
|
|
(4,886 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
20,007 |
|
|
|
6,962 |
|
|
|
41,062 |
|
|
|
17,620 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAX EXPENSE (BENEFIT) |
|
|
6,911 |
|
|
|
(138 |
) |
|
|
13,241 |
|
|
|
3,123 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
|
13,096 |
|
|
|
7,100 |
|
|
|
27,821 |
|
|
|
14,497 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from noncontrolling interest |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EARNINGS AVAILABLE TO PARENT |
|
$ |
13,100 |
|
|
$ |
7,086 |
|
|
$ |
27,820 |
|
|
$ |
14,480 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
13,096 |
|
|
$ |
7,100 |
|
|
$ |
27,821 |
|
|
$ |
14,497 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
713 |
|
|
|
(24,201 |
) |
|
|
1,723 |
|
|
|
(5,052 |
) |
Change in unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities |
|
|
427 |
|
|
|
(11,633 |
) |
|
|
466 |
|
|
|
(15,181 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss) |
|
|
1,140 |
|
|
|
(35,834 |
) |
|
|
2,189 |
|
|
|
(20,233 |
) |
Income tax expense (benefit) related to other comprehensive income |
|
|
330 |
|
|
|
(13,187 |
) |
|
|
565 |
|
|
|
(5,982 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax |
|
|
810 |
|
|
|
(22,647 |
) |
|
|
1,624 |
|
|
|
(14,251 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS) |
|
|
13,906 |
|
|
|
(15,547 |
) |
|
|
29,445 |
|
|
|
246 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS) ATTRIBUTABLE TO
NONCONTROLLING INTEREST |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS) AVAILABLE TO PARENT |
|
$ |
13,910 |
|
|
$ |
(15,561 |
) |
|
$ |
29,444 |
|
|
$ |
229 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
134,158 |
|
|
$ |
436,712 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers |
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
44,075 |
|
|
|
90,191 |
|
Other (less accumulated provisions of $224,000 and $208,000, respectively,
for uncollectible accounts) |
|
|
19,146 |
|
|
|
20,180 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
81,254 |
|
|
|
85,101 |
|
Prepayments and other |
|
|
4,272 |
|
|
|
7,111 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
282,935 |
|
|
|
639,370 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UTILITY PLANT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
938,532 |
|
|
|
912,930 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
440,510 |
|
|
|
427,376 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
498,022 |
|
|
|
485,554 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
9,946 |
|
|
|
9,069 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
507,968 |
|
|
|
494,623 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in lessor notes |
|
|
103,848 |
|
|
|
124,357 |
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
76,051 |
|
|
|
73,935 |
|
Other |
|
|
1,514 |
|
|
|
1,580 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
181,413 |
|
|
|
199,872 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
500,576 |
|
|
|
500,576 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
74,297 |
|
|
|
69,557 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
23,658 |
|
|
|
23,658 |
|
Other |
|
|
27,215 |
|
|
|
55,622 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
625,746 |
|
|
|
649,413 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,598,062 |
|
|
$ |
1,983,278 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
208 |
|
|
$ |
222 |
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
8,644 |
|
|
|
78,341 |
|
Other |
|
|
6,212 |
|
|
|
8,312 |
|
Notes payable to associated companies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
225,975 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
17,904 |
|
|
|
25,734 |
|
Lease market valuation liability |
|
|
36,900 |
|
|
|
36,900 |
|
Other |
|
|
44,745 |
|
|
|
29,273 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
114,613 |
|
|
|
404,757 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $5 par value, authorized 60,000,000 shares,
29,402,054 shares outstanding |
|
|
147,010 |
|
|
|
147,010 |
|
Other paid-in-capital |
|
|
178,170 |
|
|
|
178,181 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(48,179 |
) |
|
|
(49,803 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
112,310 |
|
|
|
214,490 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
389,311 |
|
|
|
489,878 |
|
Noncontrolling interest |
|
|
2,587 |
|
|
|
2,696 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity |
|
|
391,898 |
|
|
|
492,574 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
600,478 |
|
|
|
600,443 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
992,376 |
|
|
|
1,093,017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
116,090 |
|
|
|
80,508 |
|
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits |
|
|
6,039 |
|
|
|
6,367 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
67,953 |
|
|
|
65,988 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
28,287 |
|
|
|
32,290 |
|
Lease market valuation liability |
|
|
208,525 |
|
|
|
236,200 |
|
Other |
|
|
64,179 |
|
|
|
64,151 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
491,073 |
|
|
|
485,504 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,598,062 |
|
|
$ |
1,983,278 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
15
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
27,821 |
|
|
$ |
14,497 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
23,763 |
|
|
|
23,136 |
|
Amortization (deferral) of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(3,708 |
) |
|
|
30,921 |
|
Deferred rents and lease market valuation liability |
|
|
(36,123 |
) |
|
|
(34,556 |
) |
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
18,927 |
|
|
|
(2,242 |
) |
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
4,529 |
|
|
|
3,039 |
|
Accrued regulatory obligations |
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
4,841 |
|
Electric service prepayment programs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,458 |
) |
Pension trust contribution |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(21,590 |
) |
Cash collateral from suppliers |
|
|
9,874 |
|
|
|
2,830 |
|
Decrease in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
61,051 |
|
|
|
24,561 |
|
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
2,839 |
|
|
|
109 |
|
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
(69,846 |
) |
|
|
(13,440 |
) |
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(6,172 |
) |
|
|
(5,057 |
) |
Accrued interest |
|
|
10,050 |
|
|
|
14,033 |
|
Other |
|
|
(10,971 |
) |
|
|
(3,694 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from operating activities |
|
|
32,074 |
|
|
|
35,930 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
297,422 |
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(167 |
) |
|
|
(292 |
) |
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
(225,975 |
) |
|
|
(101,569 |
) |
Common stock dividend payments |
|
|
(130,000 |
) |
|
|
(25,000 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(112 |
) |
|
|
(351 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) financing activities |
|
|
(356,254 |
) |
|
|
170,210 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(29,592 |
) |
|
|
(33,005 |
) |
Leasehold improvement payments from associated companies |
|
|
32,829 |
|
|
|
|
|
Loan repayments from associated companies, net |
|
|
3,847 |
|
|
|
10,256 |
|
Redemptions of lessor notes |
|
|
20,509 |
|
|
|
18,358 |
|
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
118,360 |
|
|
|
171,061 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(119,777 |
) |
|
|
(173,214 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(4,550 |
) |
|
|
(2,776 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities |
|
|
21,626 |
|
|
|
(9,320 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(302,554 |
) |
|
|
196,820 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
436,712 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
134,158 |
|
|
$ |
196,834 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales |
|
$ |
952,420 |
|
|
$ |
854,108 |
|
|
$ |
2,353,418 |
|
|
$ |
2,312,089 |
|
Excise tax collections |
|
|
16,080 |
|
|
|
14,128 |
|
|
|
39,444 |
|
|
|
37,890 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
968,500 |
|
|
|
868,236 |
|
|
|
2,392,862 |
|
|
|
2,349,979 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power |
|
|
556,618 |
|
|
|
509,035 |
|
|
|
1,381,104 |
|
|
|
1,414,226 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
89,167 |
|
|
|
84,495 |
|
|
|
260,004 |
|
|
|
241,241 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
26,614 |
|
|
|
26,565 |
|
|
|
81,678 |
|
|
|
76,969 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
100,476 |
|
|
|
96,051 |
|
|
|
251,250 |
|
|
|
262,900 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
19,974 |
|
|
|
18,344 |
|
|
|
51,312 |
|
|
|
48,427 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
792,849 |
|
|
|
734,490 |
|
|
|
2,025,348 |
|
|
|
2,043,763 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
175,651 |
|
|
|
133,746 |
|
|
|
367,514 |
|
|
|
306,216 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Miscellaneous income |
|
|
1,662 |
|
|
|
1,301 |
|
|
|
5,144 |
|
|
|
4,113 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(30,220 |
) |
|
|
(29,593 |
) |
|
|
(89,684 |
) |
|
|
(87,132 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
199 |
|
|
|
139 |
|
|
|
488 |
|
|
|
419 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(28,359 |
) |
|
|
(28,153 |
) |
|
|
(84,052 |
) |
|
|
(82,600 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
147,292 |
|
|
|
105,593 |
|
|
|
283,462 |
|
|
|
223,616 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
64,440 |
|
|
|
43,435 |
|
|
|
121,491 |
|
|
|
95,834 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
|
82,852 |
|
|
|
62,158 |
|
|
|
161,971 |
|
|
|
127,782 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
4,135 |
|
|
|
(51,932 |
) |
|
|
24,198 |
|
|
|
(26,893 |
) |
Unrealized gain on derivative hedges |
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
207 |
|
|
|
207 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss) |
|
|
4,204 |
|
|
|
(51,863 |
) |
|
|
24,405 |
|
|
|
(26,686 |
) |
Income tax expense (benefit) related to
other comprehensive income |
|
|
1,443 |
|
|
|
(21,295 |
) |
|
|
9,442 |
|
|
|
(8,806 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax |
|
|
2,761 |
|
|
|
(30,568 |
) |
|
|
14,963 |
|
|
|
(17,880 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
$ |
85,613 |
|
|
$ |
31,590 |
|
|
$ |
176,934 |
|
|
$ |
109,902 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
27 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers (less accumulated provisions of $4,736,000 and $3,506,000,
respectively, for uncollectible accounts) |
|
|
378,822 |
|
|
|
300,991 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
3,900 |
|
|
|
12,884 |
|
Other |
|
|
26,024 |
|
|
|
21,877 |
|
Notes receivable associated companies |
|
|
64,168 |
|
|
|
102,932 |
|
Prepaid taxes |
|
|
71,153 |
|
|
|
34,930 |
|
Other |
|
|
15,674 |
|
|
|
12,945 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
559,742 |
|
|
|
486,586 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UTILITY PLANT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
4,568,640 |
|
|
|
4,463,490 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
1,666,918 |
|
|
|
1,617,639 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,901,722 |
|
|
|
2,845,851 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
51,857 |
|
|
|
54,251 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,953,579 |
|
|
|
2,900,102 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
175,254 |
|
|
|
166,768 |
|
Nuclear fuel disposal trust |
|
|
208,870 |
|
|
|
199,677 |
|
Other |
|
|
2,136 |
|
|
|
2,149 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
386,260 |
|
|
|
368,594 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
1,810,936 |
|
|
|
1,810,936 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
722,086 |
|
|
|
888,143 |
|
Other |
|
|
30,608 |
|
|
|
27,096 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,563,630 |
|
|
|
2,726,175 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6,463,211 |
|
|
$ |
6,481,457 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
31,947 |
|
|
$ |
30,639 |
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
12,743 |
|
|
|
26,882 |
|
Other |
|
|
154,872 |
|
|
|
168,093 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
24,798 |
|
|
|
12,594 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
30,003 |
|
|
|
18,256 |
|
Other |
|
|
78,903 |
|
|
|
111,156 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
333,266 |
|
|
|
367,620 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $10 par value, authorized 16,000,000 shares,
13,628,447 shares outstanding |
|
|
136,284 |
|
|
|
136,284 |
|
Other paid-in capital |
|
|
2,508,852 |
|
|
|
2,507,049 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(228,049 |
) |
|
|
(243,012 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
197,046 |
|
|
|
200,075 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
2,614,133 |
|
|
|
2,600,396 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
1,779,081 |
|
|
|
1,801,589 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,393,214 |
|
|
|
4,401,985 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
720,825 |
|
|
|
687,545 |
|
Nuclear fuel disposal costs |
|
|
196,703 |
|
|
|
196,511 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
133,579 |
|
|
|
150,603 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
106,573 |
|
|
|
101,568 |
|
Power purchase contract liability |
|
|
386,273 |
|
|
|
399,105 |
|
Other |
|
|
192,778 |
|
|
|
176,520 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,736,731 |
|
|
|
1,711,852 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6,463,211 |
|
|
$ |
6,481,457 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
18
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
161,971 |
|
|
$ |
127,782 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
81,678 |
|
|
|
76,969 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
251,250 |
|
|
|
262,900 |
|
Deferred purchased power and other costs |
|
|
(85,136 |
) |
|
|
(106,340 |
) |
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
14,984 |
|
|
|
40,989 |
|
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
11,621 |
|
|
|
7,308 |
|
Cash collateral paid, net |
|
|
(23,400 |
) |
|
|
(210 |
) |
Pension trust contribution |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(100,000 |
) |
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
(72,994 |
) |
|
|
18,984 |
|
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
(36,573 |
) |
|
|
(83,538 |
) |
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
(37,668 |
) |
|
|
(40,670 |
) |
Accrued taxes |
|
|
35,326 |
|
|
|
(13,399 |
) |
Accrued interest |
|
|
11,747 |
|
|
|
20,946 |
|
Tax collections payable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9,714 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(13,953 |
) |
|
|
12,606 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from operating activities |
|
|
298,853 |
|
|
|
214,613 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
299,619 |
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(150,000 |
) |
Long-term debt |
|
|
(21,703 |
) |
|
|
(20,570 |
) |
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(114,766 |
) |
Common stock dividend payments |
|
|
(165,000 |
) |
|
|
(88,000 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(2,275 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for financing activities |
|
|
(186,705 |
) |
|
|
(75,992 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(130,008 |
) |
|
|
(121,342 |
) |
Loans from (to) associated companies, net |
|
|
38,764 |
|
|
|
(660 |
) |
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
340,368 |
|
|
|
338,684 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(353,028 |
) |
|
|
(351,216 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(8,270 |
) |
|
|
(4,152 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for investing activities |
|
|
(112,174 |
) |
|
|
(138,686 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
(65 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales |
|
$ |
460,864 |
|
|
$ |
424,901 |
|
|
$ |
1,334,454 |
|
|
$ |
1,194,609 |
|
Gross receipts tax collections |
|
|
23,049 |
|
|
|
20,612 |
|
|
|
65,245 |
|
|
|
58,181 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
483,913 |
|
|
|
445,513 |
|
|
|
1,399,699 |
|
|
|
1,252,790 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
166,039 |
|
|
|
94,768 |
|
|
|
476,119 |
|
|
|
273,497 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
87,561 |
|
|
|
142,495 |
|
|
|
264,765 |
|
|
|
389,705 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
141,761 |
|
|
|
63,654 |
|
|
|
333,895 |
|
|
|
221,320 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
12,978 |
|
|
|
13,262 |
|
|
|
39,176 |
|
|
|
38,320 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
15,480 |
|
|
|
84,631 |
|
|
|
112,869 |
|
|
|
173,770 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
25,029 |
|
|
|
22,540 |
|
|
|
66,663 |
|
|
|
66,509 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
448,848 |
|
|
|
421,350 |
|
|
|
1,293,487 |
|
|
|
1,163,121 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
35,065 |
|
|
|
24,163 |
|
|
|
106,212 |
|
|
|
89,669 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income |
|
|
581 |
|
|
|
2,169 |
|
|
|
2,678 |
|
|
|
8,124 |
|
Miscellaneous income |
|
|
1,539 |
|
|
|
1,068 |
|
|
|
5,093 |
|
|
|
2,982 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(13,037 |
) |
|
|
(14,380 |
) |
|
|
(39,812 |
) |
|
|
(42,502 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
176 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
461 |
|
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(10,741 |
) |
|
|
(11,096 |
) |
|
|
(31,580 |
) |
|
|
(31,272 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
24,324 |
|
|
|
13,067 |
|
|
|
74,632 |
|
|
|
58,397 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
10,084 |
|
|
|
2,324 |
|
|
|
30,968 |
|
|
|
21,027 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
|
14,240 |
|
|
|
10,743 |
|
|
|
43,664 |
|
|
|
37,370 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
2,161 |
|
|
|
(31,365 |
) |
|
|
14,032 |
|
|
|
557 |
|
Unrealized gain on derivative hedges |
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
252 |
|
|
|
252 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss) |
|
|
2,245 |
|
|
|
(31,281 |
) |
|
|
14,284 |
|
|
|
809 |
|
Income tax expense (benefit) related to
other comprehensive income |
|
|
723 |
|
|
|
(13,112 |
) |
|
|
5,624 |
|
|
|
2,273 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax |
|
|
1,522 |
|
|
|
(18,169 |
) |
|
|
8,660 |
|
|
|
(1,464 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS) |
|
$ |
15,762 |
|
|
$ |
(7,426 |
) |
|
$ |
52,324 |
|
|
$ |
35,906 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
124 |
|
|
$ |
120 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers (less accumulated provisions of $4,344,000 and $4,044,000,
respectively, for uncollectible accounts) |
|
|
182,509 |
|
|
|
171,052 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
41,689 |
|
|
|
29,413 |
|
Other |
|
|
13,654 |
|
|
|
11,650 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
11,201 |
|
|
|
97,150 |
|
Prepaid taxes |
|
|
27,307 |
|
|
|
15,229 |
|
Other |
|
|
2,523 |
|
|
|
1,459 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
279,007 |
|
|
|
326,073 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UTILITY PLANT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
2,213,765 |
|
|
|
2,162,815 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
836,821 |
|
|
|
810,746 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,376,944 |
|
|
|
1,352,069 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
31,488 |
|
|
|
14,901 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,408,432 |
|
|
|
1,366,970 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
277,823 |
|
|
|
266,479 |
|
Other |
|
|
877 |
|
|
|
890 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
278,700 |
|
|
|
267,369 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
416,499 |
|
|
|
416,499 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
400,375 |
|
|
|
356,754 |
|
Power purchase contract asset |
|
|
103,902 |
|
|
|
176,111 |
|
Other |
|
|
64,084 |
|
|
|
36,544 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
984,860 |
|
|
|
985,908 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,950,999 |
|
|
$ |
2,946,320 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
28,500 |
|
|
$ |
128,500 |
|
Short-term borrowings- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
6,296 |
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
34,204 |
|
|
|
40,521 |
|
Other |
|
|
28,604 |
|
|
|
41,050 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
2,967 |
|
|
|
11,170 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
11,717 |
|
|
|
17,362 |
|
Other |
|
|
31,993 |
|
|
|
24,520 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
144,281 |
|
|
|
263,123 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, without par value, authorized 900,000 shares,
859,500 shares outstanding |
|
|
1,197,064 |
|
|
|
1,197,070 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(134,891 |
) |
|
|
(143,551 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
48,064 |
|
|
|
4,399 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
1,110,237 |
|
|
|
1,057,918 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
713,941 |
|
|
|
713,873 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,824,178 |
|
|
|
1,771,791 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
489,608 |
|
|
|
453,462 |
|
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits |
|
|
6,978 |
|
|
|
7,313 |
|
Nuclear fuel disposal costs |
|
|
44,434 |
|
|
|
44,391 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
28,268 |
|
|
|
33,605 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
189,489 |
|
|
|
180,297 |
|
Power purchase contract liability |
|
|
175,259 |
|
|
|
143,135 |
|
Other |
|
|
48,504 |
|
|
|
49,203 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
982,540 |
|
|
|
911,406 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,950,999 |
|
|
$ |
2,946,320 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
21
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
43,664 |
|
|
$ |
37,370 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
39,176 |
|
|
|
38,320 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
112,869 |
|
|
|
173,770 |
|
Deferred costs recoverable as regulatory assets |
|
|
(49,646 |
) |
|
|
(70,044 |
) |
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
23,781 |
|
|
|
59,393 |
|
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
(282 |
) |
|
|
6,712 |
|
Pension trust contribution |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(123,521 |
) |
Cash collateral paid, net |
|
|
(17,647 |
) |
|
|
(6,800 |
) |
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
(18,444 |
) |
|
|
(23,370 |
) |
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
(13,144 |
) |
|
|
(22,614 |
) |
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
(18,763 |
) |
|
|
(17,293 |
) |
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(8,203 |
) |
|
|
(11,095 |
) |
Accrued interest |
|
|
(5,645 |
) |
|
|
5,001 |
|
Other |
|
|
7,721 |
|
|
|
11,891 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from operating activities |
|
|
95,437 |
|
|
|
57,720 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
300,000 |
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
6,296 |
|
|
|
|
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(100,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(265,003 |
) |
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,268 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) financing activities |
|
|
(93,704 |
) |
|
|
32,729 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(77,921 |
) |
|
|
(73,106 |
) |
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
420,116 |
|
|
|
88,802 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(427,150 |
) |
|
|
(95,982 |
) |
Loans from (to) associated companies, net |
|
|
85,949 |
|
|
|
(6,586 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(2,723 |
) |
|
|
(3,597 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for investing activities |
|
|
(1,729 |
) |
|
|
(90,469 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
120 |
|
|
|
144 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
124 |
|
|
$ |
124 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales |
|
$ |
372,480 |
|
|
$ |
340,246 |
|
|
$ |
1,108,751 |
|
|
$ |
1,028,420 |
|
Gross receipts tax collections |
|
|
17,414 |
|
|
|
15,246 |
|
|
|
51,100 |
|
|
|
47,342 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
389,894 |
|
|
|
355,492 |
|
|
|
1,159,851 |
|
|
|
1,075,762 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
165,125 |
|
|
|
81,191 |
|
|
|
486,470 |
|
|
|
249,438 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
92,648 |
|
|
|
144,777 |
|
|
|
270,900 |
|
|
|
397,260 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
58,832 |
|
|
|
47,785 |
|
|
|
198,296 |
|
|
|
171,375 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
14,859 |
|
|
|
15,038 |
|
|
|
46,146 |
|
|
|
45,074 |
|
Amortization (deferral) of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(1,771 |
) |
|
|
17,201 |
|
|
|
(22,259 |
) |
|
|
44,090 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
19,194 |
|
|
|
17,230 |
|
|
|
54,375 |
|
|
|
56,074 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
348,887 |
|
|
|
323,222 |
|
|
|
1,033,928 |
|
|
|
963,311 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
41,007 |
|
|
|
32,270 |
|
|
|
125,923 |
|
|
|
112,451 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Miscellaneous income |
|
|
1,508 |
|
|
|
1,156 |
|
|
|
4,431 |
|
|
|
2,865 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(17,581 |
) |
|
|
(11,614 |
) |
|
|
(52,501 |
) |
|
|
(36,690 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
193 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
516 |
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(15,880 |
) |
|
|
(10,435 |
) |
|
|
(47,554 |
) |
|
|
(33,751 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
25,127 |
|
|
|
21,835 |
|
|
|
78,369 |
|
|
|
78,700 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
5,311 |
|
|
|
6,039 |
|
|
|
28,280 |
|
|
|
29,393 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
|
19,816 |
|
|
|
15,796 |
|
|
|
50,089 |
|
|
|
49,307 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
1,830 |
|
|
|
(79,579 |
) |
|
|
12,207 |
|
|
|
(47,224 |
) |
Unrealized gain on derivative hedges |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
49 |
|
Change in unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss) |
|
|
1,846 |
|
|
|
(79,543 |
) |
|
|
12,255 |
|
|
|
(47,172 |
) |
Income tax expense (benefit) related to other
comprehensive income |
|
|
484 |
|
|
|
(33,141 |
) |
|
|
4,251 |
|
|
|
(16,986 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax |
|
|
1,362 |
|
|
|
(46,402 |
) |
|
|
8,004 |
|
|
|
(30,186 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS) |
|
$ |
21,178 |
|
|
$ |
(30,606 |
) |
|
$ |
58,093 |
|
|
$ |
19,121 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
14 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers (less accumulated provisions of $3,481,000 and $3,483,000,
respectively, for uncollectible accounts) |
|
|
135,416 |
|
|
|
139,302 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
95,355 |
|
|
|
77,338 |
|
Other |
|
|
14,413 |
|
|
|
18,320 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
14,569 |
|
|
|
14,589 |
|
Prepaid taxes |
|
|
48,264 |
|
|
|
18,946 |
|
Other |
|
|
2,115 |
|
|
|
1,400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
310,140 |
|
|
|
269,909 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UTILITY PLANT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
2,503,555 |
|
|
|
2,431,737 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
925,894 |
|
|
|
901,990 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,577,661 |
|
|
|
1,529,747 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
28,498 |
|
|
|
24,205 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,606,159 |
|
|
|
1,553,952 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
147,675 |
|
|
|
142,603 |
|
Non-utility generation trusts |
|
|
92,034 |
|
|
|
120,070 |
|
Other |
|
|
294 |
|
|
|
289 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
240,003 |
|
|
|
262,962 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
768,628 |
|
|
|
768,628 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
202,801 |
|
|
|
9,045 |
|
Power purchase contract asset |
|
|
5,746 |
|
|
|
15,362 |
|
Other |
|
|
28,780 |
|
|
|
19,143 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,005,955 |
|
|
|
812,178 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,162,257 |
|
|
$ |
2,899,001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
69,310 |
|
|
$ |
69,310 |
|
Short-term borrowings- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
43,244 |
|
|
|
41,473 |
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
40,747 |
|
|
|
39,884 |
|
Other |
|
|
28,427 |
|
|
|
41,990 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
4,164 |
|
|
|
6,409 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
24,513 |
|
|
|
17,598 |
|
Other |
|
|
25,871 |
|
|
|
22,741 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
236,276 |
|
|
|
239,405 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $20 par value, authorized 5,400,000 shares,
4,427,577 shares outstanding |
|
|
88,552 |
|
|
|
88,552 |
|
Other paid-in capital |
|
|
913,507 |
|
|
|
913,437 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(154,100 |
) |
|
|
(162,104 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
141,590 |
|
|
|
91,501 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
989,549 |
|
|
|
931,386 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
1,072,207 |
|
|
|
1,072,181 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,061,756 |
|
|
|
2,003,567 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
356,536 |
|
|
|
242,040 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
167,542 |
|
|
|
174,306 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
96,519 |
|
|
|
91,841 |
|
Power purchase contract liability |
|
|
194,102 |
|
|
|
100,849 |
|
Other |
|
|
49,526 |
|
|
|
46,993 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
864,225 |
|
|
|
656,029 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,162,257 |
|
|
$ |
2,899,001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
24
PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
50,089 |
|
|
$ |
49,307 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
46,146 |
|
|
|
45,074 |
|
Amortization (deferral) of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(22,259 |
) |
|
|
44,090 |
|
Deferred costs recoverable as regulatory assets |
|
|
(61,574 |
) |
|
|
(76,953 |
) |
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
94,015 |
|
|
|
56,144 |
|
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
7,634 |
|
|
|
6,271 |
|
Cash collateral paid, net |
|
|
(11,760 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Pension trust contribution |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(60,000 |
) |
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
(2,584 |
) |
|
|
3,687 |
|
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
(30,034 |
) |
|
|
(24,730 |
) |
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
(12,766 |
) |
|
|
(8,988 |
) |
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(2,245 |
) |
|
|
(7,015 |
) |
Accrued interest |
|
|
6,915 |
|
|
|
(2,570 |
) |
Other |
|
|
10,127 |
|
|
|
13,392 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from operating activities |
|
|
71,704 |
|
|
|
37,709 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
498,583 |
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
1,771 |
|
|
|
|
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(100,000 |
) |
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(239,770 |
) |
Common stock dividend payments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(85,000 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(125 |
) |
|
|
(3,865 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from financing activities |
|
|
1,646 |
|
|
|
69,948 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(91,924 |
) |
|
|
(92,070 |
) |
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
141,392 |
|
|
|
80,986 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(116,240 |
) |
|
|
(91,105 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(6,584 |
) |
|
|
(5,482 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for investing activities |
|
|
(73,356 |
) |
|
|
(107,671 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(14 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
25
COMBINED NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED)
1. ORGANIZATION AND BASIS OF PRESENTATION
FirstEnergy is a diversified energy company that holds, directly or indirectly, all of the
outstanding common stock of its principal subsidiaries: OE, CEI, TE, Penn (a wholly owned
subsidiary of OE), ATSI, JCP&L, Met-Ed, Penelec, FENOC, FES and its subsidiaries FGCO and NGC, and
FESC.
FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries follow GAAP and comply with the regulations, orders, policies and
practices prescribed by the SEC, the FERC and, as applicable, the PUCO, the PPUC and the NJBPU. The
preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make periodic
estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and
expenses and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. Actual results could differ from
these estimates. The reported results of operations are not indicative of results of operations for
any future period. In preparing the financial statements, FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries have
evaluated events and transactions for potential recognition or disclosure through the date the
financial statements were issued.
These statements should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes included in
the combined Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 for FirstEnergy, FES
and the Utilities, as applicable. The consolidated unaudited financial statements of FirstEnergy,
FES and each of the Utilities reflect all normal recurring adjustments that, in the opinion of
management, are necessary to fairly present results of operations for the interim periods. Certain
prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation. Unless
otherwise indicated, defined terms used herein have the meanings set forth in the accompanying
Glossary of Terms.
FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries consolidate all majority-owned subsidiaries over which they
exercise control and, when applicable, entities for which they have a controlling financial
interest. Intercompany transactions and balances are eliminated in consolidation. FirstEnergy
consolidates a VIE when it is determined that it is the primary beneficiary (see Note 7).
Investments in affiliates over which FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries have the ability to exercise
significant influence, but are not the primary beneficiary and do not exercise control, follow the
equity method of accounting. Under the equity method, the interest in the entity is reported as an
investment in the Consolidated Balance Sheets and the percentage share of the entitys earnings is
reported in the Consolidated Statements of Income.
2. EARNINGS PER SHARE
Basic earnings per share of common stock is computed using the weighted average of actual common
shares outstanding during the respective period as the denominator. The denominator for diluted
earnings per share of common stock reflects the weighted average of common shares outstanding plus
the potential additional common shares that could result if dilutive securities and other
agreements to issue common stock were exercised. The following table reconciles basic and diluted
earnings per share of common stock:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
Nine Months |
|
Reconciliation of Basic and Diluted Earnings per Share |
|
Ended September 30 |
|
|
Ended September 30 |
|
of Common Stock |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In millions, except per share amounts) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
$ |
179 |
|
|
$ |
234 |
|
|
$ |
599 |
|
|
$ |
768 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average number of basic shares outstanding |
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
304 |
|
Assumed exercise of dilutive stock options and awards |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average number of diluted shares outstanding |
|
|
305 |
|
|
|
306 |
|
|
|
305 |
|
|
|
306 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings per share of common stock |
|
$ |
0.59 |
|
|
$ |
0.77 |
|
|
$ |
1.97 |
|
|
$ |
2.52 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted earnings per share of common stock |
|
$ |
0.59 |
|
|
$ |
0.77 |
|
|
$ |
1.96 |
|
|
$ |
2.51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26
3. GOODWILL
In a business combination, the excess of the purchase price over the estimated fair values of the
assets acquired and liabilities assumed is recognized as goodwill. Goodwill is evaluated for
impairment at least annually and more frequently if indicators of impairment arise. In accordance
with the accounting standards, if the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying
value (including goodwill), the goodwill is tested for impairment. Impairment is indicated and a
loss is recognized if the implied fair value of a reporting units goodwill is less than the
carrying value of its goodwill.
FirstEnergys goodwill primarily relates to its energy delivery services segment. FirstEnergys
aggregated reporting units are consistent with its operating segments, which are energy delivery
services and competitive energy. Goodwill is
allocated to these operating segments based on the original purchase price allocation for
acquisitions within the various reporting units. The goodwill allocated to competitive energy is
insignificant to that segment and to FirstEnergy.
Annual impairment testing is conducted during the third quarter of each year and for 2010 the
analysis indicated no impairment of goodwill. For purposes of annual testing the estimated fair
values of energy delivery services and the utilities were determined using a discounted cash flow
approach.
The discounted cash flow model of the reporting units, which are aggregated into operating
segments, is based on the forecasted operating cash flow for the current year, projected operating
cash flows for the next five years (determined using forecasted amounts as well as an estimated
growth rate) and a terminal value beyond five years. Discounted cash flows consist of the operating
cash flows for each reporting unit less an estimate for capital expenditures. The key assumptions
incorporated in the discounted cash flow approach include growth rates, projected operating income,
changes in working capital, projected capital expenditures, planned funding of pension plans,
anticipated funding of nuclear decommissioning trusts, expected results of future rate proceedings
and a discount rate equal to our assumed long term cost of capital. Cash flows may be adjusted to
exclude certain non-recurring or unusual items. Reporting unit income, which excludes non-recurring
or unusual items, was the starting point for determining operating cash flow and there were no non-
recurring or unusual items excluded from the calculations of operating cash flow in any of the
periods included in the determination of fair value.
Unanticipated changes in assumptions could have a significant effect on FirstEnergys evaluation of
goodwill. At the time of annual impairment testing, fair value would have to have declined in
excess of 52% for energy delivery services to indicate a potential goodwill impairment. Fair value
would have to have declined more than 26% for CEI, 64% for TE, 38% for JCP&L, 56% for Met-Ed, and
57% for Penelec to indicate potential goodwill impairment.
27
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 September 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2010 |
|
|
December 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
Value |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Value |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy (Consolidated) |
|
$ |
13,592 |
|
|
$ |
14,920 |
|
|
$ |
13,753 |
|
|
$ |
14,502 |
|
FES |
|
|
4,181 |
|
|
|
4,228 |
|
|
|
4,224 |
|
|
|
4,306 |
|
OE |
|
|
1,159 |
|
|
|
1,409 |
|
|
|
1,169 |
|
|
|
1,299 |
|
CEI |
|
|
1,853 |
|
|
|
2,144 |
|
|
|
1,873 |
|
|
|
2,032 |
|
TE |
|
|
600 |
|
|
|
706 |
|
|
|
600 |
|
|
|
638 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
1,819 |
|
|
|
2,076 |
|
|
|
1,840 |
|
|
|
1,950 |
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
742 |
|
|
|
849 |
|
|
|
842 |
|
|
|
909 |
|
Penelec |
|
|
1,144 |
|
|
|
1,269 |
|
|
|
1,144 |
|
|
|
1,177 |
|
The fair values of long-term debt and other long-term obligations reflect the present value of
the cash outflows relating to those securities based on the current call price, the yield to
maturity or the yield to call, as deemed appropriate at the end of each respective period. The
yields assumed were based on securities with similar characteristics offered by corporations with
credit ratings similar to those of FES and the Utilities.
(B) INVESTMENTS
All temporary cash investments purchased with an initial maturity of three months or less are
reported as cash equivalents on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at cost, which approximates their
fair market value. Investments other than cash and cash equivalents include held-to-maturity
securities, available-for-sale securities, and notes receivable.
Available-For-Sale Securities
The following table summarizes the amortized cost basis, unrealized gains and losses and fair
values of investments held in nuclear decommissioning trusts, nuclear fuel disposal trusts and NUG
trusts as of September 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2010(1) |
|
|
December 31, 2009(2) |
|
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
Basis |
|
|
Gains |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Basis |
|
|
Gains |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Value |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
1,795 |
|
|
$ |
73 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,868 |
|
|
$ |
1,727 |
|
|
$ |
22 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,749 |
|
FES |
|
|
1,079 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,118 |
|
|
|
1,043 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,046 |
|
OE |
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
128 |
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55 |
|
TE |
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
277 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
292 |
|
|
|
271 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
280 |
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
129 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
137 |
|
|
|
120 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
125 |
|
Penelec |
|
|
155 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
166 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
171 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity
securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
261 |
|
|
$ |
44 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
305 |
|
|
$ |
252 |
|
|
$ |
43 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
295 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
85 |
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
122 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
145 |
|
|
|
117 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
140 |
|
Penelec |
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes cash balances: FirstEnergy $93 million; FES $40 million; OE $2
million; TE $44 million; JCP&L $5 million; Met-Ed $(5) million and Penelec $6 million. |
|
(2) |
|
Excludes cash balances: FirstEnergy $137 million; FES $43 million; OE
$66 million; TE $2 million; JCP&L $3 million and Penelec $23 million. |
28
Proceeds from the sale of investments in available-for-sale securities, realized gains and
losses on those sales, and interest and dividend income for the nine-month period ended September
30, 2010 and 2009 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2010 |
|
FirstEnergy |
|
|
FES |
|
|
OE |
|
|
TE |
|
|
JCP&L |
|
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
Penelec |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Proceeds from sales |
|
$ |
2,577 |
|
|
$ |
1,478 |
|
|
$ |
79 |
|
|
$ |
118 |
|
|
$ |
340 |
|
|
$ |
420 |
|
|
$ |
141 |
|
Realized gains |
|
|
132 |
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
Realized losses |
|
|
118 |
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
Interest and dividend income |
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2009 |
|
FirstEnergy |
|
|
FES |
|
|
OE |
|
|
TE |
|
|
JCP&L |
|
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
Penelec |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Proceeds from sales |
|
$ |
3,040 |
|
|
$ |
2,153 |
|
|
$ |
207 |
|
|
$ |
171 |
|
|
$ |
339 |
|
|
$ |
89 |
|
|
$ |
81 |
|
Realized gains |
|
|
186 |
|
|
|
162 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
Realized losses |
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
Interest and dividend income |
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
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 September 30, 2010 and December 31,
2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2010 |
|
|
December 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
Basis |
|
|
Gains |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Basis |
|
|
Gains |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Value |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Debt Securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
486 |
|
|
$ |
99 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
585 |
|
|
$ |
544 |
|
|
$ |
72 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
616 |
|
OE |
|
|
205 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
265 |
|
|
|
217 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
246 |
|
CEI |
|
|
340 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
371 |
|
|
|
389 |
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
432 |
|
Investments in emission allowances, employee benefits and cost and equity method investments
totaling $256 million as of September 30, 2010, and $264 million as of December 31, 2009 are not
required to be disclosed and are therefore excluded from the amounts reported above.
Notes Receivable
The table below provides the approximate fair value and related carrying amounts of notes
receivable as of September 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009. 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2010 |
|
|
December 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
Value |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Value |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Notes Receivable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
36 |
|
|
$ |
35 |
|
FES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
TE |
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
114 |
|
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
141 |
|
The fair value of notes receivable represents the present value of the cash inflows based on the yield to maturity.
The yields assumed were based on financial instruments with similar characteristics and terms.
(C) RECURRING FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS
Fair value is the price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (exit
price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly
transaction between willing market participants on the measurement date. A fair value hierarchy has
been established that prioritizes the inputs used to measure fair value. The hierarchy gives the
highest priority to unadjusted quoted market prices in active markets for identical assets or
liabilities (Level 1) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3). The three levels of
the fair value hierarchy are as follows:
Level 1 Quoted prices are available in active markets for identical assets or liabilities as of
the reporting date. Active markets are those where transactions for the asset or liability occur in
sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing information on an ongoing basis. FirstEnergys
Level 1 assets and liabilities primarily consist of exchange-traded derivatives and equity
securities listed on active exchanges that are held in various trusts.
29
Level 2 Pricing inputs are either directly or indirectly observable in the market as of the
reporting date, other than quoted prices in active markets included in Level 1. FirstEnergys Level
2 assets and liabilities consist primarily of investments in debt securities held in various trusts
and commodity forwards. Additionally, Level 2 includes those financial instruments that are valued
using models or other valuation methodologies based on assumptions that are observable in the
marketplace throughout the full term of the instrument and can be derived from observable data or
are supported by observable levels at which transactions are executed in the marketplace. These
models are primarily industry-standard models that consider various assumptions, including quoted
forward prices for commodities, time value, volatility factors, and current market and contractual
prices for the underlying instruments, as well as other relevant economic measures. Instruments in
this category include non-exchange-traded derivatives such as forwards and certain interest rate
swaps.
Level 3 Pricing inputs include inputs that are generally less observable from objective sources.
These inputs may be used with internally developed methodologies that result in managements best
estimate of fair value. FirstEnergy develops its view of the future market price of key commodities
through a combination of market observation and assessment (generally for the short term) and
fundamental modeling (generally for the long term). Key fundamental electricity model inputs are
generally directly observable in the market or derived from publicly available historic and
forecast data. Some key inputs reflect forecasts published by industry leading consultants who
generally employ similar fundamental modeling approaches. Fundamental model inputs and results, as
well as the selection of consultants, reflect the consensus of appropriate FirstEnergy management.
Level 3 instruments include those that may be more structured or otherwise tailored to customers
needs. FirstEnergys Level 3 instruments consist exclusively of NUG contracts.
FirstEnergy utilizes market data and assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the
asset or liability, including assumptions about risk and the risks inherent in the inputs to the
valuation technique. These inputs can be readily observable, market corroborated, or generally
unobservable. FirstEnergy primarily applies the market approach for recurring fair value
measurements using the best information available. Accordingly, FirstEnergy maximizes the use of
observable inputs and minimizes the use of unobservable inputs.
The following tables set forth financial assets and financial liabilities that are accounted for at
fair value by level within the fair value hierarchy as of September 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009.
Assets and liabilities are classified in their entirety based on the lowest level of input that is
significant to the fair value measurement. FirstEnergys assessment of the significance of a
particular input to the fair value measurement requires judgment and may affect the fair valuation
of assets and liabilities and their placement within the fair value hierarchy levels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recurring Fair Value Measures as of September 30, 2010 |
|
|
|
Level 1 |
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
|
FES |
|
|
OE |
|
|
TE |
|
|
JCP&L |
|
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
Penelec |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Investments equity
securities(1) |
|
$ |
305 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
88 |
|
|
$ |
145 |
|
|
$ |
73 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets(2) |
|
$ |
305 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
88 |
|
|
$ |
145 |
|
|
$ |
73 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives commodity contracts |
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities |
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
|
FES |
|
|
OE |
|
|
TE |
|
|
JCP&L |
|
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
Penelec |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
$ |
619 |
|
|
$ |
337 |
|
|
$ |
127 |
|
|
$ |
26 |
|
|
$ |
37 |
|
|
$ |
82 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59 |
|
Foreign government debt securities |
|
|
285 |
|
|
|
285 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
|
580 |
|
|
|
496 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
Other |
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Nuclear Decommissioning
Trust Investments |
|
$ |
1,673 |
|
|
$ |
1,156 |
|
|
$ |
133 |
|
|
$ |
77 |
|
|
$ |
91 |
|
|
$ |
138 |
|
|
$ |
78 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rabbi Trust Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity securities financial |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Other |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Rabbi Trust Investments |
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear Fuel Disposal Trust
Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
$ |
209 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
209 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Nuclear Fuel Disposal Trust Investments |
|
$ |
209 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
209 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NUG Trust Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
$ |
86 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
86 |
|
Other |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total NUG Trust Investments |
|
$ |
92 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
92 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commodity contracts |
|
$ |
183 |
|
|
$ |
174 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Derivatives Contracts |
|
$ |
183 |
|
|
$ |
174 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets(2) |
|
$ |
2,169 |
|
|
$ |
1,330 |
|
|
$ |
133 |
|
|
$ |
77 |
|
|
$ |
302 |
|
|
$ |
143 |
|
|
$ |
172 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commodity contracts |
|
$ |
329 |
|
|
$ |
329 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities |
|
$ |
329 |
|
|
$ |
329 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
|
FES |
|
|
OE |
|
|
TE |
|
|
JCP&L |
|
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
Penelec |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives NUG contracts(3) |
|
$ |
116 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
104 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives NUG contracts(3) |
|
$ |
756 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
386 |
|
|
$ |
175 |
|
|
$ |
194 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
NDT funds hold equity portfolios whose performance is benchmarked against the
S&P 500 Index or Russell 3000 Index. |
|
(2) |
|
Excludes $(13) million of receivables, payables and accrued income. |
|
(3) |
|
NUG contracts are subject to regulatory accounting and do not impact
earnings. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recurring Fair Value Measures as of December 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
Level 1 |
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
|
FES |
|
|
OE |
|
|
TE |
|
|
JCP&L |
|
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
Penelec |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Investments equity
securities(1) |
|
$ |
294 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
87 |
|
|
$ |
133 |
|
|
$ |
74 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets(2) |
|
$ |
294 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
87 |
|
|
$ |
133 |
|
|
$ |
74 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives commodity contracts |
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities |
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
|
FES |
|
|
OE |
|
|
TE |
|
|
JCP&L |
|
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
Penelec |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
$ |
558 |
|
|
$ |
306 |
|
|
$ |
118 |
|
|
$ |
72 |
|
|
$ |
23 |
|
|
$ |
30 |
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
188 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
Foreign government debt securities |
|
|
279 |
|
|
|
279 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
|
484 |
|
|
|
443 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
Other |
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Investments |
|
$ |
1,544 |
|
|
$ |
1,072 |
|
|
$ |
120 |
|
|
$ |
72 |
|
|
$ |
80 |
|
|
$ |
134 |
|
|
$ |
66 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rabbi Trust Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity securities financial |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Other |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Rabbi Trust Investments |
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear Fuel Disposal Trust Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
$ |
189 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
189 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Other |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Nuclear Fuel Disposal Trust Investments |
|
$ |
200 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
200 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NUG Trust Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
$ |
101 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
101 |
|
Other |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total NUG Trust Investments |
|
$ |
120 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
120 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives Commodity Contracts |
|
$ |
34 |
|
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets(2) |
|
$ |
1,909 |
|
|
$ |
1,087 |
|
|
$ |
120 |
|
|
$ |
72 |
|
|
$ |
285 |
|
|
$ |
143 |
|
|
$ |
191 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives commodity contracts |
|
$ |
224 |
|
|
$ |
224 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities |
|
$ |
224 |
|
|
$ |
224 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
|
FES |
|
|
OE |
|
|
TE |
|
|
JCP&L |
|
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
Penelec |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives NUG contracts(3) |
|
$ |
200 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
176 |
|
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives NUG contracts(3) |
|
$ |
643 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
399 |
|
|
$ |
143 |
|
|
$ |
101 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
NDT funds hold equity portfolios whose performance is benchmarked against the
S&P 500 Index or Russell 3000 Index. |
|
(2) |
|
Excludes $21 million of receivables, payables and accrued income. |
|
(3) |
|
NUG contracts are subject to regulatory accounting and do not impact
earnings. |
The determination of the above fair value measures takes into consideration various factors.
These factors include nonperformance risk, including counterparty credit risk and the impact of
credit enhancements (such as cash deposits, LOCs and priority interests). The impact of
nonperformance risk was immaterial in the fair value measurements.
32
The following tables set forth a reconciliation of changes in the fair value of NUG contracts
classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy for the three and nine months ended September 30,
2010 and 2009 (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
|
JCP&L |
|
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
Penelec |
|
Balance as of January 1, 2010 |
|
$ |
(444 |
) |
|
$ |
(391 |
) |
|
$ |
33 |
|
|
$ |
(86 |
) |
Settlements(1) |
|
|
209 |
|
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
Unrealized losses(1) |
|
|
(405 |
) |
|
|
(88 |
) |
|
|
(164 |
) |
|
|
(153 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of September 30, 2010 |
|
$ |
(640 |
) |
|
$ |
(380 |
) |
|
$ |
(71 |
) |
|
$ |
(189 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of July 1, 2010 |
|
$ |
(557 |
) |
|
$ |
(371 |
) |
|
$ |
(38 |
) |
|
$ |
(148 |
) |
Settlements(1) |
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
Unrealized losses(1) |
|
|
(146 |
) |
|
|
(38 |
) |
|
|
(56 |
) |
|
|
(52 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of September 30, 2010 |
|
$ |
(640 |
) |
|
$ |
(380 |
) |
|
$ |
(71 |
) |
|
$ |
(189 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
|
JCP&L |
|
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
Penelec |
|
Balance as of January 1, 2009 |
|
$ |
(332 |
) |
|
$ |
(518 |
) |
|
$ |
150 |
|
|
$ |
36 |
|
Settlements(1) |
|
|
273 |
|
|
|
132 |
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
78 |
|
Unrealized losses(1) |
|
|
(406 |
) |
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
(178 |
) |
|
|
(198 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of September 30, 2009 |
|
$ |
(465 |
) |
|
$ |
(416 |
) |
|
$ |
35 |
|
|
$ |
(84 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of July 1, 2009 |
|
$ |
(536 |
) |
|
$ |
(466 |
) |
|
$ |
23 |
|
|
$ |
(93 |
) |
Settlements(1) |
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
Unrealized gains (losses)(1) |
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of September 30, 2009 |
|
$ |
(465 |
) |
|
$ |
(416 |
) |
|
$ |
35 |
|
|
$ |
(84 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Changes in fair value of NUG contracts are subject to regulatory accounting
and do not impact earnings. |
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 uses a variety of derivative instruments,
including forward contracts, options, futures contracts and swaps. The derivatives are used for
risk management purposes. In addition to derivatives, FirstEnergy also enters into master netting
agreements with certain third parties. FirstEnergys Risk Policy Committee, comprised of members of
senior management, provides general management oversight for risk management activities throughout
FirstEnergy. The Committee is responsible for promoting the effective design and implementation of
sound risk management programs and oversees compliance with corporate risk management policies and
established risk management practices.
FirstEnergy accounts for derivative instruments on its Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value
unless they meet the normal purchases and normal sales criteria. Derivatives that meet those
criteria are accounted for at cost under the accrual method of accounting. The changes in the fair
value of derivative instruments that do not meet the normal purchases and normal sales criteria are
included in purchased power, other expense, unrealized gain (loss) on derivative hedges in other
comprehensive income (loss), or as part of the value of the hedged item. Based on derivative
contracts held as of September 30, 2010, an adverse 10% change in commodity prices would decrease
net income by approximately $6 million ($4 million net of tax) during the next twelve months. A
hypothetical 10% increase in the interest rates associated with variable-rate debt would decrease
net income by approximately $1 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010.
Cash Flow Hedges
FirstEnergy has used forward starting swap agreements to hedge a portion of the consolidated
interest rate risk associated with anticipated issuances of fixed-rate, long-term debt securities
of its subsidiaries. These derivatives were treated as cash flow hedges, protecting against the
risk of changes in future interest payments resulting from changes in benchmark U.S. Treasury rates
between the date of hedge inception and the date of the debt issuance. As of September 30, 2010,
no forward starting swap agreements were outstanding.
Total unamortized losses included in AOCL associated with prior interest rate cash flow hedges
totaled $95 million ($62 million net of tax) as of September 30, 2010. Based on current estimates,
approximately $11 million will be amortized to interest expense during the next twelve months. The
table below provides the activity of AOCL related to interest rate cash flow hedges as of September
30, 2010 and 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Effective Portion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain (Loss) Recognized in AOCL |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(17 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(18 |
) |
Reclassification from AOCL into Interest Expense |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(37 |
) |
33
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
derivatives 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 September 30, 2010, no fixed-for-floating interest rate swap agreements were
outstanding.
Total unamortized gains included in long-term debt associated with prior fixed-for-floating
interest rate swap agreements totaled $129 million ($84 million net of tax) as of September 30,
2010. 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
$5 million and $7 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010.
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.
The following tables summarize the fair value of commodity derivatives in FirstEnergys
Consolidated Balance Sheets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flow Hedges |
|
Derivative Assets |
|
|
Derivative Liabilities |
|
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
Electricity Forwards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electricity Forwards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Assets |
|
$ |
77 |
|
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
Current Liabilities |
|
$ |
87 |
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
NonCurrent Assets |
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
NonCurrent Liabilities |
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
Natural Gas Futures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas Futures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Liabilities |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
NonCurrent Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NonCurrent Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
NonCurrent Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NonCurrent Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
150 |
|
|
$ |
14 |
|
|
|
|
$ |
158 |
|
|
$ |
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Economic Hedges |
|
Derivative Assets |
|
|
Derivative Liabilities |
|
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NUG Contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NUG Contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power Purchase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power Purchase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contract Asset |
|
$ |
116 |
|
|
$ |
200 |
|
|
Contract Liability |
|
$ |
756 |
|
|
$ |
643 |
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Assets |
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Liabilities |
|
|
138 |
|
|
|
106 |
|
NonCurrent Assets |
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
NonCurrent Liabilities |
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
219 |
|
|
|
|
|
928 |
|
|
|
846 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Commodity Derivatives |
|
$ |
298 |
|
|
$ |
233 |
|
|
Total Commodity Derivatives |
|
$ |
1,086 |
|
|
$ |
876 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electricity forwards are used to balance expected sales with expected generation and purchased
power. Natural gas futures are entered into based on expected consumption of natural gas, primarily
used in FirstEnergys peaking units. Heating oil futures are entered into based on expected
consumption of oil and the financial risk in FirstEnergys coal transportation contracts.
Derivative instruments are not used in quantities greater than forecasted needs. The following
table summarizes the volume of FirstEnergys outstanding derivative transactions as of September
30, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases |
|
|
Sales |
|
|
Net |
|
|
Units |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Electricity Forwards |
|
|
28,456 |
|
|
|
(32,604 |
) |
|
|
(4,148 |
) |
|
MWH |
Heating Oil Futures |
|
|
840 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
840 |
|
|
Gallons |
Natural Gas Futures |
|
|
500 |
|
|
|
(500 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
mmBtu |
34
The effect of derivative instruments on the consolidated statements of income and comprehensive
income for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010 and 2009, are summarized in the
following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended September 30, |
|
|
|
Electricity |
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
|
Heating Oil |
|
|
|
|
Derivatives in Cash Flow Hedging Relationships |
|
Forwards |
|
|
Futures |
|
|
Futures |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain (Loss) Recognized in AOCL (Effective Portion) |
|
$ |
(2 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(2 |
) |
Effective Gain (Loss) Reclassified to:(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased Power Expense |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
Fuel Expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain (Loss) Recognized in AOCL (Effective Portion) |
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
$ |
(2 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
13 |
|
Effective Gain (Loss) Reclassified to:(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased Power Expense |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
Fuel Expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended September 30, |
|
|
|
Electricity |
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
|
Heating Oil |
|
|
|
|
Derivatives in Cash Flow Hedging Relationships |
|
Forwards |
|
|
Futures |
|
|
Futures |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain (Loss) Recognized in AOCL (Effective Portion) |
|
$ |
(15 |
) |
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(16 |
) |
Effective Gain (Loss) Reclassified to:(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased Power Expense |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
Fuel Expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain (Loss) Recognized in AOCL (Effective Portion) |
|
$ |
19 |
|
|
$ |
(9 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
Effective Gain (Loss) Reclassified to:(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased Power Expense |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
Fuel Expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The ineffective portion was immaterial. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended September 30, |
|
|
|
NUG |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives Not in Hedging Relationships |
|
Contracts |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized Gain (Loss) Recognized in: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased Power Expense |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(13 |
) |
|
$ |
(13 |
) |
Regulatory Assets (2) |
|
|
(145 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(145 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(145 |
) |
|
$ |
(13 |
) |
|
$ |
(158 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized Gain (Loss) Reclassified to: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased Power Expense |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(30 |
) |
|
$ |
(30 |
) |
Regulatory Assets (2) |
|
|
(63 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(63 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(63 |
) |
|
$ |
(30 |
) |
|
$ |
(93 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized Gain (Loss) Recognized in: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel Expense (1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
Regulatory Assets (2) |
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(22 |
) |
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
$ |
(23 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized Gain (Loss) Reclassified to: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel Expense (1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
Regulatory Assets (2) |
|
|
(93 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(93 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(93 |
) |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
(92 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended September 30, |
|
|
|
NUG |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives Not in Hedging Relationships |
|
Contracts |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized Gain (Loss) Recognized in: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased Power Expense |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(30 |
) |
|
$ |
(30 |
) |
Regulatory Assets (2) |
|
|
(405 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(405 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(405 |
) |
|
$ |
(30 |
) |
|
$ |
(435 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized Gain (Loss) Reclassified to: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased Power Expense |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(86 |
) |
|
$ |
(86 |
) |
Regulatory Assets (2) |
|
|
(209 |
) |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
(200 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(209 |
) |
|
$ |
(77 |
) |
|
$ |
(286 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized Gain (Loss) Recognized in: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel Expense (1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
Regulatory Assets (2) |
|
|
(406 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(406 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(406 |
) |
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
(404 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized Gain (Loss) Reclassified to: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel Expense (1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Regulatory Assets (2) |
|
|
(273 |
) |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
(262 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(273 |
) |
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
(262 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The realized gain (loss) is reclassified upon termination of the derivative
instrument. |
|
(2) |
|
Changes in the fair value of NUG contracts are deferred for future recovery from
(or refund to) customers. |
Total unamortized losses included in AOCL associated with commodity derivatives were $8 million ($5
million net of tax) as of September 30, 2010, as compared to $15 million ($9 million net of tax) as
of December 31, 2009. The net of tax change resulted from a net $14 million increase related to
current hedging activity and a $10 million decrease due to net hedge losses reclassified to
earnings during the first nine months of 2010. Based on current estimates, approximately $7 million
(net of tax) of the net deferred losses on derivative instruments in AOCL as of September 30, 2010
are expected to be reclassified to earnings during the next twelve months as hedged transactions
occur. The fair value of these derivative instruments fluctuates from period to period based on
various market factors.
Many of FirstEnergys commodity derivatives contain credit risk features. As of September 30, 2010,
FirstEnergy posted $158 million of collateral related to net liability positions and held no
counterparties funds related to asset positions. The collateral FirstEnergy has posted relates to
both derivative and non-derivative contracts. FirstEnergys largest derivative counterparties fully
collateralize all derivative transactions. Certain commodity derivative contracts include credit
risk-related contingent features that would require FirstEnergy to post additional collateral if
the credit rating for its debt were to fall below investment grade. The aggregate fair value of
derivative instruments with credit risk-related contingent features that are in a liability
position on September 30, 2010 was $158 million, for which $192 million in collateral has
been posted. If FirstEnergys credit rating were to fall below investment grade, it would be
required to post $22.5 million of additional collateral related to commodity derivatives.
36
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.
FirstEnergys net pension and OPEB expense for the three months ended September 30, 2010 and 2009
was $20 million and $36 million, respectively. FirstEnergys net pension and OPEB expense for the
nine months ended September 30, 2010 and 2009 was $65 million and $117 million, respectively. The
components of FirstEnergys net pension and other postretirement benefit costs (including amounts
capitalized) for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010 and 2009, consisted of the
following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September |
|
|
September 30 |
|
Pension Benefit Cost (Credit) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Service cost |
|
$ |
25 |
|
|
$ |
23 |
|
|
$ |
74 |
|
|
$ |
66 |
|
Interest cost |
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
236 |
|
|
|
239 |
|
Expected return on plan assets |
|
|
(90 |
) |
|
|
(86 |
) |
|
|
(271 |
) |
|
|
(248 |
) |
Amortization of prior service cost |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
Recognized net actuarial loss |
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
141 |
|
|
|
129 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic cost |
|
$ |
64 |
|
|
$ |
64 |
|
|
$ |
190 |
|
|
$ |
196 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
September 30 |
|
Other Postretirement Benefit Cost (Credit) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Service cost |
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
23 |
|
Interest cost |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
Expected return on plan assets |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
(27 |
) |
Amortization of prior service cost |
|
|
(48 |
) |
|
|
(48 |
) |
|
|
(144 |
) |
|
|
(127 |
) |
Recognized net actuarial loss |
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic cost |
|
$ |
(29 |
) |
|
$ |
(14 |
) |
|
$ |
(86 |
) |
|
$ |
(34 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefit obligations are allocated to FirstEnergys
subsidiaries employing the plan participants. The net periodic pension costs and net periodic other
postretirement benefit costs (including amounts capitalized) recognized by FirstEnergys
subsidiaries for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010 and 2009 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
September 30 |
|
Pension Benefit Cost |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
FES |
|
$ |
22 |
|
|
$ |
19 |
|
|
$ |
66 |
|
|
$ |
56 |
|
OE |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
CEI |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
TE |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
Penelec |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
Other FirstEnergy Subsidiaries |
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
64 |
|
|
$ |
64 |
|
|
$ |
190 |
|
|
$ |
196 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
September 30 |
|
Other Postretirement Benefit Cost (Credit) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
FES |
|
$ |
(7 |
) |
|
$ |
(4 |
) |
|
$ |
(20 |
) |
|
$ |
(8 |
) |
OE |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
CEI |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
TE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
Met-Ed |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
Penelec |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
Other FirstEnergy Subsidiaries |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(29 |
) |
|
$ |
(14 |
) |
|
$ |
(86 |
) |
|
$ |
(34 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7. VARIABLE INTEREST ENTITIES
FirstEnergys consolidated financial statements include the accounts of entities in which it has a
controlling financial interest. FirstEnergy consolidates certain VIEs in which it has financial
control through disproportionate economics in its equity and debt investments in the entities.
These VIEs include: FEVs joint venture in the Signal Peak mining and coal transportation
operations; the PNBV and Shippingport bond trusts that were created to refinance debt originally
issued in connection with sale and leaseback transactions; and wholly owned limited liability
companies of JCP&L created to sell transition bonds to securitize the recovery of JCP&Ls bondable
stranded costs associated with the previously divested Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, of
which $319 million was outstanding as of September 30, 2010.
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 ($19 million) and distributions to owners ($5 million) for the nine months ended
September 30, 2010.
On January 1, 2010, FirstEnergy adopted the amendments to the consolidation topic addressing VIEs.
This standard requires that FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries perform a qualitative analysis to
determine whether a variable interest gives FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries a controlling financial
interest in a VIE. This analysis identifies the primary beneficiary of a VIE as the enterprise that
has both the power to direct the activities of a VIE that most significantly impact the entitys
economic performance and the obligation to absorb losses of the entity that could potentially be
significant to the VIE or the right to receive benefits from the entity that could potentially be
significant to the VIE. This standard also requires an ongoing reassessment of the primary
beneficiary of a VIE and eliminates the quantitative approach previously required for determining
whether an entity is the primary beneficiary. There was no impact to FirstEnergy or its
subsidiaries as a result of the adoption of this standard.
In order to evaluate contracts under the consolidation guidance, FirstEnergy aggregated contracts
into two categories based on similar risk characteristics and significance as follows:
Power Purchase Agreements
FirstEnergy evaluated its power purchase agreements and determined that certain NUG entities may be
VIEs to the extent they own a plant that sells substantially all of its output to the Utilities and
the contract price for power is correlated with the plants variable costs of production.
FirstEnergy, through its subsidiaries JCP&L, Met-Ed and Penelec, maintains 21 long-term power
purchase agreements with NUG entities. The agreements were entered into pursuant to the Public
Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978. FirstEnergy was not involved in the creation of, and has
no equity or debt invested in, these entities.
FirstEnergy has determined that for all but two of these NUG entities, neither JCP&L, nor Met-Ed
nor Penelec have variable interests in the entities or the entities are governmental or
not-for-profit organizations that are not within the scope of consolidation consideration for VIEs.
JCP&L may hold variable interests in the remaining two entities, which sell their output at
variable prices that correlate to some extent with the operating costs of the plants. However,
FirstEnergy applied the scope exception that exempts enterprises unable to obtain the necessary
information to evaluate entities.
Since JCP&L has no equity or debt interests in the NUG entities, its maximum exposure to loss
relates primarily to the above-market costs it incurs for power. FirstEnergy expects any
above-market costs it incurs to be recovered from customers. Purchased power costs related to the
two contracts that may contain a variable interest were $73 million and $58 million for the three
months ended September 30, 2010, and 2009, respectively and $190 million and $173 million for the
nine months ended September 30, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
38
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.
FES and the Ohio Companies are exposed to losses under their applicable sale-leaseback agreements
upon the occurrence of certain contingent events that each company considers unlikely to occur. The
maximum exposure under these provisions represents the net amount of casualty value payments due
upon the occurrence of specified casualty events that render the applicable plant worthless. Net
discounted lease payments would not be payable if the casualty loss payments were made. The
following table discloses each companys net exposure to loss based upon the casualty value
provisions mentioned above as of September 30, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maximum |
|
|
Discounted Lease |
|
|
Net |
|
|
|
Exposure |
|
|
Payments, net(1) |
|
|
Exposure |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
FES |
|
$ |
1,376 |
|
|
$ |
1,185 |
|
|
$ |
191 |
|
OE |
|
|
672 |
|
|
|
511 |
|
|
|
161 |
|
CEI(2) |
|
|
627 |
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
556 |
|
TE(2) |
|
|
627 |
|
|
|
346 |
|
|
|
281 |
|
|
|
|
(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. After reaching a settlement at appeals in the second quarter of 2010 related primarily
to the capitalization of certain costs for the tax years 2005-2008 and a settlement in the third
quarter of 2010 of an unrelated federal tax matter related to prior year gains and losses
recognized from the disposition of assets, FirstEnergy recognized approximately $78 million of net
tax benefits, including $21 million that favorably affected FirstEnergys effective tax rate for
the first nine months of 2010. The remaining portion of the tax benefit increased FirstEnergys
accumulated deferred income taxes. Upon completion of the federal tax examination for the 2007 tax
year in the first quarter of 2009, FirstEnergy recognized $13 million in tax benefits, which
favorably affected FirstEnergys effective tax rate. There were no material changes to
FirstEnergys unrecognized tax benefits in the third quarter of 2009.
As of September 30, 2010, it is reasonably possible that approximately $44 million of unrecognized
benefits may be resolved within the next twelve months, of which less than $1 million, if
recognized, would affect FirstEnergys effective tax rate. The potential decrease in the amount of
unrecognized tax benefits is primarily associated with issues related to gains and losses from the
disposition of assets and the capitalization of certain costs.
In 2009, FirstEnergy, on behalf of the Utilities, filed a change in accounting method related to
the costs to repair and maintain electric utility network (transmission and distribution) assets.
In the third quarter of 2010, approximately $325 million of costs were included as a repair
deduction on FirstEnergys 2009 consolidated tax return, which reduced taxable income and increased
the amount of tax refunds that will be applied to FirstEnergys 2010 estimated federal tax
payments. Due to Pennsylvanias state flow through tax benefit for this change in accounting,
FirstEnergys effective tax rate was reduced by $6 million in the third quarter of 2010. In
connection with completing FirstEnergys 2009 consolidated tax return, FES recognized an $8 million
adjustment that increased its income tax expense in the third quarter of 2010. The effects of the
adjustment are not material to the quarterly and annual periods in 2009 or for the nine months
ended September 30, 2010.
FirstEnergy recognizes interest expense or income related to uncertain tax positions. That amount
is computed by applying the applicable statutory interest rate to the difference between the tax
position recognized and the amount previously taken or expected to be taken on the tax return.
FirstEnergy includes net interest and penalties in the provision for income taxes. The reversal of
accrued interest associated with the recognized tax benefits noted above favorably affected
FirstEnergys effective tax rate by $13 million in the first nine months of 2010. During the first
nine months of 2009, there were no material changes to the amount of interest accrued. The net
amount of accumulated interest accrued as of September 30, 2010 was $6 million, as compared to
$21 million as of December 31, 2009.
As a result of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education
Affordability Reconciliation Act signed into law on March 23, 2010 and March 30, 2010,
respectively, beginning in 2013 the tax deduction available to FirstEnergy will be reduced to the
extent that drug costs are reimbursed under the Medicare Part D retiree subsidy program. As retiree
healthcare liabilities and related tax impacts are already reflected in FirstEnergys consolidated
financial statements, the change resulted in a charge to FirstEnergys earnings in the first
quarter of 2010 of approximately $13 million and a reduction in accumulated deferred tax assets
associated with these subsidies. This change reflects the anticipated increase in income taxes
that will occur as a result of the change in tax law.
39
On September 27, 2010, the Small Business Jobs Act was signed into law, which extends 50% bonus
first-year depreciation for one year to 2010. Management is currently evaluating this tax election
which could have a material impact on taxable income for 2010 and could increase the amount of tax
refunds to be recognized in 2010 with a corresponding increase to accumulated deferred income taxes
for this temporary tax item.
FirstEnergy has tax returns that are under review at the audit or appeals level by the IRS and
state tax authorities. Tax returns for all state jurisdictions are open from 2006-2009. The IRS
began reviewing returns for the years 2001-2003 in July 2004 and several items were under appeal.
In the fourth quarter of 2009, these items were settled at appeals and sent to Joint Committee on
Taxation for final review. The federal audits for years 2004-2006 were completed in the third
quarter of 2008 and several items are under appeal. The IRS began auditing the year 2007 in
February 2007 under its Compliance Assurance Process program and completed the audit in the first
quarter of 2009 with two items under appeal. Items under appeal for tax years 2006 and 2007 were
settled and sent to Joint Committee on Taxation for final review in the second quarter and
subsequently approved in the third quarter of 2010. 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. Neither audit
is expected to close before December 2010. Management believes that adequate reserves have been
recognized and final settlement of these audits is not expected to have a material adverse effect
on FirstEnergys financial condition or results of operations.
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 September 30, 2010, outstanding
guarantees and other assurances aggregated approximately $3.8 billion, consisting primarily of
parental guarantees ($0.8 billion), subsidiaries guarantees ($2.5 billion), surety bonds and LOCs
($0.5 billion).
FirstEnergy guarantees energy and energy-related payments of its subsidiaries involved in energy
commodity activities principally to facilitate or hedge normal physical transactions involving
electricity, gas, emission allowances and coal. FirstEnergy also provides guarantees to various
providers of credit support for the financing or refinancing by subsidiaries of costs related to
the acquisition of property, plant and equipment. These agreements legally obligate FirstEnergy to
fulfill the obligations of those subsidiaries directly involved in energy and energy-related
transactions or financing where the law might otherwise limit the counterparties claims. If
demands of a counterparty were to exceed the ability of a subsidiary to satisfy existing
obligations, FirstEnergys guarantee enables the counterpartys legal claim to be satisfied by
other FirstEnergy assets. The likelihood is remote that such parental guarantees of $0.3 billion
(included in the $0.8 billion discussed above) as of September 30, 2010 would increase amounts
otherwise payable by FirstEnergy to meet its obligations incurred in connection with financings and
ongoing energy and energy-related activities.
While these types of guarantees are normally parental commitments for the future payment of
subsidiary obligations, subsequent to the occurrence of a credit rating downgrade or material
adverse event, the immediate posting of cash collateral, provision of an LOC or accelerated
payments may be required of the subsidiary. As of September 30, 2010, FirstEnergys maximum
exposure under these collateral provisions was $419 million consisting of $374 million due to a
below investment grade credit rating, of which $175 million is due to an acceleration of payment or
funding obligation, and $45 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 $511 million consisting of $463 million due to a below investment grade credit rating, of which
$175 million is related to an acceleration of payment or funding obligation, and $48 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 $84 million provide additional assurance to
outside parties that contractual and statutory obligations will be met in a number of areas
including construction contracts, environmental commitments and various retail transactions.
In addition to guarantees and surety bonds, FES contracts, including power contracts with
affiliates awarded through competitive bidding processes, typically contain margining provisions
which require the posting of cash or LOCs in
amounts determined by future power price movements. Based on FES power portfolio as of September
30, 2010, and forward prices as of that date, FES has posted collateral of $244 million. Under a
hypothetical adverse change in forward prices (95% confidence level change in forward prices over a
one year time horizon), FES would be required to post an additional $46 million. Depending on the
volume of forward contracts and future price movements, FES could be required to post higher
amounts for margining.
40
In connection with FES obligations to post and maintain collateral under the two-year PSA entered
into by FES and the Ohio Companies following the CBP auction on May 13-14, 2009, NGC entered into a
Surplus Margin Guaranty in an amount up to $500 million. The Surplus Margin Guaranty is secured by
an NGC FMB issued in favor of the Ohio Companies.
FES debt obligations are generally guaranteed by its subsidiaries, FGCO and NGC, and FES
guarantees the debt obligations of each of FGCO and NGC. Accordingly, present and future holders of
indebtedness of FES, FGCO and NGC will have claims against each of FES, FGCO and NGC regardless of
whether their primary obligor is FES, FGCO or NGC.
(B) ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS
Various federal, state and local authorities regulate FirstEnergy with regard to air and water
quality and other environmental matters. Compliance with environmental regulations could have a
material adverse effect on FirstEnergys earnings and competitive position to the extent that
FirstEnergy competes with companies that are not subject to such regulations and, therefore, do not
bear the risk of costs associated with compliance, or failure to comply, with such regulations.
CAA Compliance
FirstEnergy is required to meet federally-approved SO2 and NOX emissions
regulations under the CAA. FirstEnergy complies with SO2 and NOx reduction
requirements under the CAA and SIP(s) under the CAA by burning lower-sulfur fuel, combustion
controls and post-combustion controls, generating more electricity from lower-emitting plants
and/or using emission allowances. Violations can result in the shutdown of the generating unit
involved and/or civil or criminal penalties.
The Sammis, Burger, Eastlake and Mansfield coal-fired plants are operated under a consent decree
with the EPA and DOJ that requires reductions of NOX and
SO2 emissions through the installation of pollution control devices or
repowering. OE and Penn are subject to stipulated penalties for failure to install and operate such
pollution controls or complete repowering in accordance with that agreement. Capital expenditures
necessary to complete requirements of the consent decree, including repowering Burger Units 4 and 5
for biomass fuel combustion, are currently estimated to be approximately $399 million for
2010-2012.
In 2007, PennFuture filed a citizen suit under the CAA, alleging violations of air pollution
laws at the Bruce Mansfield Plant, including opacity limitations, in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania. In July 2008, three additional complaints were filed against
FGCO seeking damages based on Bruce Mansfield Plant air emissions. Two of these complaints also
seek to enjoin the Bruce Mansfield Plant from operating except in a safe, responsible, prudent and
proper manner, one being a complaint filed on behalf of twenty-one individuals and the other being
a class action complaint seeking certification as a class action with the eight named plaintiffs as
the class representatives. A settlement was reached with PennFuture. FGCO believes the claims of
the remaining plaintiffs are without merit and intends to defend itself against the allegations
made in those three complaints.
The states of New Jersey and Connecticut filed CAA citizen suits in 2007 alleging NSR violations at
the Portland Generation Station against RRI Energy, Inc. (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.
In January 2009, the EPA issued a NOV to Reliant alleging NSR violations at the Portland Generation
Station based on modifications dating back to 1986 and also alleged NSR violations at the
Keystone and Shawville Stations based on modifications dating back to 1984. Met-Ed, JCP&L, as the
former owner of 16.67% of the Keystone Station, and Penelec, as former owner and operator of the
Shawville Station, are unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
In June 2008, the EPA issued a Notice and Finding of Violation to Mission Energy Westside, Inc.
alleging that modifications at the Homer City Power Station occurred since 1988 to the present
without preconstruction NSR permitting in violation of the CAAs PSD program. In May 2010, the EPA
issued a second NOV to Mission Energy
Westside, Inc., 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 identical
allegations as the June 2008 NOV. On July 20, 2010, the states of New York and Pennsylvania
provided Mission Energy Westside, Inc., Penelec, NYSEG and others that have had an ownership
interest in the Homer City Power Station a notification required 60 days prior to filing a citizen
suit under the CAA. Mission Energy Westside, Inc. is seeking indemnification from Penelec, the
co-owner and operator of the Homer City Power Station prior to its sale in 1999. The scope of
Penelecs indemnity obligation to and from Mission Energy Westside, Inc. is under dispute and
Penelec is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
41
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.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
The EPAs CAIR requires reductions of NOX and SO2 emissions in two phases
(2009/2010 and 2015), ultimately capping SO2 emissions in affected states to 2.5 million
tons annually and NOX emissions to 1.3 million tons annually. In 2008, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated CAIR in its entirety and directed the EPA to redo
its analysis from the ground up. In December 2008, the Court reconsidered its prior ruling and
allowed CAIR to remain in effect to temporarily preserve its environmental values until the EPA
replaces CAIR with a new rule consistent with the Courts opinion. The Court ruled in a different
case that a cap-and-trade program similar to CAIR, called the NOX SIP Call, cannot be
used to satisfy certain CAA requirements (known as reasonably available control technology) for
areas in non-attainment under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In July 2010, the EPA proposed the Clean
Air Transport Rule (CATR) to replace CAIR, which remains in effect until the EPA finalizes CATR.
CATR requires reductions of NOX and SO2 emissions in two phases (2012 and
2014), ultimately capping SO2 emissions in affected states to 2.6 million tons annually
and NOX emissions to 1.3 million tons annually. The EPA proposed a preferred regulatory
approach that allows trading of NOX and SO2 emission allowances between power
plants located in the same state 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
The EPAs CAMR provides for a cap-and-trade program to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired
power plants in two phases; initially, capping nationwide emissions of mercury at 38 tons by 2010
(as a co-benefit from implementation of SO2 and NOX
emission caps under the EPAs CAIR program) and 15 tons per year by 2018. The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia, at the urging of several states and environmental groups, vacated the
CAMR, ruling that the EPA failed to take the necessary steps to de-list coal-fired power plants
from its hazardous air pollutant program and, therefore, could not promulgate a cap-and-trade
program. On April 29, 2010, the EPA issued proposed maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
regulations requiring emissions reductions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from
non-electric generating unit boilers, including boilers which do not use fossil fuels such as the
proposed Burger biomass repowering project. On September 1, 2010, the EPA classified Burger as an
existing source for purposes of the industrial Boiler MACT. If finalized, the non-electric
generating unit MACT regulations could also provide precedent for MACT standards applicable to
electric generating units. The EPA entered into a consent decree requiring it to propose MACT
regulations for mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from electric generating units by March
16, 2011, and to finalize the regulations by November 16, 2011. Depending on the action taken by
the EPA and on how any future regulations are ultimately implemented, FGCOs future cost of
compliance with MACT regulations may be substantial and changes to FGCOs operations may result.
Climate Change
There are a number of initiatives to reduce GHG emissions under consideration at the federal, state
and international level. At the federal level, members of Congress have introduced several bills
seeking to reduce emissions of GHG in the United States, and the House of Representatives passed
one such bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, on June 26, 2009. The Senate
continues to consider a number of measures to regulate GHG emissions. President
Obama has announced his Administrations New Energy for America Plan that includes, among other
provisions, ensuring that 10% of electricity used in the United States comes from renewable sources
by 2012, increasing to 25% by 2025, and implementing an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to
reduce GHG emissions by 80% by 2050. State activities, primarily the northeastern states
participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and western states, led by California, have
coordinated efforts to develop regional strategies to control emissions of certain GHGs.
42
In September 2009, the EPA finalized a national GHG emissions collection and reporting rule that
will require FirstEnergy to measure GHG emissions commencing in 2010 and submit reports commencing
in 2011. In December 2009, the EPA released its final Endangerment and Cause or Contribute
Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act. The EPAs finding concludes that
concentrations of several key 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, but until July 1, 2011 that emissions applicability threshold will only apply if PSD
is triggered by non-carbon dioxide pollutants.
At the international level, the Kyoto Protocol, signed by the U.S. in 1998 but never submitted for
ratification by the U.S. Senate, was intended to address global warming by reducing the amount of
man-made GHG, including CO2, emitted by developed countries by 2012.
A December 2009 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen did not reach a consensus on
a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol, but did take note of the Copenhagen Accord, a non-binding
political agreement which recognized the scientific view that the increase in global temperature
should be below two degrees Celsius; include 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 establish the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund to support mitigation, adaptation, and
other climate-related activities in developing countries. Once they have become a party to the
Copenhagen Accord, developed economies, such as the European Union, Japan, Russia and the United
States, would commit to quantified economy-wide emissions targets from 2020, while developing
countries, including Brazil, China and India, would agree to take mitigation actions, subject to
their domestic measurement, reporting and verification.
On September 21, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and on October 16, 2009,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded lower court decisions that
had dismissed complaints alleging damage from GHG emissions on jurisdictional grounds. However, a
subsequent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reinstated the lower court
dismissal of a complaint alleging damage from GHG emissions. These cases involve common law tort
claims, including public and private nuisance, alleging that GHG emissions contribute to global
warming and result in property damages. While FirstEnergy is not a party to this litigation,
FirstEnergy and/or one or more of its subsidiaries could be named in actions making similar
allegations.
FirstEnergy cannot currently estimate the financial impact of climate change policies, although
potential legislative or regulatory programs restricting CO2 emissions, or
litigation alleging damages from GHG emissions, could require significant capital and other
expenditures or result in changes to its operations. The CO2 emissions per KWH
of electricity generated by FirstEnergy is lower than many regional competitors due to its
diversified generation sources, which include low or non-CO2 emitting
gas-fired and nuclear generators.
Clean Water Act
Various water quality regulations, the majority of which are the result of the federal Clean Water
Act and its amendments, apply to FirstEnergys plants. In addition, Ohio, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania have water quality standards applicable to FirstEnergys operations.
The EPA established new performance standards under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act for
reducing impacts on fish and shellfish from cooling water intake structures at certain existing
electric generating plants. The regulations call for reductions in impingement mortality (when
aquatic organisms are pinned against screens or other parts of a cooling water intake system) and
entrainment (which occurs when aquatic life is drawn into a facilitys cooling water system). The
EPA has taken the position that until further rulemaking occurs, permitting authorities should
continue the existing practice of applying their best professional judgment to minimize impacts on
fish and shellfish from cooling water intake structures. On April 1, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court
reversed one significant aspect of the Second Circuits opinion and decided that Section 316(b) of
the Clean Water Act authorizes the EPA to compare costs with benefits in determining the best
technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact at cooling water intake
structures. The EPA is developing a new regulation under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act
consistent with the opinions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals which have created
significant uncertainty about the specific nature, scope and timing of the final performance
standard. FirstEnergy is studying various control options and their costs and effectiveness,
including pilot testing of reverse louvers in a portion of the Bay Shore power plants water intake
channel to divert fish
away from the plants water intake system. On March 15, 2010, the EPA issued a draft permit for
the Bay Shore power plant requiring installation of reverse louvers in its entire water intake
channel by December 31, 2014. Depending on the results of such studies and the EPAs further
rulemaking and any final action taken by the states exercising best professional judgment, the
future costs of compliance with these standards may require material capital expenditures.
43
In June 2008, the U.S. Attorneys Office in Cleveland, Ohio advised FGCO that it is considering
prosecution under the Clean Water Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for three petroleum spills
at the Edgewater, Lakeshore and Bay Shore plants which occurred on November 1, 2005, January 26,
2007 and February 27, 2007. FGCO is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
Regulation of Waste Disposal
Federal and state hazardous waste regulations have been promulgated as a result of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, and the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
Certain fossil-fuel combustion residuals, such as coal ash, were exempted from hazardous waste
disposal requirements pending the EPAs evaluation of the need for future regulation. In February
2009, the EPA requested comments from the states on options for regulating coal combustion
residuals, including whether they should be regulated as hazardous or non-hazardous waste.
On December 30, 2009, in an advanced notice of public rulemaking, the EPA said that the large
volumes of coal combustion residuals produced by electric utilities pose significant financial risk
to the industry. On May 4, 2010, the EPA proposed two options for additional regulation of coal
combustion residuals, including the option of regulation as a special waste under the EPAs
hazardous waste management program which could have a significant impact on the management,
beneficial use and disposal of coal combustion residuals. FGCOs future cost of compliance with any
coal combustion residuals regulations which may be promulgated could be substantial and would
depend, in part, on the regulatory action taken by the EPA and implementation by the EPA or the
states.
The Utilities have been named as potentially responsible parties at waste disposal sites, which may
require cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980. Allegations of disposal of hazardous substances at historical sites and the liability
involved are often unsubstantiated and subject to dispute; however, federal law provides that all
potentially responsible parties for a particular site may be liable on a joint and several basis.
Environmental liabilities that are considered probable have been recognized on the consolidated
balance sheet as of September 30, 2010, based on estimates of the total costs of cleanup, the
Utilities proportionate responsibility for such costs and the financial ability of other
unaffiliated entities to pay. Total liabilities of approximately $105 million (JCP&L $76 million,
TE $1 million, CEI $1 million, FGCO $1 million and FirstEnergy $26 million) have been
accrued through September 30, 2010. Included in the total are accrued liabilities of approximately
$67 million for environmental remediation of former manufactured gas plants and gas holder
facilities in New Jersey, which are being recovered by JCP&L through a non-bypassable SBC.
(C) OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Power Outages and Related Litigation
In July 1999, the Mid-Atlantic States experienced a severe heat wave, which resulted in power
outages throughout the service territories of many electric utilities, including JCP&Ls territory.
Two class action lawsuits (subsequently consolidated into a single proceeding) were filed in New
Jersey Superior Court in July 1999 against JCP&L, GPU and other GPU companies, seeking compensatory
and punitive damages due to the outages. After various motions, rulings and appeals, the
Plaintiffs claims for consumer fraud, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, strict
product liability and punitive damages were dismissed, leaving only the negligence and breach of
contract causes of actions. 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. JCP&L is waiting for the Courts decision.
Litigation Relating to the Proposed Allegheny Energy Merger
In connection with the proposed merger (Note 16), purported shareholders of Allegheny Energy
have filed putative shareholder class action and/or derivative lawsuits against Allegheny Energy
and its directors and certain officers, referred to as the Allegheny Energy defendants, FirstEnergy
and Merger Sub. Four putative class action and derivative lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court
for Baltimore City, Maryland (Maryland Court). One was withdrawn. The Maryland Court has
consolidated the remaining three cases under the caption: In re Allegheny Energy Shareholder and
Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 24-C-10-1301. Three shareholder lawsuits were filed in the Court of
Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania and the court has consolidated these actions
under the caption: In re Allegheny Energy, Inc. Shareholder Class and Derivative, Litigation, Lead
Case No. 1101 of 2010. One putative shareholder class action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania and is captioned Louisiana Municipal Police Employees
Retirement System v. Evanson, et al., C.A. No. 10-319 NBF. In summary, the lawsuits allege, among
other things, that the Allegheny Energy directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the
merger agreement, and that
44
Allegheny Energy, FirstEnergy and Merger Sub aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty. The complaints seek, among other things, jury trials, money damages and injunctive
relief. While FirstEnergy believes the lawsuits are without merit and has defended vigorously
against the claims, in order to avoid the costs associated with the litigation, the defendants have
agreed to the terms of a disclosure-based settlement of all these shareholder lawsuits and have
reached agreement with counsel for all of the plaintiffs concerning fee applications. Under the
terms of the settlement, no payments are being made by FirstEnergy or Merger Sub. A formal
stipulation of settlement was filed with the Maryland Court on October 18, 2010 and agreements have
been signed with plaintiffs in the Pennsylvania proceedings to dismiss those actions once the
settlement is approved by the Maryland Court. The Maryland judge has preliminarily approved the stipulation of settlement
and set the final approval hearing date for December 13, 2010.
If the parties are unable to obtain final approval
of the settlement, then litigation will proceed, and the outcome of any such litigation is
inherently uncertain. If a dismissal is not granted or a settlement is not reached, these lawsuits
could prevent or delay the completion of the merger and result in substantial costs to FirstEnergy.
The defense or settlement of any lawsuit or claim that remains unresolved at the time the merger
closes may adversely affect FirstEnergys business, financial condition or results of operations.
Nuclear Plant Matters
During a planned refueling outage that began on February 28, 2010, FENOC conducted a non
destructive examination and testing of the Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM) nozzles of the
Davis-Besse reactor pressure vessel head. FENOC identified flaws in CRDM nozzles that required
modification. The NRC was notified of these findings, along with federal, state and local
officials. On March 17, 2010, the NRC sent a special inspection team to Davis-Besse to assess the
adequacy of FENOCs identification, analyses and resolution of the CRDM nozzle flaws and to ensure
acceptable modifications were made prior to placing the RPV head back in service. After
successfully completing the modifications, FENOC committed to take a number of corrective actions
including strengthening leakage monitoring procedures and shutting Davis-Besse down no later than
October 1, 2011, to replace the reactor pressure vessel head with nozzles made of material less
susceptible to primary water stress corrosion cracking, further enhancing the safe and reliable
operations of the plant. On June 29, 2010, FENOC returned Davis-Besse to service. On September 9,
2010, the NRC held a public exit meeting describing the results of the NRC special inspection team
inspection of FENOCs identification of the CRDM nozzles with flaws and the modifications to those
nozzles. On October 22, 2010, the NRC issued its
final report of the special inspection. The report contained
three findings characterized as very low safety significance that
were promptly corrected prior to plant operation.
On April 5, 2010, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) requested that the NRC issue a Show Cause
Order, or otherwise delay the restart of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station until the NRC
determines that adequate protection standards have been met and reasonable assurance exists that
these standards will continue to be met after the plants operation is resumed. By a letter dated
July 13, 2010, the NRC denied UCSs request for immediate action because the NRC has conducted
rigorous and independent assessments of returning the Davis-Besse reactor vessel head to service
and its continued operation, and determined that it was safe for the plant to restart. The UCS
petition was referred to a petition manager for further review. What additional actions, if any,
that the NRC takes in response to the UCS request have not been determined.
Under NRC regulations, FirstEnergy must ensure that adequate funds will be available to
decommission its nuclear facilities. As required by the NRC, FirstEnergy annually recalculates and
adjusts the amount of obligations. As of September 30, 2010, FirstEnergy had approximately
$2.0 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.
Other Legal Matters
There are various lawsuits, claims (including claims for asbestos exposure) and proceedings related
to FirstEnergys normal business operations pending against FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries. The
other potentially material items not otherwise discussed above are described below.
On February 16, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in Geauga County Court of Common Pleas
against FirstEnergy, CEI and OE seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, as well as
compensatory, incidental and consequential damages, on behalf of a class of customers related to
the reduction of a discount that had previously been in place for residential customers with
electric heating, electric water heating, or load management systems. The reduction in the discount
was approved by the PUCO. On March 18, 2010, the named-defendant companies filed a motion to
dismiss the case due to the lack of jurisdiction of the court of common pleas. The court granted
the motion to dismiss on September 7, 2010.
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.
45
10. REGULATORY MATTERS
(A) RELIABILITY INITIATIVES
Federally-enforceable mandatory reliability standards apply to the bulk power system and impose
certain operating, record-keeping and reporting requirements on the Utilities and ATSI. The NERC
has delegated day-to-day implementation and enforcement of these reliability standards to eight
regional entities, including ReliabilityFirst Corporation. All of FirstEnergys facilities are
located within the ReliabilityFirst region. FirstEnergy actively participates in the NERC and
ReliabilityFirst stakeholder processes, and otherwise monitors and manages its companies in
response to the ongoing development, implementation and enforcement of the reliability standards
implemented and enforced by the ReliabilityFirst Corporation.
FirstEnergy believes that it generally is in compliance with all currently-effective and
enforceable reliability standards. FirstEnergys practice is to address and resolve any occasional
or isolated incidents of noncompliance as they arise in the normal course of operations.
FirstEnergy also believes that the NERC, ReliabilityFirst and the FERC will continue to refine
existing reliability standards as well as to develop and adopt new reliability standards. The
financial impact of complying with new or amended standards cannot be determined at this time;
however, 2005 amendments to the FPA provide that all prudent costs incurred to comply with the new
reliability standards be recovered in rates. Still, any future inability on FirstEnergys part to
comply with the reliability standards for its bulk power system could result in the imposition of
financial penalties that could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows.
On December 9, 2008, a transformer at JCP&Ls Oceanview substation failed, resulting in an outage
on certain bulk electric system (transmission voltage) lines out of the Oceanview and Atlantic
substations resulting in customers losing power for up to eleven hours. On March 31, 2009, the NERC
initiated a Compliance Violation Investigation in order to determine JCP&Ls contribution to the
electrical event and to review any potential violation of NERC Reliability Standards associated
with the event. NERC has submitted first and second Requests for Information regarding this and
another related matter. JCP&L is complying with these requests. JCP&L is not able to predict what
actions, if any, that the NERC may take with respect to this matter.
On
August 23, 2010, FirstEnergy self-reported a vegetation
encroachment event on a Met-Ed 230 kV line
to ReliabilityFirst. 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. At
this time, FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of this investigation.
(B) OHIO
The Ohio Companies operate under an Amended ESP, which expires on May 31, 2011, and provides for
generation supplied through a CBP. The Amended ESP also allows the Ohio Companies to collect a
delivery service improvement rider (Rider DSI) at an overall average rate of $0.002 per KWH for the
period of April 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011. The Ohio Companies currently purchase generation
at the average wholesale rate of a CBP conducted in May 2009. FES is one of the suppliers to the
Ohio Companies through the 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). Applications for
rehearing of the PUCO order in the distribution case were filed by the Ohio Companies and one other
party. The Ohio Companies raised numerous issues in their application for rehearing related to rate
recovery of certain expenses, recovery of line extension costs, the level of rate of return and the
amount of general plant balances. The PUCO has not yet issued a substantive Entry on Rehearing.
On October 20, 2009, the Ohio Companies filed an MRO to procure, through a CBP, generation supply
for customers who do not shop with an alternative supplier for the period beginning June 1, 2011.
The CBP would be similar, in all material respects, to the CBP conducted in May 2009 in that it
would procure energy, capacity and certain transmission services on a slice of system basis.
However, unlike the May 2009 CBP, the MRO would include multiple bidding sessions and multiple
products with different delivery periods for generation supply designed to reduce potential
volatility and supplier risk and encourage bidder participation. Although the Ohio Companies
requested a PUCO determination by January 18, 2010, on February 3, 2010, the PUCO announced that
its determination would be delayed. The PUCO has not yet issued an order in this matter.
On March 23, 2010, the Ohio Companies filed an application for a new ESP. The new ESP will go into
effect on June 1, 2011 and conclude on May 31, 2014. Attached to the application was a Stipulation
and Recommendation signed by the Ohio Companies, the Staff of the PUCO, and an additional fourteen
parties signing as Signatory Parties, with two additional parties agreeing not to oppose the
adoption of the Stipulation. The material terms of the Stipulation include a CBP similar to the one
used in May 2009 and the one proposed in the October 2009 MRO filing; a 6% generation discount to
certain low-income customers provided by the Ohio Companies through a bilateral wholesale contract
with FES (initial auctions scheduled for October 20, 2010 and January 25, 2011); no increase in base
distribution rates through May 31, 2014; load cap of no less than 80%, which also applies to any
tranches assigned post auction; and a new distribution rider, Delivery Capital Recovery Rider
(Rider DCR), to recover a return of, and on, capital investments in the delivery
46
system. This Rider substitutes for Rider DSI which terminates by its own terms. The Ohio Companies also agree not to
collect certain amounts associated with RTEP and administrative costs associated with the move to
PJM, dependent on the outcome of certain PJM proceedings. Many of the existing riders approved in
the previous ESP remain in effect, some with modifications. The new ESP also requests the
resolution of current proceedings pending at the PUCO regarding corporate separation, elements of
the smart grid proceeding and the move to PJM. FirstEnergy recorded approximately $39.5 million of
regulatory asset impairments and expenses related to the ESP. On May 12, 2010, a supplemental
stipulation was filed that added two additional parties to the Stipulation, namely the City of
Akron, Ohio and Council for Smaller Enterprises, to provide additional energy efficiency benefits.
On July 22, 2010, a second supplemental stipulation was filed that, among other provisions provides
a commitment that retail customers of the Ohio Companies will not pay certain costs related to the
companies integration into PJM, for the longer of the five year period from June 1, 2011 through
May 31, 2016 or when the amount of costs avoided by customers for certain types of products totals
$360 million dependent on the outcome of certain PJM proceedings, and establishes a $12 million
fund to assist low income customers over the term of the ESP. Additional parties signing or not
opposing the second supplemental stipulation include Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council (NOPEC),
Northwest Ohio Aggregation Coalition (NOAC), Environmental Law and Policy Center and a number of
low income community agencies. The PUCO modified and approved the new ESP on August 25, 2010. The
Companies accepted the PUCOs decision subject to the implementation of certain elements of the ESP
being consistent with the terms as they were included in the stipulation. On September 24, 2010,
an application for rehearing was filed by the OCC and two other parties. The Ohio Companies and
other parties filed their memorandum contra to that application for
rehearing on October 4, 2010. The PUCO granted the application for rehearing on October 22, 2010.
The PUCO has yet to rule on the substance of the application for rehearing.
Under the provisions of SB221, the Ohio Companies are required to implement energy efficiency
programs that will achieve a total annual energy savings equivalent of approximately 166,000 MWH in
2009, 290,000 MWH in 2010, 410,000 MWH in 2011, 470,000 MWH in 2012 and 530,000 MWH in 2013, with
additional savings required through 2025. Utilities are also required to reduce peak demand in 2009
by 1%, with an additional 0.75% reduction each year thereafter through 2018. The Ohio Companies
filed an application with the PUCO seeking amendments to these benchmarks. On January 7, 2010, the
PUCO amended the Ohio Companies 2009 energy efficiency benchmarks to zero, contingent upon the
Ohio Companies meeting the revised benchmarks in a period of not more than three years. On March
10, 2010, the PUCO found that the Ohio Companies peak demand reduction programs complied with PUCO
rules.
On December 15, 2009, the Ohio Companies filed the required three year portfolio plan seeking
approval for the programs they intend to implement to meet the energy efficiency and peak demand
reduction requirements for the 2010-2012 period. On March 8, 2010, the Ohio Companies filed their
2009 Status Update Report with the PUCO in which they indicated compliance with the 2009 statutory
energy efficiency and peak demand benchmarks as those benchmarks were amended as described
above. The Ohio Companies expect that all costs associated with compliance will be recoverable
from customers. The Ohio Companies three year portfolio plan is still awaiting decision from the
PUCO. The plan has yet to be approved by the PUCO, which is delaying the launch of the programs
described in the plan. Without such approval, the Ohio Companies compliance with 2010 benchmarks
is jeopardized and if not approved soon may require the Ohio Companies to seek an amendment to
their annual benchmark requirements for 2010. Failure to comply with the benchmarks or to obtain
such an amendment may subject the Companies to an assessment by the PUCO of a forfeiture.
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. On March 10, 2010, the PUCO found that there was an insufficient
quantity of solar energy resources reasonably available in the market. The PUCO reduced the Ohio
Companies aggregate 2009 benchmark to the level of solar RECs the Ohio Companies acquired through
their 2009 RFP processes, provided the Ohio Companies 2010 alternative energy requirements be
increased to include the shortfall for the 2009 solar REC benchmark. On April 15, 2010, the Ohio
Companies and FES (due to its status as an electric service company in Ohio) filed compliance
reports with the PUCO setting forth how they individually satisfied the alternative energy
requirements in SB221 for 2009. FES also applied for a force majeure determination from the PUCO
regarding a portion of their compliance with the 2009 solar energy resource benchmark, which
application is still pending. 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. As a result of this RFP, contracts were executed in August 2010.
On February 12, 2010, OE and CEI filed an application with the PUCO to establish a new credit for
all-electric customers. On March 3, 2010, the PUCO ordered that rates for the affected customers
be set at a level that will provide bill impacts commensurate with charges in place on December 31,
2008 and authorized the Ohio Companies to defer incurred costs equivalent to the difference between
what the affected customers would have paid under previously existing rates and
what they pay with the new credit in place. Tariffs implementing this new credit went into effect
on March 17, 2010. On April 15, 2010, the PUCO issued a Second Entry on Rehearing that expanded
the group of customers to which the new credit would apply and authorized deferral for the
associated additional amounts. The PUCO also stated that 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 on May 21, 2010. The Ohio Companies also filed on May 14, 2010 an application for
rehearing of the Second Entry on Rehearing, which was granted for purposes of further consideration
on June 9, 2010. On September 9, 2010, the OCC filed a motion requesting that a procedural
schedule be established. The Ohio Companies filed their motion contra on September 23, 2010. The
PUCO Staff issued a report related to the all-electric issue on September 24, 2010, in which it
provides background on the issue and sets forth its bill impact analysis under a number of
different scenarios for a longer term solution, but it made no specific recommendation to the PUCO.
47
(C) PENNSYLVANIA
Met-Ed and Penelec purchase a portion of their POLR and default service requirements from FES
through a fixed-price partial requirements wholesale power sales agreement. The agreement allows
Met-Ed and Penelec to sell the output of NUG energy to the market and requires FES to provide
energy at fixed prices to replace any NUG energy sold to the extent needed for Met-Ed and Penelec
to satisfy their POLR and default service obligations.
Met-Ed and Penelec filed with the PPUC a generation procurement plan covering the period January 1,
2011 through May 31, 2013. The plan is designed to provide adequate and reliable service via a
prudent mix of long-term, short-term and spot market generation supply, as required by Act 129,
with a staggered procurement schedule, which varies by customer class, through the use of a
descending clock auction. On August 12, 2009, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a settlement agreement with
the PPUC for the generation procurement plan, reflecting the settlement on all but two reserved
issues. On November 6, 2009, the PPUC entered an Order approving the settlement and finding in
favor of Met-Ed and Penelec on the two reserved issues. Generation procurement began in January
2010.
On February 8, 2010, Penn filed a Petition for Approval of its Default Service Plan for the period June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2013.
On July 29, 2010, the parties to the proceeding filed a Joint Petition for Settlement of all issues. The PPUC adopted a Motion approving
the Joint Petition for Settlement on October 21, 2010. The Joint Petition resolves all issues relating to Penns Default Service Plan for
the next program period, including its procurement method, compliance with the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act, rate design and
retail market issues. The PPUCs approval of the Joint Petition is conditioned by holding that the provision relating to the recovery
of MISO exit cost fees and one-time PJM integration costs (resulting from Penns June 1, 2011 exit of MISO and integration into PJM)
be approved, but made subject to the approval of cost recovery by FERC. Penn may not put these provisions into effect until FERC has
approved the recovery and allocation of MISO exit fees and PJM integration costs. An Order consistent with the Motion is expected to be
entered in the near future.
The PPUC adopted a Motion on January 28, 2010 and subsequently entered an Order on March 3, 2010
which denies the recovery of marginal transmission losses through the TSC rider for the period of
June 1, 2007 through March 31, 2008, and directs Met-Ed and Penelec to submit a new tariff or
tariff supplement reflecting the removal of marginal transmission losses from the TSC, and
instructs Met-Ed and Penelec to work with the various intervening parties to file a recommendation
to the PPUC regarding the establishment of a separate account for all marginal transmission losses
collected from ratepayers plus interest to be used to mitigate future generation rate increases
beginning January 1, 2011. On March 18, 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a Petition with the PPUC
requesting that it stay the portion of the March 3, 2010 Order requiring the filing of tariff
supplements to end collection of costs for marginal transmission losses. By Order entered March 25, 2010,
the PPUC granted the requested stay until December 31, 2010. Pursuant to the PPUCs order, Met-Ed
and Penelec filed the plan to establish separate accounts for marginal transmission loss revenues
and related interest and carrying charges and the plan for the use of these funds to mitigate
future generation rate increases commencing January 1, 2011. The PPUC approved this plan on June 7,
2010. On April 1, 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a Petition for Review with the Commonwealth Court
of Pennsylvania appealing the PPUCs March 3, 2010 Order. Although the ultimate outcome of this
matter cannot be determined at this time, it is the belief of Met-Ed and Penelec that they should
prevail in the appeal and therefore expect to fully recover the approximately $199.7 million
($158.5 million for Met-Ed and $41.2 million for Penelec) in marginal transmission losses for the
period prior to January 1, 2011. On July 9, 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed their briefs with the
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The Office of Small Business Advocate filed its brief on July
9, 2010. On August 24, 2010, the PPUC as well as MEIUG and PICA filed their briefs. Met-Ed and
Penelec filed their reply brief on September 9, 2010.
On May 20, 2010, the PPUC approved Met-Eds and Penelecs annual updates to their TSC rider for the
period June 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010 including marginal transmission losses as approved by
the PPUC, although the recovery of marginal losses will be subject to the outcome of the proceeding
related to the 2008 TSC filing as described above. The TSC for Met-Eds customers was increased to
provide for full recovery by December 31, 2010.
Act 129 was enacted in 2008 to address issues such as: energy efficiency and peak load reduction;
generation procurement; time-of-use rates; smart meters; and alternative energy. Among other
things, Act 129 required utilities to file with the PPUC an energy efficiency and peak load
reduction plan, or EE&C Plan, by July 1, 2009, setting forth the utilities plans to reduce energy
consumption by a minimum of 1% and 3% by May 31, 2011 and May 31, 2013, respectively, and to reduce
peak demand by a minimum of 4.5% by May 31, 2013. The PPUC entered an Order on February 26, 2010
approving the Pennsylvania Companies EE&C Plans and the tariff rider with rates effective March 1,
2010.
48
Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn jointly filed a Smart Meter Technology Procurement and Installation Plan
with the PPUC. This plan proposes a 24-month assessment period in which the Pennsylvania Companies
will assess their needs, select the necessary technology, secure vendors, train personnel, install
and test support equipment, and establish a cost effective and strategic deployment schedule, which
currently is expected to be completed in fifteen years. Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn estimate
assessment period costs at approximately $29.5 million, which the Pennsylvania Companies, in their
plan, proposed to recover through an automatic adjustment clause. The ALJs Initial Decision
approved the Smart Meter Plan as modified by the ALJ, including: ensuring that the smart meters to
be deployed include the capabilities listed in the PPUCs Implementation Order; eliminating the
provision of interest in the 1307(e) reconciliation; providing for the recovery of reasonable and
prudent costs minus resulting savings from installation and use of smart meters; and reflecting
that administrative start-up costs be expensed and the costs incurred for research and development
in the assessment period be capitalized. On April 15, 2010, the PPUC adopted a Motion by Chairman
Cawley that modified the ALJs initial decision, and decided various issues regarding the Smart
Meter Implementation Plan for the Pennsylvania Companies. The PPUC entered its Order on June 9,
2010, consistent with the Chairmans Motion. On June 24, 2010, Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn filed a
Petition for Reconsideration of a single portion of the PPUCs Order regarding the future ability
to include smart meter costs in base rates. On August 5, 2010, the PPUC granted in part the petition
for reconsideration 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.
By Tentative Order entered September 17, 2009, the PPUC provided for an additional 30-day comment
period on whether the 1998 Restructuring Settlement allows Met-Ed and Penelec to apply
over-collection of NUG costs for select and isolated months to reduce non-NUG stranded costs when a
cumulative NUG stranded cost balance exists. In response to the Tentative Order, various parties
filed comments objecting to the above accounting method utilized by Met-Ed and Penelec. Met-Ed and
Penelec are awaiting further action by the PPUC.
(D) NEW JERSEY
JCP&L is permitted to defer for future collection from customers the amounts by which its costs of
supplying BGS to non-shopping customers, costs incurred under NUG agreements, and certain other
stranded costs, exceed amounts collected through BGS and NUGC rates and market sales of NUG energy
and capacity. As of September 30, 2010, the accumulated deferred cost balance was a credit of
approximately $3 million. To better align the recovery of expected costs, on July 26, 2010, JCP&L
filed a request to decrease the amount recovered for the costs incurred under the NUG agreements by
$180 million annually. If approved as filed, the change would not go into effect until January 1,
2011.
In accordance with an April 28, 2004 NJBPU order, JCP&L filed testimony on June 7, 2004, supporting
continuation of the current level and duration of the funding of TMI-2 decommissioning costs by New
Jersey customers without a reduction, termination or capping of the funding. On September 30, 2004,
JCP&L filed an updated TMI-2 decommissioning study. This study resulted in an updated total
decommissioning cost estimate of $729 million (in 2003 dollars) compared to the estimated
$528 million (in 2003 dollars) from the prior 1995 decommissioning study. The DPA filed comments on
February 28, 2005 requesting that decommissioning funding be suspended. On March 18, 2005, JCP&L
filed a response to those comments. JCP&L responded to additional NJBPU staff discovery requests in
May and November 2007 and also submitted comments in the proceeding in November 2007. A schedule
for further NJBPU proceedings has not yet been set. On March 13, 2009, JCP&L filed its annual SBC
Petition with the NJBPU that includes a request for a reduction in the level of recovery of TMI-2
decommissioning costs based on an updated TMI-2 decommissioning cost analysis dated January 2009
estimated at $736 million (in 2003 dollars). This matter is currently pending before the NJBPU.
New Jersey statutes require that the state periodically undertake a planning process, known as the
EMP, to address energy related issues including energy security, economic growth, and environmental
impact. The NJBPU adopted an order establishing the general process and contents of specific EMP
plans that must be filed by New Jersey electric and gas utilities in order to achieve the goals of
the EMP. On April 16, 2010, the NJBPU issued an order indefinitely suspending the requirement of
New Jersey utilities to submit Utility Master Plans until such time as the status of the EMP has
been made clear. At this time, FirstEnergy and JCP&L cannot determine the impact, if any, the EMP
may have on their operations.
In support of former New Jersey Governor Corzines Economic Assistance and Recovery Plan, JCP&L
announced a proposal to spend approximately $98 million on infrastructure and energy efficiency
projects in 2009. Under the proposal, an estimated $40 million would be spent on infrastructure
projects, including substation upgrades, new transformers, distribution line re-closers and
automated breaker operations. In addition, approximately $34 million would be spent implementing
new demand response programs as well as expanding on existing programs. Another $11 million would
be spent on energy efficiency, specifically replacing transformers and capacitor control systems
and installing new LED street lights. The remaining $13 million would be spent on energy efficiency
programs that would complement those currently being offered. The project relating to expansion of
the existing demand response programs was approved by the NJBPU on August 19, 2009, and
implementation began in 2009. Approval for the project related to energy efficiency programs
intended to complement those currently being offered was denied by the NJBPU on December 1, 2009.
On July 6, 2010, the January 30, 2009 petition directed to infrastructure investment which had been
pending before the NJBPU was withdrawn by JCP&L. Implementation of the remaining projects is
dependent upon resolution of regulatory issues including recovery of the costs associated with the
proposal.
49
(E) FERC MATTERS
PJM Transmission Rate
On April 19, 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 on August 6, 2009. The court affirmed FERCs ratemaking treatment for
existing transmission facilities, but found that FERC had not supported its decision to allocate
costs for new 500+ kV facilities on a load ratio share basis and, based on this finding, remanded
the rate design issue back to FERC.
In an
order dated January 21, 2010, FERC set the matter for paper hearingsmeaning 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 the
reply comments. PJM filed certain studies with FERC on April 13, 2010, in response to the FERC
order. PJMs filing demonstrated that allocation of the cost of high voltage transmission
facilities on a beneficiary pays basis results in certain eastern utilities in PJM bearing the
majority of their costs. Numerous parties filed responsive comments or studies on May 28, 2010 and
reply comments on June 28, 2010. FirstEnergy and a number of other utilities, industrial customers
and state commissions supported the use of the beneficiary pays approach for cost allocation for
high voltage transmission facilities. Certain eastern utilities and their state commissions
supported continued socialization of these costs on a load ratio share basis. FERC is expected to
act before the end of the year.
RTO Consolidation
On December 17, 2009, FERC issued an order approving, subject to certain future compliance filings,
ATSIs move to PJM. This move, which is expected to be effective on June 1, 2011, allows
FirstEnergy to consolidate its transmission assets and operations into PJM. Currently,
FirstEnergys transmission assets and operations are divided between PJM and MISO. The
consolidation will make the transmission assets that are part of ATSI, whose footprint includes the
Ohio Companies and Penn, part of PJM. In the order, FERC approved FirstEnergys proposal to use a
Fixed Resource Requirement Plan (FRR Plan) to obtain capacity to satisfy the PJM capacity
requirements for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 delivery years.
On December 17, 2009, ATSI executed the PJM Consolidated Transmission Owners Agreement and on
December 18, 2009, the Ohio Companies and Penn executed the PJM Operating Agreement and the PJM
Reliability Assurance Agreement. Execution of these agreements committed ATSI, the Ohio Companies
and Penn to the move into PJM.
FirstEnergy successfully conducted the FRR auctions on March 19, 2010. Moreover, the ATSI-zone
loads participated in the PJM base residual auction for the 2013 delivery year. Successful
completion of these steps secured the capacity necessary for the ATSI footprint to meet PJMs
capacity requirements.
On September 4, 2009, the PUCO opened a case to take comments from Ohios stakeholders regarding
the RTO consolidation. On August 25, 2010, the PUCO issued an order that, among other things,
committed the PUCO to close this case and also to withdraw its objections that were filed in the
relevant FERC dockets conditioned upon the Ohio Companies not seeking recovery of MISO exit fees or
PJM integration costs (estimated to be approximately $37 million as of September 30, 2010).
Notwithstanding the PUCOs actions, certain other parties protested aspects of the move into PJM,
and certain of these matters remain outstanding and will be resolved in future FERC proceedings. Under the terms of the ESP order issued on August 25, 2010, the PUCO has agreed to close this docket.
MISO Multi-Value Project Rule Proposal
On July 15, 2010, MISO and certain MISO transmission owners jointly filed with FERC their proposed
cost allocation methodology for new transmission projects. The new transmission projectsdescribed
as Multi-Value Projects (MVPs)are a class of MTEP projects. The MISO proposes 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. MISO expects that
its 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. MISO has requested that FERC rule on its MVP proposal by
December, but has asked for an effective date for its proposal of July 16, 2011. On August 19,
2010, MISOs Board approved the first MVP projectthe so-called 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. This approach is reflected in the MISOs estimated allocations of the costs for the
Michigan Thumb Project, where approximately $16 million in annual revenue requirements were
allocated to the ATSI zone.
50
On September 10, 2010, FirstEnergy filed a protest to MISOs MVP proposal.
FirstEnergy believes 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 move to 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. FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
11. NEW ACCOUNTING STANDARDS AND INTERPRETATIONS
In 2010, the FASB amended the Receivable Topic of the FASB Accounting Standards Codification to
enhance disclosures about the credit quality of financing receivables and the allowance for credit
losses. The update amends existing disclosures to require an entity to provide a greater level of
disaggregated information about the credit quality of its financing receivables and its allowance
for credit losses. The amendment also requires an entity to disclose credit quality indicators,
past due information, and modifications of its financing receivables. The amendment is effective
for interim and annual reporting periods ending on or after December 15, 2010. FirstEnergy is
currently evaluating the impact of adopting this standard on its financial statements.
12. SEGMENT INFORMATION
Financial information for each of FirstEnergys reportable segments is presented in the following
table. FES and the Utilities do not have separate reportable operating segments. With the
completion of transition to a fully competitive generation market in Ohio in the fourth quarter of
2009, the former Ohio Transitional Generation Services segment was combined with the Energy
Delivery Services segment, consistent with how management views the business. Disclosures for
FirstEnergys operating segments for 2009 have been reclassified to conform to the current
presentation.
The Energy Delivery Services segment transmits and distributes electricity through FirstEnergys
eight utility operating companies, serving 4.5 million customers within 36,100 square miles of
Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and purchases power for its POLR and default service
requirements in Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Its revenues are primarily derived from the
delivery of electricity within FirstEnergys service areas, cost recovery of regulatory assets and
the sale of electric generation service to retail customers who have not selected an alternative
supplier (default service) in its Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey franchise areas. Its results
reflect the commodity costs of securing electric generation from FES and from non-affiliated power
suppliers, the net PJM and MISO transmission expenses related to the delivery of the respective
generation loads and the deferral and amortization of certain fuel costs.
The Competitive Energy Services segment supplies electric power to end-use customers through retail
and wholesale arrangements, including associated company power sales to meet all or a portion of
the POLR and default service requirements of FirstEnergys Ohio and Pennsylvania utility
subsidiaries and competitive retail sales to customers primarily in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois,
Maryland, Michigan and New Jersey. This business segment
controls approximately 14,000 MW of capacity and also purchases electricity to meet
sales obligations. The segments net income is primarily derived from affiliated and non-affiliated
electric generation sales revenues less the related costs of electricity generation, including
purchased power and net transmission (including congestion) and ancillary costs charged by PJM and
MISO to deliver energy to the segments customers.
The other segment contains corporate items and other businesses that are below the quantifiable
threshold for separate disclosure as a reportable segment.
51
Segment Financial Information
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Competitive |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delivery |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reconciling |
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
Services |
|
|
Services |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
September 30, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External revenues |
|
$ |
2,757 |
|
|
$ |
957 |
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
(32 |
) |
|
$ |
3,693 |
|
Internal revenues |
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
599 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(659 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
2,817 |
|
|
|
1,556 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
(691 |
) |
|
|
3,693 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
287 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
358 |
|
Investment income (loss), net |
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
46 |
|
Net interest charges |
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
167 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
137 |
|
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
119 |
|
Net income (loss) |
|
|
224 |
|
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
175 |
|
Total assets |
|
|
22,773 |
|
|
|
11,076 |
|
|
|
604 |
|
|
|
254 |
|
|
|
34,707 |
|
Total goodwill |
|
|
5,551 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,575 |
|
Property additions |
|
|
208 |
|
|
|
255 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
470 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External revenues |
|
$ |
2,942 |
|
|
|
490 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
3,408 |
|
Internal revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
617 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(617 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
2,942 |
|
|
|
1,107 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
(647 |
) |
|
|
3,408 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
373 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
449 |
|
Investment income (loss), net |
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
159 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
191 |
|
Net interest charges |
|
|
115 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
175 |
|
|
|
320 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
121 |
|
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
(73 |
) |
|
|
128 |
|
Net income |
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
183 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
(118 |
) |
|
|
230 |
|
Total assets |
|
|
23,023 |
|
|
|
10,691 |
|
|
|
674 |
|
|
|
286 |
|
|
|
34,674 |
|
Total goodwill |
|
|
5,551 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,575 |
|
Property additions |
|
|
182 |
|
|
|
224 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
432 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External revenues |
|
$ |
7,673 |
|
|
|
2,453 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
(92 |
) |
|
|
10,055 |
|
Internal revenues* |
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
1,812 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,824 |
) |
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
7,752 |
|
|
|
4,265 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
(1,916 |
) |
|
|
10,122 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
888 |
|
|
|
194 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
1,114 |
|
Investment income (loss), net |
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
93 |
|
Net interest charges |
|
|
369 |
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
506 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
295 |
|
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
364 |
|
Net income (loss) |
|
|
481 |
|
|
|
174 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(72 |
) |
|
|
580 |
|
Total assets |
|
|
22,773 |
|
|
|
11,076 |
|
|
|
604 |
|
|
|
254 |
|
|
|
34,707 |
|
Total goodwill |
|
|
5,551 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,575 |
|
Property additions |
|
|
546 |
|
|
|
860 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
1,467 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External revenues |
|
$ |
8,755 |
|
|
|
1,329 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
(89 |
) |
|
|
10,013 |
|
Internal revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,349 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,349 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
8,755 |
|
|
|
3,678 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
(2,438 |
) |
|
|
10,013 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
1,098 |
|
|
|
201 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
1,317 |
|
Investment income (loss), net |
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(40 |
) |
|
|
207 |
|
Net interest charges |
|
|
338 |
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
252 |
|
|
|
659 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
190 |
|
|
|
409 |
|
|
|
(56 |
) |
|
|
(113 |
) |
|
|
430 |
|
Net income |
|
|
285 |
|
|
|
614 |
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
(197 |
) |
|
|
754 |
|
Total assets |
|
|
23,023 |
|
|
|
10,691 |
|
|
|
674 |
|
|
|
286 |
|
|
|
34,674 |
|
Total goodwill |
|
|
5,551 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,575 |
|
Property additions |
|
|
524 |
|
|
|
893 |
|
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
1,575 |
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Under the accounting standard for the effects of certain types of regulation, internal revenues are not
fully offset for sales of RECs by FES to the Ohio Companies that are retained in inventory. |
Reconciling adjustments to segment operating results from internal management reporting to
consolidated external financial reporting primarily consist of interest expense related to holding
company debt, corporate support services revenues and expenses and elimination of intersegment
transactions.
52
13. SUPPLEMENTAL GUARANTOR INFORMATION
On July 13, 2007, FGCO completed a sale and leaseback transaction for its 93.825% undivided
interest in Bruce Mansfield Unit 1. FES has fully, unconditionally and irrevocably guaranteed all
of FGCOs obligations under each of the leases. The related lessor notes and pass through
certificates are not guaranteed by FES or FGCO, but the notes are secured by, among other things,
each lessor trusts undivided interest in Unit 1, rights and interests under the applicable lease
and rights and interests under other related agreements, including FES lease guaranty. This
transaction is classified as an operating lease under GAAP for FES and FirstEnergy and as a
financing for FGCO.
The condensed consolidating statements of income for the three month and nine month periods ended
September 30, 2010 and 2009, consolidating balance sheets as of September 30, 2010 and December 31,
2009 and consolidating statements of cash flows for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 and
2009 for FES (parent and guarantor), FGCO and NGC (non-guarantor) are presented below. Investments
in wholly owned subsidiaries are accounted for by FES using the equity method. Results of
operations for FGCO and NGC are, therefore, reflected in FES investment accounts and earnings as
if operating lease treatment was achieved. The principal elimination entries eliminate investments
in subsidiaries and intercompany balances and transactions and the entries required to reflect
operating lease treatment associated with the 2007 Bruce Mansfield Unit 1 sale and leaseback
transaction.
53
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2010 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
REVENUES |
|
$ |
1,540,885 |
|
|
$ |
645,001 |
|
|
$ |
380,542 |
|
|
$ |
(1,012,751 |
) |
|
$ |
1,553,677 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
13,403 |
|
|
|
329,009 |
|
|
|
48,675 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
391,087 |
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
1,058,965 |
|
|
|
13,404 |
|
|
|
56,763 |
|
|
|
(1,012,751 |
) |
|
|
116,381 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
411,084 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
411,084 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
84,169 |
|
|
|
97,322 |
|
|
|
116,112 |
|
|
|
12,190 |
|
|
|
309,793 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
752 |
|
|
|
23,845 |
|
|
|
36,005 |
|
|
|
(1,304 |
) |
|
|
59,298 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
6,216 |
|
|
|
8,875 |
|
|
|
6,713 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21,804 |
|
Impairment of long-lived assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
291,934 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
291,934 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
1,574,589 |
|
|
|
764,389 |
|
|
|
264,268 |
|
|
|
(1,001,865 |
) |
|
|
1,601,381 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) |
|
|
(33,704 |
) |
|
|
(119,388 |
) |
|
|
116,274 |
|
|
|
(10,886 |
) |
|
|
(47,704 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
256 |
|
|
|
396 |
|
|
|
29,243 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,895 |
|
Miscellaneous income (expense), including
net income from equity investees |
|
|
5,707 |
|
|
|
2,562 |
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
(3,553 |
) |
|
|
4,765 |
|
Interest expense affiliates |
|
|
(60 |
) |
|
|
(2,021 |
) |
|
|
(416 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,497 |
) |
Interest expense other |
|
|
(24,158 |
) |
|
|
(26,243 |
) |
|
|
(15,028 |
) |
|
|
15,885 |
|
|
|
(49,544 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
19,024 |
|
|
|
3,836 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22,955 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense) |
|
|
(18,160 |
) |
|
|
(6,282 |
) |
|
|
17,684 |
|
|
|
12,332 |
|
|
|
5,574 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
(51,864 |
) |
|
|
(125,670 |
) |
|
|
133,958 |
|
|
|
1,446 |
|
|
|
(42,130 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES (BENEFITS) |
|
|
(15,138 |
) |
|
|
(44,364 |
) |
|
|
51,600 |
|
|
|
2,498 |
|
|
|
(5,404 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME (LOSS) |
|
$ |
(36,726 |
) |
|
$ |
(81,306 |
) |
|
$ |
82,358 |
|
|
$ |
(1,052 |
) |
|
$ |
(36,726 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES |
|
$ |
4,203,610 |
|
|
$ |
1,793,986 |
|
|
$ |
1,145,795 |
|
|
$ |
(2,886,947 |
) |
|
$ |
4,256,444 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
25,768 |
|
|
|
910,739 |
|
|
|
125,212 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,061,719 |
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
2,940,360 |
|
|
|
25,646 |
|
|
|
167,173 |
|
|
|
(2,886,947 |
) |
|
|
246,232 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
1,160,119 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,160,119 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
218,278 |
|
|
|
289,638 |
|
|
|
371,882 |
|
|
|
36,568 |
|
|
|
916,366 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
2,253 |
|
|
|
77,838 |
|
|
|
109,364 |
|
|
|
(3,920 |
) |
|
|
185,535 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
17,432 |
|
|
|
32,702 |
|
|
|
20,688 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
70,822 |
|
Impairment charges of long-lived assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
293,767 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
293,767 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
4,364,210 |
|
|
|
1,630,330 |
|
|
|
794,319 |
|
|
|
(2,854,299 |
) |
|
|
3,934,560 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) |
|
|
(160,600 |
) |
|
|
163,656 |
|
|
|
351,476 |
|
|
|
(32,648 |
) |
|
|
321,884 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
3,964 |
|
|
|
531 |
|
|
|
39,483 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43,978 |
|
Miscellaneous income (expense), including
net income from equity investees |
|
|
323,371 |
|
|
|
1,638 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
(314,591 |
) |
|
|
10,468 |
|
Interest expense affiliates |
|
|
(179 |
) |
|
|
(5,917 |
) |
|
|
(1,266 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,362 |
) |
Interest expense other |
|
|
(71,793 |
) |
|
|
(80,548 |
) |
|
|
(46,152 |
) |
|
|
47,933 |
|
|
|
(150,560 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
293 |
|
|
|
54,930 |
|
|
|
11,327 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66,550 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense) |
|
|
255,656 |
|
|
|
(29,366 |
) |
|
|
3,442 |
|
|
|
(266,658 |
) |
|
|
(36,926 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
95,056 |
|
|
|
134,290 |
|
|
|
354,918 |
|
|
|
(299,306 |
) |
|
|
284,958 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES (BENEFITS) |
|
|
(82,069 |
) |
|
|
52,144 |
|
|
|
130,163 |
|
|
|
7,595 |
|
|
|
107,833 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
177,125 |
|
|
$ |
82,146 |
|
|
$ |
224,755 |
|
|
$ |
(306,901 |
) |
|
$ |
177,125 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2009 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES |
|
$ |
1,087,991 |
|
|
$ |
477,679 |
|
|
$ |
170,129 |
|
|
$ |
(631,227 |
) |
|
$ |
1,104,572 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
9,278 |
|
|
|
241,953 |
|
|
|
43,462 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
294,693 |
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
621,996 |
|
|
|
9,233 |
|
|
|
35,290 |
|
|
|
(631,229 |
) |
|
|
35,290 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
205,200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
205,200 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
70,246 |
|
|
|
109,828 |
|
|
|
113,669 |
|
|
|
12,192 |
|
|
|
305,935 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
1,051 |
|
|
|
30,469 |
|
|
|
35,832 |
|
|
|
(1,311 |
) |
|
|
66,041 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
4,351 |
|
|
|
11,331 |
|
|
|
6,018 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21,700 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
912,122 |
|
|
|
402,814 |
|
|
|
234,271 |
|
|
|
(620,348 |
) |
|
|
928,859 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
175,869 |
|
|
|
74,865 |
|
|
|
(64,142 |
) |
|
|
(10,879 |
) |
|
|
175,713 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
319 |
|
|
|
158,503 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
158,857 |
|
Miscellaneous income (expense), including
net income from equity investees |
|
|
100,668 |
|
|
|
744 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(98,609 |
) |
|
|
2,804 |
|
Interest expense to affiliates |
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
|
(1,267 |
) |
|
|
(907 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,209 |
) |
Interest expense other |
|
|
(15,358 |
) |
|
|
(26,737 |
) |
|
|
(16,205 |
) |
|
|
16,113 |
|
|
|
(42,187 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
15,381 |
|
|
|
2,439 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,869 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense) |
|
|
85,359 |
|
|
|
(11,560 |
) |
|
|
143,831 |
|
|
|
(82,496 |
) |
|
|
135,134 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
261,228 |
|
|
|
63,305 |
|
|
|
79,689 |
|
|
|
(93,375 |
) |
|
|
310,847 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
61,545 |
|
|
|
19,646 |
|
|
|
27,801 |
|
|
|
2,172 |
|
|
|
111,164 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
199,683 |
|
|
$ |
43,659 |
|
|
$ |
51,888 |
|
|
$ |
(95,547 |
) |
|
$ |
199,683 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2009 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES |
|
$ |
3,357,873 |
|
|
$ |
1,726,715 |
|
|
$ |
955,452 |
|
|
$ |
(2,368,210 |
) |
|
$ |
3,671,830 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
16,400 |
|
|
|
755,632 |
|
|
|
99,128 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
871,160 |
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
2,351,879 |
|
|
|
16,333 |
|
|
|
149,746 |
|
|
|
(2,368,212 |
) |
|
|
149,746 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
551,155 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
551,155 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
144,284 |
|
|
|
313,416 |
|
|
|
397,284 |
|
|
|
36,571 |
|
|
|
891,555 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
3,087 |
|
|
|
90,680 |
|
|
|
103,135 |
|
|
|
(3,940 |
) |
|
|
192,962 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
12,826 |
|
|
|
35,289 |
|
|
|
18,246 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66,361 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
3,079,631 |
|
|
|
1,211,350 |
|
|
|
767,539 |
|
|
|
(2,335,581 |
) |
|
|
2,722,939 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
278,242 |
|
|
|
515,365 |
|
|
|
187,913 |
|
|
|
(32,629 |
) |
|
|
948,891 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
83 |
|
|
|
758 |
|
|
|
134,882 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
135,723 |
|
Miscellaneous income (expense), including
net income from equity investees |
|
|
509,927 |
|
|
|
1,209 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
(498,311 |
) |
|
|
12,840 |
|
Interest expense to affiliates |
|
|
(103 |
) |
|
|
(4,648 |
) |
|
|
(3,752 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8,503 |
) |
Interest expense other |
|
|
(20,778 |
) |
|
|
(72,762 |
) |
|
|
(46,050 |
) |
|
|
48,605 |
|
|
|
(90,985 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
146 |
|
|
|
34,257 |
|
|
|
7,572 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41,975 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense) |
|
|
489,275 |
|
|
|
(41,186 |
) |
|
|
92,667 |
|
|
|
(449,706 |
) |
|
|
91,050 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
767,517 |
|
|
|
474,179 |
|
|
|
280,580 |
|
|
|
(482,335 |
) |
|
|
1,039,941 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
99,751 |
|
|
|
166,902 |
|
|
|
98,893 |
|
|
|
6,629 |
|
|
|
372,175 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
667,766 |
|
|
$ |
307,277 |
|
|
$ |
181,687 |
|
|
$ |
(488,964 |
) |
|
$ |
667,766 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of September 30, 2010 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers |
|
|
325,265 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
325,265 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
299,222 |
|
|
|
193,951 |
|
|
|
112,523 |
|
|
|
(335,710 |
) |
|
|
269,986 |
|
Other |
|
|
34,052 |
|
|
|
4,831 |
|
|
|
18,524 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57,407 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
10,100 |
|
|
|
329,461 |
|
|
|
162,087 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
501,648 |
|
Materials and supplies, at average cost |
|
|
28,411 |
|
|
|
301,761 |
|
|
|
223,871 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
554,043 |
|
Prepayments and other |
|
|
191,423 |
|
|
|
9,669 |
|
|
|
2,973 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
204,065 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
888,473 |
|
|
|
839,674 |
|
|
|
519,987 |
|
|
|
(335,710 |
) |
|
|
1,912,424 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
94,787 |
|
|
|
4,640,027 |
|
|
|
5,313,456 |
|
|
|
(385,006 |
) |
|
|
9,663,264 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
16,209 |
|
|
|
2,173,661 |
|
|
|
2,098,927 |
|
|
|
(174,416 |
) |
|
|
4,114,381 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
78,578 |
|
|
|
2,466,366 |
|
|
|
3,214,529 |
|
|
|
(210,590 |
) |
|
|
5,548,883 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
7,523 |
|
|
|
2,221,270 |
|
|
|
507,842 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,736,635 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
86,101 |
|
|
|
4,687,636 |
|
|
|
3,722,371 |
|
|
|
(210,590 |
) |
|
|
8,285,518 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,158,376 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,158,376 |
|
Investment in associated companies |
|
|
4,825,221 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,825,221 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
560 |
|
|
|
6,639 |
|
|
|
201 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,825,781 |
|
|
|
6,639 |
|
|
|
1,158,577 |
|
|
|
(4,825,221 |
) |
|
|
1,165,776 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
71,165 |
|
|
|
402,397 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(470,205 |
) |
|
|
3,357 |
|
Customer intangibles |
|
|
127,420 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
127,420 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
24,248 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,248 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,811 |
|
|
|
22,314 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,125 |
|
Unamortized sale and leaseback costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61,934 |
|
|
|
61,934 |
|
Other |
|
|
142,039 |
|
|
|
75,033 |
|
|
|
7,842 |
|
|
|
(60,582 |
) |
|
|
164,332 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
364,872 |
|
|
|
505,241 |
|
|
|
30,156 |
|
|
|
(468,853 |
) |
|
|
431,416 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6,165,227 |
|
|
$ |
6,039,190 |
|
|
$ |
5,431,091 |
|
|
$ |
(5,840,374 |
) |
|
$ |
11,795,134 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
765 |
|
|
$ |
487,357 |
|
|
$ |
927,772 |
|
|
$ |
(19,102 |
) |
|
$ |
1,396,792 |
|
Short-term borrowings- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,642 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,642 |
|
Other |
|
|
100,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100,000 |
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
305,726 |
|
|
|
244,383 |
|
|
|
227,328 |
|
|
|
(305,419 |
) |
|
|
472,018 |
|
Other |
|
|
95,287 |
|
|
|
109,641 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
204,928 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
1,821 |
|
|
|
46,889 |
|
|
|
56,535 |
|
|
|
(45,823 |
) |
|
|
59,422 |
|
Other |
|
|
253,368 |
|
|
|
110,964 |
|
|
|
28,383 |
|
|
|
38,109 |
|
|
|
430,824 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
756,967 |
|
|
|
1,008,876 |
|
|
|
1,240,018 |
|
|
|
(332,235 |
) |
|
|
2,673,626 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity |
|
|
3,730,964 |
|
|
|
2,443,222 |
|
|
|
2,362,711 |
|
|
|
(4,805,933 |
) |
|
|
3,730,964 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
1,518,779 |
|
|
|
2,053,532 |
|
|
|
506,533 |
|
|
|
(1,259,694 |
) |
|
|
2,819,150 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,249,743 |
|
|
|
4,496,754 |
|
|
|
2,869,244 |
|
|
|
(6,065,627 |
) |
|
|
6,550,114 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred gain on sale and leaseback transaction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
967,583 |
|
|
|
967,583 |
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
410,095 |
|
|
|
(410,095 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
34,050 |
|
|
|
21,217 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55,267 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
26,395 |
|
|
|
851,127 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
877,522 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
36,528 |
|
|
|
192,251 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
228,779 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,811 |
|
|
|
22,314 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,125 |
|
Lease market valuation liability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
228,119 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
228,119 |
|
Other |
|
|
121,989 |
|
|
|
24,934 |
|
|
|
17,076 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
163,999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
158,517 |
|
|
|
533,560 |
|
|
|
1,321,829 |
|
|
|
557,488 |
|
|
|
2,571,394 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6,165,227 |
|
|
$ |
6,039,190 |
|
|
$ |
5,431,091 |
|
|
$ |
(5,840,374 |
) |
|
$ |
11,795,134 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2009 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers |
|
|
195,107 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
195,107 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
305,298 |
|
|
|
175,730 |
|
|
|
134,841 |
|
|
|
(297,308 |
) |
|
|
318,561 |
|
Other |
|
|
28,394 |
|
|
|
10,960 |
|
|
|
12,518 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51,872 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
416,404 |
|
|
|
240,836 |
|
|
|
147,863 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
805,103 |
|
Materials and supplies, at average cost |
|
|
17,265 |
|
|
|
307,079 |
|
|
|
215,197 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
539,541 |
|
Prepayments and other |
|
|
80,025 |
|
|
|
18,356 |
|
|
|
9,401 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
107,782 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,042,493 |
|
|
|
752,964 |
|
|
|
519,829 |
|
|
|
(297,308 |
) |
|
|
2,017,978 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
90,474 |
|
|
|
5,478,346 |
|
|
|
5,174,835 |
|
|
|
(386,023 |
) |
|
|
10,357,632 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
13,649 |
|
|
|
2,778,320 |
|
|
|
1,910,701 |
|
|
|
(171,512 |
) |
|
|
4,531,158 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
76,825 |
|
|
|
2,700,026 |
|
|
|
3,264,134 |
|
|
|
(214,511 |
) |
|
|
5,826,474 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
6,032 |
|
|
|
2,049,078 |
|
|
|
368,336 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,423,446 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
82,857 |
|
|
|
4,749,104 |
|
|
|
3,632,470 |
|
|
|
(214,511 |
) |
|
|
8,249,920 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,088,641 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,088,641 |
|
Investment in associated companies |
|
|
4,477,602 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,477,602 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
1,137 |
|
|
|
21,127 |
|
|
|
202 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22,466 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,478,739 |
|
|
|
21,127 |
|
|
|
1,088,843 |
|
|
|
(4,477,602 |
) |
|
|
1,111,107 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
93,379 |
|
|
|
381,849 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(388,602 |
) |
|
|
86,626 |
|
Customer intangibles |
|
|
16,566 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,566 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
24,248 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,248 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,811 |
|
|
|
22,314 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,125 |
|
Unamortized sale and leaseback costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,454 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56,099 |
|
|
|
72,553 |
|
Other |
|
|
82,845 |
|
|
|
71,179 |
|
|
|
18,755 |
|
|
|
(51,114 |
) |
|
|
121,665 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
217,038 |
|
|
|
497,293 |
|
|
|
41,069 |
|
|
|
(383,617 |
) |
|
|
371,783 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
5,821,127 |
|
|
$ |
6,020,488 |
|
|
$ |
5,282,211 |
|
|
$ |
(5,373,038 |
) |
|
$ |
11,750,788 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
736 |
|
|
$ |
646,402 |
|
|
$ |
922,429 |
|
|
$ |
(18,640 |
) |
|
$ |
1,550,927 |
|
Short-term borrowings- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,237 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,237 |
|
Other |
|
|
100,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100,000 |
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
261,788 |
|
|
|
170,446 |
|
|
|
295,045 |
|
|
|
(261,201 |
) |
|
|
466,078 |
|
Other |
|
|
51,722 |
|
|
|
193,641 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
245,363 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
44,213 |
|
|
|
61,055 |
|
|
|
22,777 |
|
|
|
(44,887 |
) |
|
|
83,158 |
|
Other |
|
|
173,015 |
|
|
|
132,314 |
|
|
|
16,734 |
|
|
|
36,994 |
|
|
|
359,057 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
631,474 |
|
|
|
1,213,095 |
|
|
|
1,256,985 |
|
|
|
(287,734 |
) |
|
|
2,813,820 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity |
|
|
3,514,571 |
|
|
|
2,346,515 |
|
|
|
2,119,488 |
|
|
|
(4,466,003 |
) |
|
|
3,514,571 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
1,519,339 |
|
|
|
1,906,818 |
|
|
|
554,825 |
|
|
|
(1,269,330 |
) |
|
|
2,711,652 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,033,910 |
|
|
|
4,253,333 |
|
|
|
2,674,313 |
|
|
|
(5,735,333 |
) |
|
|
6,226,223 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred gain on sale and leaseback transaction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
992,869 |
|
|
|
992,869 |
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
342,840 |
|
|
|
(342,840 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
36,359 |
|
|
|
22,037 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58,396 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
25,714 |
|
|
|
895,734 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
921,448 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
33,144 |
|
|
|
170,891 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
204,035 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,811 |
|
|
|
22,314 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,125 |
|
Lease market valuation liability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
262,200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
262,200 |
|
Other |
|
|
122,599 |
|
|
|
31,085 |
|
|
|
67,988 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
221,672 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
155,743 |
|
|
|
554,060 |
|
|
|
1,350,913 |
|
|
|
650,029 |
|
|
|
2,710,745 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
5,821,127 |
|
|
$ |
6,020,488 |
|
|
$ |
5,282,211 |
|
|
$ |
(5,373,038 |
) |
|
$ |
11,750,788 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET CASH PROVIDED FROM (USED FOR)
OPERATING ACTIVITIES |
|
$ |
(289,503 |
) |
|
$ |
402,332 |
|
|
$ |
520,272 |
|
|
$ |
(9,174 |
) |
|
$ |
623,927 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
249,520 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
249,520 |
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
405 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
405 |
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(599 |
) |
|
|
(261,965 |
) |
|
|
(42,949 |
) |
|
|
9,174 |
|
|
|
(296,339 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(459 |
) |
|
|
(237 |
) |
|
|
(102 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(798 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for financing activities |
|
|
(1,058 |
) |
|
|
(12,277 |
) |
|
|
(43,051 |
) |
|
|
9,174 |
|
|
|
(47,212 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(5,497 |
) |
|
|
(417,146 |
) |
|
|
(378,595 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(801,238 |
) |
Proceeds from asset sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
117,213 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
117,213 |
|
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,478,086 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,478,086 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,511,273 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,511,273 |
) |
Loans from (to) associated companies, net |
|
|
406,304 |
|
|
|
(88,625 |
) |
|
|
(14,224 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
303,455 |
|
Customer acquisition costs |
|
|
(110,073 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(110,073 |
) |
Leasehold improvement payments to associated companies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(51,204 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(51,204 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(173 |
) |
|
|
(1,499 |
) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,683 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities |
|
|
290,561 |
|
|
|
(390,057 |
) |
|
|
(477,221 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(576,717 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2009 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
NET CASH PROVIDED FROM (USED FOR)
OPERATING ACTIVITIES |
|
$ |
(37,990 |
) |
|
$ |
520,169 |
|
|
$ |
408,364 |
|
|
$ |
(8,732 |
) |
|
$ |
881,811 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
1,498,087 |
|
|
|
524,710 |
|
|
|
333,965 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,356,762 |
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity contributions from parent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
100,000 |
|
|
|
150,000 |
|
|
|
(250,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(1,507 |
) |
|
|
(258,583 |
) |
|
|
(366,857 |
) |
|
|
8,734 |
|
|
|
(618,213 |
) |
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
(901,119 |
) |
|
|
(257,357 |
) |
|
|
(6,347 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,164,823 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(11,583 |
) |
|
|
(5,261 |
) |
|
|
(3,160 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(20,006 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from financing activities |
|
|
583,878 |
|
|
|
103,509 |
|
|
|
107,601 |
|
|
|
(241,268 |
) |
|
|
553,720 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(2,224 |
) |
|
|
(439,531 |
) |
|
|
(400,845 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(842,600 |
) |
Proceeds from asset sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,129 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,129 |
|
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,152,717 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,152,717 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,175,135 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,175,135 |
) |
Loans to associated companies, net |
|
|
(27,054 |
) |
|
|
(178,746 |
) |
|
|
(93,041 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(298,841 |
) |
Investment in subsidiary |
|
|
(250,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
250,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
249 |
|
|
|
(21,470 |
) |
|
|
339 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20,882 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for investing activities |
|
|
(279,029 |
) |
|
|
(623,618 |
) |
|
|
(515,965 |
) |
|
|
250,000 |
|
|
|
(1,168,612 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
266,859 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
266,919 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
|
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
266,859 |
|
|
$ |
99 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
266,958 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14. INTANGIBLE ASSETS
FES has acquired certain customer contract rights, which were capitalized as intangible assets.
These rights allow FES to supply electric generation needs to customers, and the recorded value is
being amortized ratably over the term of the related contracts. Net intangible assets of $127
million are included in other assets on FirstEnergys Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September
30, 2010.
For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, amortization expense was approximately $2
million and $6 million, respectively.
15. 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, an 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.
During the quarter ending September 30, 2010, FirstEnergy announced its intention to make
operational changes at certain coal-fired FGCO units. The announcement of the operational change
indicated a need to evaluate the future recoverability of the carrying value of the assets
associated with the affected FGCO units. As a result of the recoverability evaluation, FirstEnergy
recorded an impairment of $292 million to other operating expense within continuing operations of
its competitive energy services segment for the quarter ending September 30, 2010. This impairment
represents a $285 million write down of the carrying value of the assets associated with the
affected FGCO units to their estimated fair value and a charge of $7 million for excessive or
obsolete inventory identified as a result of the operational changes.
61
FirstEnergy used various assumptions in evaluating whether the FGCO units carrying value was
recoverable. The estimated undiscounted cash flows were based on assumptions about budgeted net
operating income; the impact of current market conditions on future revenues including a long-term
view of a continual depression of future market prices;
decreased customer demand; and the estimated cost of remedial retro-fitting of the FGCO units to
comply with proposed
changes in federal environmental laws. The result of this evaluation indicated that the carrying
costs of the FGCO units were not fully recoverable.
FirstEnergy further evaluated the extent to which the carrying value of the FGCO units exceeded
their estimated fair value. FirstEnergy applied the income approach to estimating fair value under
a discounted cash flow valuation technique to convert future cash flows expected over the remaining
life of the asset group to a single present value. The assumptions used to estimate the
non-recurring fair value measurement of the FGCO units applied significant unobservable inputs
considered Level 3 under the fair value hierarchy. The estimated cash flows used during the
recoverability test were discounted using the weighted average cost of capital for a market
participant.
16. PROPOSED MERGER WITH ALLEGHENY ENERGY, INC.
As previously disclosed, on February 10, 2010, FirstEnergy entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, subsequently amended on June 4, 2010 (Merger Agreement), with Element Merger Sub, Inc., a
Maryland corporation, its wholly-owned subsidiary (Merger Sub) and Allegheny Energy, Inc., a
Maryland corporation (Allegheny Energy). Upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in
the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into Allegheny Energy with Allegheny Energy
continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy. Pursuant to
the Merger Agreement, upon the closing of the merger, each issued and outstanding share of
Allegheny Energy common stock, including grants of restricted common stock, will automatically be
converted into the right to receive 0.667 of a share of common stock of FirstEnergy, and Allegheny
Energy stockholders will own approximately 27% of the combined company. Based on the closing stock
prices for both companies on February 10, 2010, Allegheny Energy shareholders would receive a value
of $27.65 per share. On July 15, 2010, the most recent practicable date prior to the effectiveness
of the Form S-4 registration statement, the exchange ratio represented approximately $25.06 in
value for each share of Allegheny Energy common stock. FirstEnergy will also assume all outstanding
Allegheny Energy debt.
Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, completion of the merger is conditioned upon, among other things,
shareholder approval of both companies, which was received on September 14, 2010; the SECs
clearance of a registration statement registering the FirstEnergy common stock to be issued in
connection with the merger, which occurred on July 16, 2010; expiration or termination of any
applicable waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 and
approval by the FERC, the MDPSC, the PPUC and the PSCWV. On September 9, 2010, the VSCC approved
the merger. The Merger Agreement also contains certain termination rights for both FirstEnergy and
Allegheny Energy, and further provides for the payment of fees and expenses upon termination under
specified circumstances.
FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy currently anticipate completing the merger in the first half of
2011. Although FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy believe that they will receive the required
authorizations, approvals and consents to complete the merger, there can be no assurance as to the
timing of these authorizations, approvals and consents or as to FirstEnergys and Allegheny
Energys ultimate ability to obtain such authorizations, consents or approvals (or any additional
authorizations, approvals or consents which may otherwise become necessary) or that such
authorizations, approvals or consents will be obtained on terms and subject to conditions
satisfactory to Allegheny Energy and FirstEnergy. Further information concerning the proposed
merger is included in the Registration Statement filed by FirstEnergy with the SEC in connection
with the merger.
In connection with the proposed merger, FirstEnergy recorded approximately $14 million ($11 million
after tax) of merger transaction costs in the third quarter and approximately $35 million ($26
million after tax) of merger transaction costs in the first nine months of 2010. These costs are
expensed as incurred.
62
Item 2. Managements Discussion and Analysis of Registrant and Subsidiaries
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Earnings available to FirstEnergy in the third quarter of 2010 were $179 million, or basic and
diluted earnings of $0.59 per share of common stock, compared with $234 million, or basic and
diluted earnings of $0.77 per share of common stock in the third quarter of 2009. Results in the
third quarter of 2010 were adversely affected by an impairment charge for certain coal-fired
generation units. Earnings available to FirstEnergy in the first nine months of 2010 were $599
million or basic earnings of $1.97 ($1.96 diluted) per share of common stock, compared with $768
million, or basic earnings of $2.52 per share of common stock ($2.51 diluted) in the first nine
months of 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
Nine Months |
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
Ended |
|
Change in Basic Earnings Per Share From Prior Year |
|
September 30 |
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
Basic Earnings Per Share 2009 |
|
$ |
0.77 |
|
|
$ |
2.52 |
|
Non-core asset sales/impairments |
|
|
(0.60 |
) |
|
|
(1.14 |
) |
Trust securities impairments |
|
|
(0.04 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Regulatory charges |
|
|
(0.02 |
) |
|
|
0.45 |
|
Derivative mark-to-market adjustment 2010 |
|
|
(0.03 |
) |
|
|
(0.07 |
) |
Organizational restructuring 2009 |
|
|
0.08 |
|
|
|
0.14 |
|
Merger transaction costs 2010 |
|
|
(0.04 |
) |
|
|
(0.09 |
) |
Litigation settlements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.04 |
|
Debt call premium 2009 |
|
|
0.30 |
|
|
|
0.31 |
|
Income tax resolution 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.04 |
) |
Income tax charge from healthcare legislation 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.04 |
) |
Revenues |
|
|
0.56 |
|
|
|
0.72 |
|
Fuel and purchased power |
|
|
(0.09 |
) |
|
|
(0.50 |
) |
Transmission expense |
|
|
(0.18 |
) |
|
|
(0.16 |
) |
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
0.17 |
|
|
|
0.06 |
|
Investment income |
|
|
(0.26 |
) |
|
|
(0.23 |
) |
Other expenses |
|
|
(0.03 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic Earnings Per Share 2010 |
|
$ |
0.59 |
|
|
$ |
1.97 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pending Merger
As previously disclosed, on February 10, 2010, FirstEnergy entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, subsequently amended on June 4, 2010, (Merger Agreement), with Element Merger Sub. Inc., a
Maryland corporation, its wholly-owned subsidiary (Merger Sub) and Allegheny Energy, Inc., a
Maryland corporation (Allegheny Energy). Upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in
the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into Allegheny Energy with Allegheny Energy
continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy. Pursuant to
the Merger Agreement, upon the closing of the merger, each issued and outstanding share of
Allegheny Energy common stock, including grants of restricted common stock, will automatically be
converted into the right to receive 0.667 of a share of common stock of FirstEnergy, and Allegheny
Energy stockholders will own approximately 27% of the combined company. Based on the closing stock
prices for both companies on February 10, 2010, Allegheny Energy shareholders would receive a value
of $27.65 per share. On July 15, 2010, the most recent practicable date prior to the effectiveness
of the Form S-4 registration statement, the exchange ratio represented approximately $25.06 in
value for each share of Allegheny Energy common stock. FirstEnergy will also assume all outstanding
Allegheny Energy debt.
FirstEnergy shareholders and Allegheny Energy stockholders approved the various proposals related
to the merger in separate special shareholder meetings on September 14, 2010. FirstEnergy
shareholders approved the issuance of shares of FirstEnergy common stock in the merger and the
other transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement and approved the amendment of FirstEnergys
amended articles of incorporation to increase the number of authorized shares of FirstEnergy common
stock. The total votes cast at the FirstEnergy special shareholder meeting represented
approximately 80% of FirstEnergys outstanding shares of common stock, of which 97% voted in favor
of the proposals. Allegheny Energy stockholders approved the merger with total votes representing
80% of Allegheny Energys outstanding shares, of which 99% voted in favor of the merger.
63
Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, completion of the merger remains conditioned upon, among other
things, the expiration or termination of any applicable waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino
Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 and approval by FERC, the MDPSC, the PPUC and the PSCWV. The
Merger Agreement also contains certain termination rights for both FirstEnergy and Allegheny
Energy, and further provides for the payment of fees and expenses upon termination under specified
circumstances.
FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy currently anticipate completing the merger in the first half of
2011. Although FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy believe that they will receive the remaining
required authorizations, approvals and consents to complete the merger, there can be no assurance
as to the timing of these authorizations, approvals and consents or as to FirstEnergys and
Allegheny Energys ultimate ability to obtain such authorizations, consents or approvals (or any
additional authorizations, approvals or consents which may otherwise become necessary) or that such
authorizations, approvals or consents will be obtained on terms and subject to conditions
satisfactory to Allegheny Energy and FirstEnergy. Further information concerning the proposed
merger is included in the Registration Statement filed by FirstEnergy with the SEC in connection
with the merger.
FirstEnergy incurred approximately $14 million ($11 million after tax) of merger transaction costs
in the third quarter and approximately $35 million ($26 million after tax) of merger transaction
costs in the first nine months of 2010. These costs are charged to expense as incurred.
FERC
On May 11, 2010, FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy filed an application with FERC for approval of
their proposed merger. Under the Federal Power Act, FERC has 180 days to rule on a completed merger
application. FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy submitted additional information regarding the merger
application on June 21, 2010 in response to a request by FERC. Interventions and protests were
filed with FERC on July 12, 2010. On July 27, 2010, FirstEnergy filed additional information with
FERC in response to the interventions. FERC is expected to complete its review in sufficient time
to meet the anticipated merger closing schedule in the first half of 2011.
State Regulatory Merger Filings
On September 9, 2010, the VSCC approved a petition for the FirstEnergy-Allegheny Energy merger.
Pennsylvania Settlement
On October 25, 2010, FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy filed a comprehensive
settlement with the PPUC that addresses issues raised by 18 of the parties to the merger. The filing includes additional commitments
related to employment levels, including a five-year commitment to maintain at least 800 jobs in Greensburg and Westmoreland County for the
first year after the merger close, 675 jobs for the following 12 months, 650 jobs for the next year and 600 jobs for each of the next two
years. The settlement also provides nearly $11 million over a three
year time frame in distribution rate credits for West Penn Power customers, a distribution rate
freeze for FirstEnergys current Pennsylvania utility customers and support for renewable and sustainable energy and customer choice.
The settlement is subject to approval by the PPUC, and does not resolve issues raised by parties who did not join in the settlement.
Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act Filings
On May 25, 2010, FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy made HSR filings with the DOJ and Federal Trade
Commission. On June 24, 2010, FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy each received a request for
additional information from the DOJ. FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy continue to cooperate with
the DOJ and expect DOJ to complete its review in sufficient time to meet the anticipated merger
closing schedule in the first half of 2011.
Financial Matters
Financing Activities
On August 20, 2010, FES completed the remarketing of $250 million of PCRBs. Of the $250 million,
$235 million of PCRBs were converted from a variable interest rate to a fixed interest rate. The
remaining $15 million of PCRBs continue to bear a fixed interest rate. The interest rate
conversion minimizes financial risk by converting the long-term debt into a fixed rate and, as
a result, reducing exposure to variable interest rates over the short-term. These remarketings
included two series: $235 million of PCRBs that now bear a per-annum rate of 2.25% and are subject
to mandatory purchase on June 3, 2013; and $15 million of PCRBs that now bear a per-annum rate of
1.5% and are subject to mandatory purchase on June 1, 2011.
On October 1, 2010, FES completed the refinancing and remarketing of six series of PCRBs totaling
$313 million. These series of PCRBs were converted from a variable interest rate to a fixed long
term interest rate of 3.375% per-annum and are subject to mandatory purchase on July 1, 2015.
On October 22, 2010, Signal Peak and Global Rail entered into a $350 million syndicated two-year senior secured term loan facility among the two limited
liability companies that comprise Signal Peak and Global Rail, as borrowers, Sovereign Bank, CoBank, Credit Agricole, U.S. Bank, BBVA Compass, Royal Bank
of Canada, Fifth Third, Comerica Bank, CIBC Inc. and First Merit banks, as lenders, and Union Bank, N.A. as lender, administrative agent,
collateral agent and syndication agent. FirstEnergy, together with WMB Loan Ventures LLC and WMB Loan Ventures II LLC, the entities that share ownership with FEV in the borrowers, have provided
a guaranty of the borrowers obligations under the facility. The loan proceeds were used to repay $258 million of notes payable to
FirstEnergy, including $9 million of interest and $63 million of bank loans that were scheduled to mature on November 16, 2010. Additional
proceeds will be used for general company purposes, including an $11 million repayment of a third-party sellers note maturing
October 29, 2010.
64
Operational Matters
Plant Operational Changes
On August 12, 2010, FGCO announced that it would be making operational changes to some of its
smaller coal-fired units in response to the continued slow economy and lower demand for electricity
and uncertainty related to proposed new federal environmental regulations. The units affected are
Bay Shore units 2-4, Eastlake units 1-4, the Lake Shore Plant and the Ashtabula Plant, which
together total 1,620 MW of capacity. During the period beginning September 2010 through August
2011 the affected units will operate with minimum three-day notice and in response to consumer
demand. Beginning in September 2011, and continuing for approximately 18 months, the Bay Shore and
Eastlake units (1,131 MW) will only be available during summer and winter months, and Ashtabula and
Lake Shore will be temporarily idled (489 MW). As a result, the company recognized an impairment
of $292 million for these assets. Together, these units have a generating capacity of 1,620MW, and
in 2009 they produced approximately 6.8% of FGCOs total generation output. The proposed changes
are subject to review by MISO, PJM and the independent market monitors to ensure that there is no
negative impact on system reliability.
Davis-Besse License Renewal
On August 30, 2010, FENOC submitted an application to the NRC for renewal of the Davis-Besse
operating license.
By a letter dated October 18, 2010, the NRC determined that the Davis-Besse license renewal application was complete and acceptable for
docketing and further review.
Davis-Besse currently is licensed until 2017; if approved, the renewal would
extend operations for an additional 20 years, until 2037.
Fremont Energy Center Construction
During the third quarter, FGCO re-evaluated the schedule for completing the Fremont Plant (707 MW) due to current market conditions and
the extension of the tax incentives included in the Small Business legislation through 2011. As a result, FGCO is extending the plants
completion beyond 2010 to reduce overtime labor cost and outside contractor spend for the remainder of the project. We expect the extension
of the completion schedule to add $33 million to the 2011 capital budget.
Regulatory Matters General
DOE Smart Grid Grants and Smart Meter Implementation
On June 3, 2010, FirstEnergy received DOEs grants totaling $57.4 million, awarded as part of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, to be used to introduce smart grid technologies in targeted
areas of Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Jersey. The DOE grants represent 50% of the funding for the
$114.9 million FE plans to invest in smart grid technologies. The PPUC and the NJBPU previously
approved recovery for the applicable utilities portion of smart grid costs, and FirstEnergy has
begun implementing smart grid programs in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Implementation of the
program in Ohio is underway following clarification by the PUCO in its entry on rehearing issued
August 25, 2010 that the Ohio Companies are entitled to cost recovery for any costs not covered by
the DOE grant.
Regulatory Matters Ohio
New Ohio ESP
On August 25, 2010, the PUCO adopted a Combined Stipulation in the second ESP for the Ohio
Companies effective June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2014. Under the new ESP, base distribution rates
will remain unchanged during the term of the ESP, except in cases of emergencies, subject to riders
and other changes provided in the Ohio Companies tariffs. Generation rates for each annual
delivery period (June 1 to May 31) through May 31, 2014, will be determined through a CBP to be
conducted every October and January for generation service.
The ESP provides for recovery of certain costs related to FirstEnergys integration into PJM, which
is scheduled for June 1, 2011. However, the Ohio Companies will not seek recovery for any MISO exit
fees, PJM integration costs, or legacy regional transmission expansion plan costs billed by PJM for
the longer of a five year period from June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2016 or when the amount of
costs avoided by customers for certain types of products totals $360 million dependent on the
outcome of certain PJM proceedings for projects approved prior to June 1, 2011.
The new ESP also establishes a Delivery Capital Recovery Rider effective January 1, 2012, through
May 31, 2014, which provides for recovery of property taxes, commercial activity tax and associated
income taxes and for the opportunity to earn a return on and of plant in service associated with
distribution, subtransmission and general and intangible plant that was not included in the Ohio
Companies rate base as determined in the last distribution rate case. This rider is limited to
expenditures through May 31, 2014, and recovery is capped at $150 million for 2012, $165 million
for 2013 and $75 million for the first five months of 2014.
Ohio Generation Auction
On October 20, 2010, the Ohio Companies conducted a CBP to procure generation for customers who choose not to shop with an alternative
supplier for delivery beginning June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2014. The auction consisted of one, two and three-year products. Fifty
tranches in total were acquired through this auction. Seventeen tranches of the one-year product were acquired at a clearing price
of $54.55 per MWh; seventeen tranches of the two-year product were acquired at a clearing price of $54.10 per MWh; and sixteen tranches
of the three-year product were acquired at a clearing price of $56.58 per MWh. There were ten registered bidders that participated in
the auction, with four bidders winning tranches in the auction. The auction consisted of twelve rounds. On October 22, 2010, the PUCO
accepted the results of the auction. The next auction is scheduled for January 2011.
65
Regulatory Matters Pennsylvania
Met-Ed and Penelec Default Service Plan
On October 20, 2010, the PPUC approved the results of the final of four auctions held to procure the default service requirements for
Met-Ed and Penelec customers who choose not to shop with an alternative supplier. For the five-month period of January 1, 2011 to
May 31, 2011, the tranche-weighted average prices ($/MWh) for Met-Eds residential and commercial classes were $67.10 and $68.28,
respectively; Penelecs tranche-weighted average prices were $55.76 and $58.24 for its residential and commercial classes, respectively.
The October 2010 auction is the second of four auctions to procure commercial default service requirements for the 12-month period of
June 1, 2011 to May 31, 2012 and residential requirements for the 24-month period of June 1, 2011 to May 31, 2013. For Met-Ed and Penelec
commercial customers the tranche-weighted average price ($/MWh) was $63.97 and $54.33, respectively, and for residential customers the
tranche-weighted average price was $66.66 and $55.74, respectively. In addition, the October 2010 auction procured supply for Met-Ed and
Penelec industrial customers choosing the Fixed Price Service. For Met-Ed and Penelec, the average 12-month price ($/MWh) was $95.00
and $83.73, respectively. The remaining two auctions for these products will be conducted in January 2011 and March 2011.
On October 20, 2010, the PPUC also approved the default service RFP for the Residential Fixed Block On-Peak and Off-Peak energy products.
For Penelec, the average price ($/MWh) for On-Peak and Off-Peak was $47.25 and $38.62, respectively. For Met-Ed, the average price ($/MWh)
for On-Peak and Off-Peak was $55.07 and $40.81, respectively.
Regulatory Matters FERC
MISO Multi-Value Project Rule Proposal
On September 10, 2010, FirstEnergy filed a protest to MISOs MVP
proposal. FirstEnergy believes 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) among other objections.
FirstEnergy also argued that, in light of progress to date in the ATSI move to PJM, it would be
unjust and unreasonable to allocate any MVP costs to the ATSI zone, or to ATSI. FirstEnergy is
unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
FIRSTENERGYS BUSINESS
FirstEnergy is a diversified energy company headquartered in Akron, Ohio, that operates primarily
through two core business segments (see Results of Operations).
|
|
|
Energy Delivery Services transmits and distributes electricity through our eight utility
operating companies, serving 4.5 million customers within 36,100 square miles of Ohio,
Pennsylvania and New Jersey and purchases power for its POLR and default service
requirements in Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Its revenues are primarily derived from
the delivery of electricity within our service areas, cost recovery of regulatory assets
and the sale of electric generation service to retail customers who have not selected an
alternative supplier (default service) in its Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey franchise
areas. Its results reflect the commodity costs of securing electric generation from FES and
from non-affiliated power suppliers, the net PJM and MISO transmission expenses related to
the delivery of the respective generation loads and the deferral and amortization of
certain fuel costs. |
|
|
|
Competitive Energy Services supplies electric power to end-use customers through retail
and wholesale arrangements, including associated company power sales to meet all or a
portion of the POLR and default service requirements of our Ohio and Pennsylvania utility
subsidiaries and competitive retail sales to customers primarily in Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Illinois, Maryland, Michigan and New Jersey. This business segment controls
approximately 14,000 MW of capacity and also purchases electricity to meet sales
obligations. The segments net income is primarily derived from affiliated and
non-affiliated electric generation sales revenues less the related costs of electricity
generation, including purchased power, net transmission (including congestion) and
ancillary costs charged by PJM and MISO to deliver energy to the segments customers. |
66
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
12 to the consolidated financial statements. Earnings available to FirstEnergy by major business
segment were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
September 30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions, except per share data) |
|
Earnings (Loss) By Business Segment: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy delivery services |
|
$ |
224 |
|
|
$ |
148 |
|
|
$ |
76 |
|
|
$ |
481 |
|
|
$ |
285 |
|
|
$ |
196 |
|
Competitive energy services |
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
183 |
|
|
|
(210 |
) |
|
|
174 |
|
|
|
614 |
|
|
|
(440 |
) |
Other and reconciling adjustments* |
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
(97 |
) |
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
(56 |
) |
|
|
(131 |
) |
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
179 |
|
|
$ |
234 |
|
|
$ |
(55 |
) |
|
$ |
599 |
|
|
$ |
768 |
|
|
$ |
(169 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic Earnings Per Share |
|
$ |
0.59 |
|
|
$ |
0.77 |
|
|
$ |
(0.18 |
) |
|
$ |
1.97 |
|
|
$ |
2.52 |
|
|
$ |
(0.55 |
) |
Diluted Earnings Per Share |
|
$ |
0.59 |
|
|
$ |
0.77 |
|
|
$ |
(0.18 |
) |
|
$ |
1.96 |
|
|
$ |
2.51 |
|
|
$ |
(0.55 |
) |
|
|
|
* |
|
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 Third Quarter 2010 Compared with Third Quarter 2009
Financial results for FirstEnergys major business segments in the third quarter of 2010 and 2009
were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Competitive |
|
|
Other and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delivery |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Reconciling |
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
Third Quarter 2010 Financial Results |
|
Services |
|
|
Services |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric |
|
$ |
2,609 |
|
|
$ |
905 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
3,514 |
|
Other |
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
179 |
|
Internal |
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
599 |
|
|
|
(659 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
|
2,817 |
|
|
|
1,556 |
|
|
|
(680 |
) |
|
|
3,693 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
401 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
400 |
|
Purchased power |
|
|
1,473 |
|
|
|
470 |
|
|
|
(659 |
) |
|
|
1,284 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
422 |
|
|
|
347 |
|
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
738 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
182 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
176 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
176 |
|
Deferral of new regulatory assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairment of long lived assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
292 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
292 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
174 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
206 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Expenses |
|
|
2,356 |
|
|
|
1,598 |
|
|
|
(676 |
) |
|
|
3,278 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
461 |
|
|
|
(42 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
415 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income (Expense): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
46 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(125 |
) |
|
|
(53 |
) |
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
(208 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Expense |
|
|
(100 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
(121 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
|
361 |
|
|
|
(44 |
) |
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
294 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
137 |
|
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
119 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss) |
|
|
224 |
|
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
175 |
|
Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
$ |
224 |
|
|
$ |
(27 |
) |
|
$ |
(18 |
) |
|
$ |
179 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Competitive |
|
|
Other and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delivery |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Reconciling |
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
Third Quarter 2009 Financial Results |
|
Services |
|
|
Services |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric |
|
$ |
2,804 |
|
|
$ |
444 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
3,248 |
|
Other |
|
|
138 |
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
160 |
|
Internal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
617 |
|
|
|
(617 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
|
2,942 |
|
|
|
1,107 |
|
|
|
(641 |
) |
|
|
3,408 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
302 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
302 |
|
Purchased power |
|
|
1,725 |
|
|
|
205 |
|
|
|
(617 |
) |
|
|
1,313 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
366 |
|
|
|
331 |
|
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
665 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
112 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
188 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
261 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
261 |
|
Deferral of new regulatory assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairment of long lived assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General taxes |
|
|
162 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
192 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Expenses |
|
|
2,626 |
|
|
|
934 |
|
|
|
(639 |
) |
|
|
2,921 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
316 |
|
|
|
173 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
487 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income (Expense): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
159 |
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
191 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(116 |
) |
|
|
(46 |
) |
|
|
(193 |
) |
|
|
(355 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Expense |
|
|
(69 |
) |
|
|
131 |
|
|
|
(191 |
) |
|
|
(129 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
|
247 |
|
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
(193 |
) |
|
|
358 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
121 |
|
|
|
(92 |
) |
|
|
128 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss) |
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
183 |
|
|
|
(101 |
) |
|
|
230 |
|
Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
$ |
148 |
|
|
$ |
183 |
|
|
$ |
(97 |
) |
|
$ |
234 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes Between Third Quarter 2010 and |
|
Energy |
|
|
Competitive |
|
|
Other and |
|
|
|
|
Third Quarter 2009 Financial Results |
|
Delivery |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Reconciling |
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
Increase (Decrease) |
|
Services |
|
|
Services |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric |
|
$ |
(195 |
) |
|
$ |
461 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
266 |
|
Other |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
Internal |
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
(42 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
|
(125 |
) |
|
|
449 |
|
|
|
(39 |
) |
|
|
285 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
98 |
|
Purchased power |
|
|
(252 |
) |
|
|
265 |
|
|
|
(42 |
) |
|
|
(29 |
) |
Other operating expenses |
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
73 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
(85 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(85 |
) |
Deferral of new regulatory assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairment of long lived assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
292 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
292 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Expenses |
|
|
(270 |
) |
|
|
664 |
|
|
|
(37 |
) |
|
|
357 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
145 |
|
|
|
(215 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(72 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income (Expense): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
(131 |
) |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
(145 |
) |
Interest expense |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
163 |
|
|
|
147 |
|
Capitalized interest |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Expense |
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
(133 |
) |
|
|
172 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
|
114 |
|
|
|
(348 |
) |
|
|
170 |
|
|
|
(64 |
) |
Income taxes |
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
(138 |
) |
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss) |
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
(210 |
) |
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
(55 |
) |
Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
$ |
76 |
|
|
$ |
(210 |
) |
|
$ |
79 |
|
|
$ |
(55 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
68
Energy Delivery Services Third Quarter 2010 Compared with Third Quarter 2009
Net income increased by $76 million in the third quarter of 2010, compared to the third quarter of
2009, primarily due to higher distribution revenues. Lower generation revenues were offset by
lower purchased power expenses.
Revenues
-
The decrease in total revenues resulted from the following sources:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended September 30 |
|
|
Increase |
|
Revenues by Type of Service |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Distribution services |
|
$ |
1,041 |
|
|
$ |
915 |
|
|
$ |
126 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generation sales: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail |
|
|
1,266 |
|
|
|
1,551 |
|
|
|
(285 |
) |
Wholesale |
|
|
231 |
|
|
|
195 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total generation sales |
|
|
1,497 |
|
|
|
1,746 |
|
|
|
(249 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
223 |
|
|
|
232 |
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
Other |
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
2,817 |
|
|
$ |
2,942 |
|
|
$ |
(125 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in distribution service revenues reflected an $88 million increase due to higher sales
volumes and a $38 million increase due to a change in prices. The increase in distribution
deliveries by customer class is summarized in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
Electric Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
19 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
5 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
11 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Total Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
|
12 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Higher deliveries to residential and commercial customers reflected increased weather-related usage
in the third quarter of 2010, as cooling degree days increased by 60% from the same period in 2009.
The increase in distribution deliveries to industrial customers was primarily due to recovering
economic conditions in FirstEnergys service territory compared to the third quarter of 2009. In
the industrial sector, KWH deliveries increased to major automotive customers (14%), refinery
customers (28%) and steel customers (45%). The increase in distribution service revenues also
includes the recovery of Pennsylvania Energy Efficiency and Conservation charges ($21 million) as
approved by the PPUC in March 2010.
The following table summarizes the price and volume factors contributing to the $249 million
decrease in generation revenues in the third quarter of 2010 compared to the third quarter of 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Generation Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Retail: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of 19.8% decrease in sales volumes |
|
$ |
(307 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(285 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wholesale: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of 3.1% increase in sales volumes |
|
|
6 |
|
Change in prices |
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
(249 |
) |
|
|
|
|
69
The decrease in retail generation sales volumes was primarily due to an increase in customer
shopping in the Ohio Companies service territories in the third quarter of 2010. That condition is
expected to continue to impact the comparative sales levels for the remainder of 2010. Total
generation KWH provided by alternative suppliers as a percentage of total KWH deliveries for the
Ohio Companies increased to 64% in the third quarter of 2010 from 21% in the third quarter 2009.
The increase in wholesale generation revenues reflected increased capacity sales by Met-Ed and
Penelec in the PJM market.
Expenses -
Total expenses decreased by $270 million due to the following:
|
|
|
Purchased power costs were $252 million lower in the third quarter of 2010 due to
a decrease in volumes needed to serve the lower sales volumes. The decrease in power
purchased from non-affiliates was partially offset by an increase in purchases from
FES. The decrease in purchased power volumes from non-affiliates resulted principally
from the termination of a third-party supply contract for Met-Ed and Penelec in
January 2010 and from the above described increase in customer shopping in the Ohio
Companies service territories. |
|
|
|
Prices paid for power purchased from non-affiliates in the third quarter of 2010
resulted from higher capacity prices in the PJM market for Met-Ed and Penelec
compared to the third quarter of 2009, which is expected to continue for the
remainder of the year. The decrease in unit costs on purchases from FES reflected a
lower weighted average unit price under the Ohio Companies CBP and was partially
offset by an increase in volume due to the replacement of Met-Eds and Penelecs
terminated third-party contract with supply from FES. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Purchased Power |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Purchases from non-affiliates: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to increased unit costs |
|
$ |
155 |
|
Change due to decreased volumes |
|
|
(443 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(288 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchases from FES: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to decreased unit costs |
|
|
(61 |
) |
Change due to increased volumes |
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decrease in costs deferred |
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Purchased Power Costs |
|
$ |
(252 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission costs increased by $87 million in the third quarter of 2010 primarily
due to higher PJM network transmission expenses and congestion costs for Met-Ed and
Penelec. Met-Ed and Penelec defer or amortize the difference between revenues from
their transmission rider and transmission costs incurred with no material effect on
current period earnings. |
|
|
|
Administrative and general costs, including labor and employee benefit expenses,
decreased by $28 million due to restructuring costs recognized in the third quarter
of 2009 and lower expenses associated with employee benefit plans. |
|
|
|
A decrease in expenses relating to leasehold interests in Perry and Beaver Valley
of $21 million in the third quarter of 2010 compared to the third quarter of 2009. |
|
|
|
Vegetation management costs charged to operating expenses decreased by $10 million
in the third quarter of 2010 compared to the third quarter of 2009. |
|
|
|
Energy efficiency program costs increased $16 million in the third quarter of 2010
compared to the third quarter of 2009. |
70
|
|
|
Economic development costs associated with the Ohio Companies ESP increased by
$10 million in the third quarter of 2010. |
|
|
|
Amortization of regulatory assets decreased $85 million in the third quarter of
2010 principally due to lower net MISO and PJM transmission cost amortization
compared to the third quarter of 2009. |
|
|
|
General taxes increased $12 million primarily due to higher gross receipts taxes
in the third quarter of 2010. |
Other Expense -
Other expense increased $31 million in the third quarter of 2010 compared to the third quarter of
2009 due primarily to lower investment income related to OEs and TEs nuclear decommissioning
trusts ($23 million) and higher interest expense associated with debt issuances by the Utilities
since the third quarter of 2009 ($8 million).
Competitive Energy Services Third Quarter 2010 Compared with Third Quarter 2009
Net income decreased by $210 million in the third quarter of 2010, compared to the third quarter of
2009, primarily due to a $292 million impairment charge ($181 million net of tax) related to
operational changes at certain smaller coal-fired units in response to the continued slow economy,
lower demand for electricity and uncertainty related to proposed new federal environmental
regulations. In addition, net income decreased due to lower investment income from the nuclear
decommissioning trusts, partially offset by increased sales margins.
Revenues -
Total revenues increased $449 million in the third quarter of 2010 primarily due to growth in
direct and government aggregation sales and POLR sales volumes, partially offset by a decline in
wholesale sales.
The increase in total revenues resulted from the following sources:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended September 30 |
|
|
Increase |
|
Revenues by Type of Service |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Direct and Government Aggregation |
|
$ |
717 |
|
|
$ |
232 |
|
|
$ |
485 |
|
POLR |
|
|
652 |
|
|
|
636 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
Wholesale |
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
192 |
|
|
|
(56 |
) |
Transmission |
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
Other |
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
1,556 |
|
|
$ |
1,107 |
|
|
$ |
449 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in direct and government aggregation revenues of $485 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 1.2 million residential
and small commercial customers at the end of September 2010 compared to 500,000 such customers at
the end of September 2009. In addition, sales to residential and small commercial customers were
bolstered by weather in the delivery area that was 60% warmer than in 2009.
The increase in POLR revenues of $16 million was due to higher sales volumes to the Pennsylvania
Companies and non-associated companies, partially offset by decreased sales volumes to the Ohio
Companies and lower unit prices to both the Ohio Companies and the Pennsylvania Companies. The
increased revenues from the Pennsylvania Companies resulted from FES supplying Met-Ed and Penelec
with volumes previously supplied through a third-party contract and at prices that were slightly
higher than in the third quarter of 2009.
Wholesale revenues decreased $56 million due to reduced volumes and lower wholesale prices. The
lower sales volumes were a result of using available capacity to serve increased retail sales in
Ohio. In July 2010, FES entered into financial transactions that offset a portion of the
mark-to-market impact of legacy purchased power contracts totaling 500 MW entered into in 2008 for
delivery in 2010 and 2011 that have been marked to market since December 2009. These financial
transactions mitigate the volatility of these contracts through the end of 2011 and resulted in
wholesale revenues of $13 million for the quarter ended September 2010.
71
The following tables summarize the price and volume factors contributing to changes in revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Direct and Government Aggregation |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Direct Sales: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of increase in sales volumes |
|
$ |
277 |
|
Change in prices |
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
249 |
|
|
|
|
|
Government Aggregation: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of increase in sales volumes |
|
|
232 |
|
Change in prices |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
236 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Direct and Government Aggregation Revenues |
|
$ |
485 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Wholesale Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
POLR: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of 8.6% increase in sales volumes |
|
$ |
55 |
|
Change in prices |
|
|
(39 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other Wholesale: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of 25.9% decrease in sales volumes |
|
|
(29 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(56 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Wholesale Revenues |
|
$ |
(40 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Transmission revenues increased $5 million due primarily to higher MISO congestion revenue.
Expenses -
Total expenses increased $664 million in the third quarter of 2010 due to the following:
|
|
|
Fuel costs increased $99 million primarily due to increased volumes, partially
offset by unit prices. Volumes increased due to higher generation at the fossil units.
Unit prices declined primarily due to coal blend changes partially offset by increased
coal transportation expenses and higher nuclear fuel unit prices following the
refueling outages that occurred in 2009. |
|
|
|
Purchased power costs
increased $265 million due primarily to higher volumes purchased
($246 million) and a power contract mark-to-market adjustment ($26 million), partially offset by lower unit costs ($7 million). The
increase in volume primarily relates to the assumption of a 1,300 MW
third party contract from Met-Ed and Penelec. |
|
|
|
Fossil operating costs decreased $16 million due primarily to lower staffing levels,
more capital related work and reduced coal storage limitation charges. |
|
|
|
Nuclear operating costs decreased $2 million due primarily to lower labor and
related benefits, partially offset by higher professional and contractor costs in
connection with refueling outages. |
|
|
|
Transmission expenses increased $4 million due primarily to increases in MISO of
$46 million from higher network, ancillary and congestion costs, partially offset by
lower PJM transmission expenses of $42 million due to lower congestion costs. |
|
|
|
Other expenses increased $314 million primarily due to a $292 million impairment
charge ($181 million net of tax) related to operational changes at Bay Shore units 2-4,
Eastlake Plant units 1-4, the Lake Shore Plant and the Ashtabula Plant. In addition,
increased costs were incurred in uncollectible customer accounts and agent fees
associated with the growth in direct and government aggregation sales. |
Other Expense -
Total other expense in the third quarter of 2010 was $133 million higher than the third quarter of
2009, primarily due to a decrease in nuclear decommissioning trust investment income ($131 million)
and a $2 million increase in net interest expense from new long-term debt issued by FES in August
2009 combined with the restructuring of existing PCRBs.
72
Other Third Quarter of 2010 Compared with Third Quarter of 2009
Financial results from other operating segments and reconciling items, including interest expense
on holding company debt and corporate support services revenues and expenses, resulted in a
$79 million increase in earnings available to FirstEnergy in the third quarter of 2010 compared to
the same period in 2009. The increase resulted primarily from the absence of debt retirement costs
that were incurred in the third quarter of 2009 in connection with a September 2009 tender offer
for holding company debt ($139 million), decreased interest expense resulting from that tender
offer ($13 million) and increased investment income ($9 million), partially offset by increased
income tax expense ($91 million).
Summary of Results of Operations First Nine Months of 2010 Compared with the First Nine
Months of 2009
Financial results for FirstEnergys major business segments in the first nine months of 2010 and
2009 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Competitive |
|
|
Other and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delivery |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Reconciling |
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
First Nine Months 2010 Financial Results |
|
Services |
|
|
Services |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric |
|
$ |
7,250 |
|
|
$ |
2,302 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
9,552 |
|
Other |
|
|
423 |
|
|
|
151 |
|
|
|
(71 |
) |
|
|
503 |
|
Internal* |
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
1,812 |
|
|
|
(1,824 |
) |
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
|
7,752 |
|
|
|
4,265 |
|
|
|
(1,895 |
) |
|
|
10,122 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,089 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
1,084 |
|
Purchased power |
|
|
4,159 |
|
|
|
1,239 |
|
|
|
(1,824 |
) |
|
|
3,574 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
1,154 |
|
|
|
1,031 |
|
|
|
(73 |
) |
|
|
2,112 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
339 |
|
|
|
194 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
565 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
549 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
549 |
|
Deferral of new regulatory assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairment of long lived assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
294 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
294 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
481 |
|
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
587 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Expenses |
|
|
6,682 |
|
|
|
3,933 |
|
|
|
(1,850 |
) |
|
|
8,765 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
1,070 |
|
|
|
332 |
|
|
|
(45 |
) |
|
|
1,357 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income (Expense): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
93 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(373 |
) |
|
|
(161 |
) |
|
|
(94 |
) |
|
|
(628 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
122 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Expense |
|
|
(294 |
) |
|
|
(52 |
) |
|
|
(67 |
) |
|
|
(413 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
|
776 |
|
|
|
280 |
|
|
|
(112 |
) |
|
|
944 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
295 |
|
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
(37 |
) |
|
|
364 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss) |
|
|
481 |
|
|
|
174 |
|
|
|
(75 |
) |
|
|
580 |
|
Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
$ |
481 |
|
|
$ |
174 |
|
|
$ |
(56 |
) |
|
$ |
599 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
73
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Competitive |
|
|
Other and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delivery |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Reconciling |
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
First Nine Months 2009 Financial Results |
|
Services |
|
|
Services |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric |
|
$ |
8,322 |
|
|
$ |
929 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
9,251 |
|
Other |
|
|
433 |
|
|
|
400 |
|
|
|
(71 |
) |
|
|
762 |
|
Internal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,349 |
|
|
|
(2,349 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
|
8,755 |
|
|
|
3,678 |
|
|
|
(2,420 |
) |
|
|
10,013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
890 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
890 |
|
Purchased power |
|
|
5,278 |
|
|
|
551 |
|
|
|
(2,349 |
) |
|
|
3,480 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
1,191 |
|
|
|
1,001 |
|
|
|
(89 |
) |
|
|
2,103 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
331 |
|
|
|
201 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
550 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
903 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
903 |
|
Deferral of new regulatory assets |
|
|
(136 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(136 |
) |
Impairment of long lived assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General taxes |
|
|
486 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
587 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Expenses |
|
|
8,053 |
|
|
|
2,727 |
|
|
|
(2,403 |
) |
|
|
8,377 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
702 |
|
|
|
951 |
|
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
1,636 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income (Expense): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
(40 |
) |
|
|
207 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(341 |
) |
|
|
(106 |
) |
|
|
(308 |
) |
|
|
(755 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Expense |
|
|
(227 |
) |
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
(297 |
) |
|
|
(452 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
|
475 |
|
|
|
1,023 |
|
|
|
(314 |
) |
|
|
1,184 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
190 |
|
|
|
409 |
|
|
|
(169 |
) |
|
|
430 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss) |
|
|
285 |
|
|
|
614 |
|
|
|
(145 |
) |
|
|
754 |
|
Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
$ |
285 |
|
|
$ |
614 |
|
|
$ |
(131 |
) |
|
$ |
768 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes Between First Nine Months 2010 |
|
Energy |
|
|
Competitive |
|
|
Other and |
|
|
|
|
and First Nine Months 2009 Financial Results |
|
Delivery |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Reconciling |
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
Increase (Decrease) |
|
Services |
|
|
Services |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric |
|
$ |
(1,072 |
) |
|
$ |
1,373 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
301 |
|
Other |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(249 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(259 |
) |
Internal* |
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
(537 |
) |
|
|
525 |
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
|
(1,003 |
) |
|
|
587 |
|
|
|
525 |
|
|
|
109 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
199 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
194 |
|
Purchased power |
|
|
(1,119 |
) |
|
|
688 |
|
|
|
525 |
|
|
|
94 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
(37 |
) |
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
(354 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(354 |
) |
Deferral of new regulatory assets |
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
136 |
|
Impairment of long lived assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
294 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
294 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Expenses |
|
|
(1,371 |
) |
|
|
1,206 |
|
|
|
553 |
|
|
|
388 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
368 |
|
|
|
(619 |
) |
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
(279 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income (Expense): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
(36 |
) |
|
|
(94 |
) |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
(114 |
) |
Interest expense |
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
(55 |
) |
|
|
214 |
|
|
|
127 |
|
Capitalized interest |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Expense |
|
|
(67 |
) |
|
|
(124 |
) |
|
|
230 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
|
301 |
|
|
|
(743 |
) |
|
|
202 |
|
|
|
(240 |
) |
Income taxes |
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
(303 |
) |
|
|
132 |
|
|
|
(66 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss) |
|
|
196 |
|
|
|
(440 |
) |
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
(174 |
) |
Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
$ |
196 |
|
|
$ |
(440 |
) |
|
$ |
75 |
|
|
$ |
(169 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Under the accounting standard for the effects of certain types of regulation, internal revenues are not fully
offset for sale of RECs by FES to the Ohio Companies that are retained in inventory. |
74
Energy Delivery Services First Nine Months of 2010 Compared to First Nine Months of 2009
Net income increased by $196 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the first nine
months of 2009, primarily due to the absence of CEIs $216 million regulatory asset impairment in
2009, partially offset by decreases in other operating expenses. Lower generation revenues were
offset by lower purchased power expenses.
Revenues -
The decrease in total revenues resulted from the following sources:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended September 30 |
|
|
Increase |
|
Revenues by Type of Service |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Distribution services |
|
$ |
2,774 |
|
|
$ |
2,578 |
|
|
$ |
196 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generation sales: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail |
|
|
3,540 |
|
|
|
4,679 |
|
|
|
(1,139 |
) |
Wholesale |
|
|
628 |
|
|
|
544 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total generation sales |
|
|
4,168 |
|
|
|
5,223 |
|
|
|
(1,055 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
638 |
|
|
|
808 |
|
|
|
(170 |
) |
Other |
|
|
172 |
|
|
|
146 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
7,752 |
|
|
$ |
8,755 |
|
|
$ |
(1,003 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in distribution deliveries by customer class is summarized in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
Electric Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
7 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
3 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
10 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Total Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
|
7 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Higher deliveries to residential and commercial customers reflected increased weather-related usage
in the first nine months of 2010. Cooling degree days increased by 69%, partially offset by an 11%
decrease in heating degree days from the same period in 2009. In the industrial sector, KWH
deliveries increased to major automotive customers (22%), refinery customers (11%) and steel
customers (44%) due to recovering economic conditions. The increase in distribution service
revenues also reflects the recovery of the Pennsylvania Energy Efficiency and Conservation charges
as approved by the PPUC in March 2010 and the accelerated recovery of deferred distribution costs
in Ohio, partially offset by a reduction in the transition rate for CEI effective June 1, 2009.
The following table summarizes the price and volume factors contributing to the $1.1 billion
decrease in generation revenues in the first nine months of 2010 compared to the same period of
2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Generation Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Retail: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of 26.8% decrease in sales volumes |
|
$ |
(1,254 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
115 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,139 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Wholesale: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of 7.1% decrease in sales volumes |
|
|
(38 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
122 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
(1,055 |
) |
|
|
|
|
The decrease in retail generation sales volumes was primarily due to an increase in customer
shopping in the Ohio Companies service territories in the first nine months of 2010. That
condition is expected to continue to impact the comparative sales levels for the remainder of 2010.
Total generation KWH provided by alternative suppliers as a
percentage of total KWH deliveries for the Ohio Companies increased to 60% in the first nine months
of 2010 from 7% in the same period of 2009. Higher generation revenues related to the recovery of
transmission costs now provided for in the generation rate established under the May 2009 Ohio CBP
partially offset the decrease in sales volumes.
The increase in wholesale generation revenues reflected higher prices and increased capacity sales
by Met-Ed and Penelec in the PJM market.
75
Transmission revenues decreased $170 million primarily due to the termination of the Ohio
Companies transmission tariff effective June 1, 2009; recovery of transmission costs is now
through the generation rate established under the May 2009 Ohio CBP.
Expenses -
Total expenses decreased by $1.4 billion due to the following:
|
|
|
Purchased power costs were $1.1 billion lower in the first nine months of 2010 in
large part due to lower requirements to serve the lower sales volumes. The decrease
in volumes from non-affiliates resulted principally from the termination of a
third-party supply contract for Met-Ed and Penelec in January 2010 and from an
increase in customer shopping in the Ohio Companies service territories described
above. The decrease in volumes from FES also resulted from the increase in customer
shopping in Ohio. |
|
|
|
The increase in purchased power unit costs from non-affiliates in the first nine
months of 2010 resulted from higher capacity prices in the PJM market for Met-Ed and
Penelec compared to the first nine months of 2009. The decrease in unit costs from
FES was principally due to the lower weighted average unit price per KWH for the Ohio
Companies established under the May 2009 CBP auction effective June 1, 2009. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Purchased Power |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Purchases from non-affiliates: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to increased unit costs |
|
$ |
506 |
|
Change due to decreased volumes |
|
|
(1,140 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(634 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchases from FES: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to decreased unit costs |
|
|
(230 |
) |
Change due to decreased volumes |
|
|
(289 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(519 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decrease in costs deferred |
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Purchased Power Costs |
|
$ |
(1,119 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Labor and employee benefit expenses decreased by $61 million due to lower pension
and OPEB expenses and restructuring expenses recognized in 2009, and lower payroll
costs resulting primarily from staffing reductions implemented in 2009. |
|
|
|
Uncollectible expenses decreased $12 million due to lower generation revenues in
Ohio in the first nine months of 2010 compared to the same period in 2009. |
|
|
|
Expenses for economic development commitments related to the Ohio Companies ESP
were lower by $11 million in the first nine months of 2010 compared to the same
period of 2009. |
|
|
|
Transmission expenses increased $44 million primarily due to higher PJM network
transmission expenses and congestion costs, partially offset by lower MISO network
transmission expenses that are not reflected in the generation rate established under
the May 2009 Ohio CBP. |
|
|
|
Amortization of regulatory assets decreased $354 million due primarily to the
absence of the $216 million impairment of CEIs regulatory assets in 2009, reduced
net MISO and PJM transmission cost amortization and reduced CTC amortization for
Met-Ed and Penelec, partially offset by a $35 million regulatory asset impairment
associated with the Ohio Companies ESP. |
|
|
|
The deferral of new regulatory assets decreased $136 million in the first nine
months of 2010 due to the absence of purchased power cost deferrals for CEI in 2009. |
|
|
|
Depreciation expense increased $8 million due to property additions since the
third quarter of 2009. |
|
|
|
General taxes decreased $5 million due primarily to favorable Ohio and
Pennsylvania tax settlements in 2010 partially offset by higher gross receipts taxes. |
76
Other Expense -
Other expense increased $67 million in the first nine months of 2010 compared to the first nine
months of 2009 primarily due to lower nuclear decommissioning trust investment income ($36 million)
and higher interest expense associated with debt issuances by the Utilities since the third quarter
of 2009 ($31 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 or accrued costs that have been deferred because of their
probable future recovery from customers through regulated rates. Regulatory liabilities represent
the excess recovery of costs or accrued liabilities that have been deferred because it is probable
such amounts will be returned to customers through future regulated rates. The following table
provides the balance of regulatory assets by Company as of September 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009
and changes during the nine months then ended:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
Increase |
|
Regulatory Assets |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
OE |
|
$ |
413 |
|
|
$ |
465 |
|
|
$ |
(52 |
) |
CEI |
|
|
420 |
|
|
|
546 |
|
|
|
(126 |
) |
TE |
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
722 |
|
|
|
888 |
|
|
|
(166 |
) |
Met-Ed |
|
|
400 |
|
|
|
357 |
|
|
|
43 |
|
Penelec |
|
|
203 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
194 |
|
Other |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
2,246 |
|
|
$ |
2,356 |
|
|
$ |
(110 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table provides information about the composition of regulatory assets as of September
30, 2010 and December 31, 2009 and the changes during the nine months then ended:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
Increase |
|
Regulatory Assets by Source |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Regulatory transition costs |
|
$ |
1,168 |
|
|
$ |
1,100 |
|
|
$ |
68 |
|
Customer shopping incentives |
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
154 |
|
|
|
(128 |
) |
Customer receivables for future income taxes |
|
|
330 |
|
|
|
329 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
Loss on reacquired debt |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
Employee postretirement benefits |
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
Nuclear decommissioning, decontamination
and spent fuel disposal costs |
|
|
(173 |
) |
|
|
(162 |
) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
Asset removal costs |
|
|
(238 |
) |
|
|
(231 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
) |
MISO/PJM transmission costs |
|
|
194 |
|
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
46 |
|
Deferred generation costs |
|
|
393 |
|
|
|
369 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
Distribution costs |
|
|
392 |
|
|
|
482 |
|
|
|
(90 |
) |
Other |
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
2,246 |
|
|
$ |
2,356 |
|
|
$ |
(110 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulatory assets that do not earn a current return totaled approximately $181 million as of
September 30, 2010 (JCP&L $40 million, Met-Ed $124 million, Penelec $9 million and CEI $5
million). Regulatory assets not earning a current
return (primarily for certain regulatory transition costs and employee postretirement benefits) are
expected to be recovered by 2014 for JCP&L and by 2020 for Met-Ed and Penelec.
Competitive Energy Services First Nine Months of 2010 Compared to First Nine Months of
2009
Net income decreased by $440 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the first nine
months of 2009, primarily due to a $292 million impairment charge ($181 million net of tax) related
to operational changes at certain smaller coal-fired units in response to the continued slow
economy, lower demand for electricity, as well as uncertainty related to proposed new federal
environmental regulations. In addition, the absence of a $252 million ($158 million after tax) gain
in 2009 from the sale of a 9% participation interest in OVEC, lower investment income from nuclear
decommissioning trusts and a decrease in sales margins also contributed to the decline in net
income.
77
Revenues -
Excluding the impact of the 2009 gain on the OVEC sale, total revenues increased $839 million in
the first nine months of 2010 compared to the same period in 2009 primarily due to an increase in
direct and government aggregation sales volumes and sales of RECs, partially offset by decreases in
POLR sales to the Ohio Companies and wholesale sales.
The increase in reported segment revenues resulted from the following sources:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended September 30 |
|
|
Increase |
|
Revenues by Type of Service |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Direct and Government Aggregation |
|
$ |
1,814 |
|
|
$ |
406 |
|
|
$ |
1,408 |
|
POLR |
|
|
1,911 |
|
|
|
2,369 |
|
|
|
(458 |
) |
Wholesale |
|
|
322 |
|
|
|
503 |
|
|
|
(181 |
) |
Transmission |
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
RECs |
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67 |
|
Sale of OVEC participation interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
252 |
|
|
|
(252 |
) |
Other |
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
4,265 |
|
|
$ |
3,678 |
|
|
$ |
587 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in direct and government aggregation revenues of $1,408 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 provide generation to 1.2 million
residential and small commercial customers at the end of September 2010 compared to 500,000 such
customers at the end of September 2009, partially offset by lower unit prices. In addition, sales
to residential and small commercial customers were bolstered by weather in the delivery area that
was 69% warmer than in 2009.
The decrease in POLR revenues of $458 million was due to lower sales volumes and lower unit prices
to the Ohio Companies, partially offset by increased sales volumes and higher unit prices to the
Pennsylvania Companies. The lower sales volumes and unit prices to the Ohio Companies in 2010
reflected the results of the May 2009 CBP. The increased revenues to the Pennsylvania Companies
resulted from FES supplying Met-Ed and Penelec with volumes previously supplied through a
third-party contract and at prices that were slightly higher than in 2009.
Wholesale revenues decreased $181 million due to reduced volumes and lower prices. The lower sales
volumes were due to available capacity serving increased retail sales in Ohio. In July 2010, FES
entered into financial transactions that offset the mark-to-market impact of legacy purchased power
contracts totaling 500 MW entered into in 2008 for delivery in 2010 and 2011 that have been marked
to market since December 2009. These financial transactions mitigate the volatility of these
contracts through the end of 2011 and resulted in wholesale revenues of $13 million in 2010.
The sale of RECs resulted in additional gains of $67 million in the nine months ending September
2010.
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 |
|
$ |
909 |
|
Change in prices |
|
|
(73 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
836 |
|
|
|
|
|
Government Aggregation: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of increase in sales volumes |
|
|
570 |
|
Change in prices |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
572 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Direct and Government Aggregation Revenues |
|
$ |
1,408 |
|
|
|
|
|
78
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Wholesale Revenues |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
POLR: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of 8.4% decrease in sales volumes |
|
$ |
(200 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
(258 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(458 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other Wholesale: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of 44.6% decrease in sales volumes |
|
|
(147 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
(34 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(181 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Wholesale Revenues |
|
$ |
(639 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Transmission revenues increased $1 million due primarily to higher MISO congestion revenue, offset
by lower PJM congestion revenue.
Expenses -
Total expenses increased $1.2 billion in the first nine months of 2010 due to the following
factors:
|
|
|
Fuel costs increased $199 million due to increased generation volumes ($140 million)
and higher unit prices ($59 million). The increase in unit prices was due primarily to
increased coal transportation costs and higher nuclear fuel unit prices following the
refueling outages that occurred in 2009. |
|
|
|
Purchased power costs increased $688 million due primarily to higher volumes
purchased ($606 million), power contract mark-to-market adjustments ($43 million) and
higher unit costs ($39 million). |
|
|
|
Fossil operating costs decreased $18 million due primarily to lower labor costs
which were partially offset by higher professional and contractor costs and reduced
gains on the sale of emission allowances. |
|
|
|
Nuclear operating costs decreased $39 million due primarily to lower labor,
consulting and contractor costs. The nine months ended September 2010 had one less
refueling outage and fewer extended outages than the same period of 2009. |
|
|
|
Transmission expenses increased $36 million due primarily to increased costs in MISO
of $152 million from higher network, ancillary and congestion costs, partially offset
by lower PJM transmission expenses of $116 million due to lower congestion costs. |
|
|
|
Other expenses increased $340 million primarily due to a $292 million impairment
charge ($181 million net of tax) related to operational changes at Bay Shore units 2-4,
Eastlake Plant units 1-4, the Lake Shore Plant and the Ashtabula Plant. In addition,
increased costs were incurred in uncollectible customer accounts and agent fees
associated with the growth in direct and government aggregation sales. |
Other Expense -
Total other expense in the nine months ending September 2010 was $124 million higher than the same
period in 2009, primarily due to a decrease in nuclear decommissioning trust investment income ($94
million) and a $30 million increase in net interest expense from new long-term debt issued combined
with the restructuring of existing PCRBs.
Other First Nine Months of 2010 Compared to First Nine Months of 2009
Financial results from other operating segments and reconciling items, including interest expense
on holding company debt and corporate support services revenues and expenses, resulted in a
$75 million increase in earnings available to FirstEnergy in the first nine months of 2010 compared
to the same period in 2009. The increase resulted primarily from the absence of debt retirement
costs that were incurred in the third quarter of 2009 in connection with the tender offer for
holding company debt ($139 million), decreased interest expense associated with the debt retirement
($56 million) and
increased interest income ($16 million), partially offset by increased depreciation and other
operating expenses ($30 million) and income tax expense ($132 million).
CAPITAL RESOURCES AND LIQUIDITY
As of September 30, 2010, FirstEnergy had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $632 million
available to fund investments, operations and capital expenditures. To fund liquidity and capital
requirements for the balance of 2010 and beyond, FirstEnergy will 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.
79
FirstEnergy expects its existing sources of liquidity to remain sufficient to meet its anticipated
obligations and those of its subsidiaries. FirstEnergys business is capital intensive, requiring
significant resources to fund operating expenses, construction expenditures, scheduled debt
maturities and interest and dividend payments. During 2010 and in subsequent years, FirstEnergy
expects to satisfy these requirements with a combination of 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 ability to fund current liquidity and 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 as the transition to competitive
generation markets continues, operational excellence, retail strategy execution, well-positioned
generation fleet, no speculative trading operations, appropriate long-term commodity hedging
positions, manageable capital expenditure program, well funded pension, minimal near-term
maturities of existing long-term debt, commitment to a strong and secure dividend (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) and a successful merger integration.
As of September 30, 2010, FirstEnergys net deficit in working capital (current assets less
current liabilities) was principally due to short-term borrowings ($1.0 billion) and the
classification of certain variable interest rate PCRBs as currently payable long-term debt.
Currently payable long-term debt as of September 30, 2010, included the following (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Payable Long-term Debt |
|
|
|
|
PCRBs supported by bank LOCs(1) |
|
$ |
1,318 |
|
FGCO and NGC unsecured PCRBs(1) |
|
|
90 |
|
Penelec FMBs(2) |
|
|
24 |
|
NGC collateralized lease obligation bonds |
|
|
50 |
|
Sinking fund requirements |
|
|
34 |
|
Other notes(3) |
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,590 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Interest rate mode permits individual debt holders to put
the respective debt back to the issuer prior to maturity. |
|
(2) |
|
Mature in November 2010. |
|
(3) |
|
Notes represent Signal Peak third-party debt and will be
repaid with proceeds from the October 22, 2010
refinancing of Signal Peak debt. As of September 30,
2010, $11 million matures in October 2010 and $63 million
matures in November 2010. |
Short-Term Borrowings
FirstEnergy had approximately $1.0 billion of short-term borrowings as of September 30, 2010 and
$1.2 billion as of December 31, 2009. FirstEnergys available liquidity as of October 22, 2010, is
summarized in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available |
|
Company |
|
Type |
|
|
Maturity |
|
|
Commitment |
|
|
Liquidity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
FirstEnergy(1) |
|
Revolving |
|
Aug. 2012 |
|
|
$ |
2,750 |
|
|
$ |
1,650 |
|
FirstEnergy Solutions |
|
Term loan |
|
Mar. 2011 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
Ohio and Pennsylvania Companies |
|
Receivables financing |
|
|
Various |
(2) |
|
|
395 |
|
|
|
245 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal |
|
|
$ |
3,245 |
|
|
$ |
1,895 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
911 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
$ |
3,245 |
|
|
$ |
2,806 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
FirstEnergy Corp. and subsidiary borrowers. |
|
(2) |
|
Ohio $250 million matures March 30, 2011; Pennsylvania $145 million matures December 17, 2010 with
optional extension terms. |
80
On October 22, 2010, Signal Peak and Global Rail entered into a $350 million syndicated two-year senior secured term loan facility among the two limited
liability companies that comprise Signal Peak and Global Rail, as borrowers, Sovereign Bank, CoBank, Credit Agricole, U.S. Bank, BBVA Compass, Royal Bank
of Canada, Fifth Third, Comerica Bank, CIBC Inc. and First Merit banks, as lenders, and Union Bank, N.A. as lender, administrative agent,
collateral agent and syndication agent. FirstEnergy, together with WMB Loan Ventures LLC and WMB Loan Ventures II LLC, the entities that share ownership with FEV in the borrowers, have
provided a guaranty of the borrowers obligations under the facility. The loan proceeds were used to repay $258 million of notes
payable to FirstEnergy, including $9 million of interest and $63 million of bank loans that were scheduled to mature on November 16, 2010.
Additional proceeds will be used for general company purposes, including an $11 million repayment of a third-party sellers note
maturing October 29, 2010.
Revolving Credit Facility
FirstEnergy has the capability to request an increase in the total commitments available under the
$2.75 billion revolving credit facility (included in the borrowing capability table above) up to a
maximum of $3.25 billion, subject to the discretion of each lender to provide additional
commitments. A total of 25 banks participate in the facility, with no one bank having more than
7.3% of the total commitment. Commitments under the facility are available until August 24, 2012,
unless the lenders agree, at the request of the borrowers, to an unlimited number of additional
one-year extensions. Generally, borrowings under the facility must be repaid within 364 days.
Available amounts for each borrower are subject to a specified sub-limit, as well as applicable
regulatory and other limitations.
The following table summarizes the borrowing sub-limits for each borrower under the facility, as
well as the limitations on short-term indebtedness applicable to each borrower under current
regulatory approvals and applicable statutory and/or charter limitations as of September 30, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revolving |
|
|
Regulatory and |
|
|
|
Credit Facility |
|
|
Other Short-Term |
|
Borrower |
|
Sub-Limit |
|
|
Debt Limitations |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
2,750 |
|
|
$ |
|
(1) |
FES |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
OE |
|
|
500 |
|
|
|
500 |
|
Penn |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
34 |
(2) |
CEI |
|
|
250 |
(3) |
|
|
500 |
|
TE |
|
|
250 |
(3) |
|
|
500 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
425 |
|
|
|
410 |
(2) |
Met-Ed |
|
|
250 |
|
|
|
300 |
(2) |
Penelec |
|
|
250 |
|
|
|
300 |
(2) |
ATSI |
|
|
50 |
(4) |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
No regulatory approvals, statutory or charter limitations applicable. |
|
(2) |
|
Excluding amounts that may be borrowed under the regulated companies money pool. |
|
(3) |
|
Borrowing sub-limits for CEI and TE may be increased to up to $500 million by
delivering notice to the administrative agent that such borrower has senior
unsecured debt ratings of at least BBB by S&P and Baa2 by Moodys. |
|
(4) |
|
The borrowing sub-limit for ATSI may be increased up to $100 million by
delivering notice to the administrative agent that ATSI has received regulatory
approval to have short-term borrowings up to the same amount. |
Under the revolving credit facility, borrowers may request the issuance of LOCs expiring up to one
year from the date of issuance. The stated amount of outstanding LOCs will count against total
commitments available under the facility and against the applicable borrowers borrowing
sub-limit.
The revolving credit facility contains financial covenants requiring each borrower to maintain a
consolidated debt to total capitalization ratio of no more than 65%, measured at the end of each
fiscal quarter. As of September 30, 2010, FirstEnergys and its subsidiaries debt to total
capitalization ratios (as defined under the revolving credit facility) were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Borrower |
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
|
60.2 |
% |
FES |
|
|
53.2 |
% |
OE |
|
|
53.1 |
% |
Penn |
|
|
30.8 |
% |
CEI |
|
|
57.6 |
% |
TE |
|
|
57.7 |
% |
JCP&L |
|
|
34.4 |
% |
Met-Ed |
|
|
37.6 |
% |
Penelec |
|
|
51.8 |
% |
ATSI |
|
|
48.8 |
% |
81
As of September 30, 2010, FirstEnergy could issue additional debt of approximately $2.9 billion, or
recognize a reduction in equity of approximately $1.6 billion, and remain within the limitations of
the financial covenants required by its revolving credit facility.
The revolving credit facility does not contain provisions that either restrict the ability to
borrow or accelerate repayment of outstanding advances as a result of any change in credit ratings.
Pricing is defined in pricing grids, whereby the cost of funds borrowed under the facility is
related to the credit ratings of the company borrowing the funds.
FirstEnergy Money Pools
FirstEnergys regulated companies also have the ability to borrow from each other and the holding
company to meet their short-term working capital requirements. A similar but separate arrangement
exists among FirstEnergys unregulated companies. FESC administers these two money pools and tracks
surplus funds of FirstEnergy and the respective regulated and unregulated subsidiaries, as well as
proceeds available from bank borrowings. Companies receiving a loan under the money pool agreements
must repay the principal amount of the loan, together with accrued interest, within 364 days of
borrowing the funds. The rate of interest is the same for each company receiving a loan from their
respective pool and is based on the average cost of funds available through the pool. The average
interest rate for borrowings in the first nine months of 2010 was 0.53% per annum for the regulated
companies money pool and 0.60% per annum for the unregulated companies money pool.
Pollution Control Revenue Bonds
As of September 30, 2010, FirstEnergys currently payable long-term debt included approximately
$1.3 billion (FES $1.2 billion, Met-Ed $29 million and Penelec $45 million) of variable
interest rate PCRBs, the bondholders of which are entitled to the benefit of irrevocable direct pay
bank LOCs. The interest rates on the PCRBs are reset daily or weekly. Bondholders can tender their
PCRBs for mandatory purchase prior to maturity with the purchase price payable from remarketing
proceeds or, if the PCRBs are not successfully remarketed, by drawings on the irrevocable direct
pay LOCs. The subsidiary obligor is required to reimburse the applicable LOC bank for any such
drawings or, if the LOC bank fails to honor its LOC for any reason, must itself pay the purchase
price.
The LOCs for FirstEnergy variable interest rate PCRBs were issued by the following banks as of
September 30, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate LOC |
|
|
|
|
Reimbursements of |
LOC Bank |
|
Amount(2) |
|
|
LOC Termination Date |
|
LOC Draws Due |
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
CitiBank N.A. |
|
$ |
166 |
|
|
June 2014 |
|
June 2014 |
The Bank of Nova Scotia |
|
|
284 |
|
|
Beginning April 2011 |
|
Multiple dates(3) |
The Royal Bank of Scotland |
|
|
131 |
|
|
June 2012 |
|
6 months |
Wachovia Bank |
|
|
152 |
|
|
March 2014 |
|
March 2014 |
Barclays Bank(1) |
|
|
528 |
|
|
Beginning December 2010 |
|
30 days |
PNC Bank |
|
|
70 |
|
|
Beginning November 2010 |
|
180 days |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
1,331 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Supported by 18 participating banks, with no one bank having more than 14% of the total commitment. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes approximately $13 million of applicable interest coverage. |
|
(3) |
|
Shorter of 6 months or LOC termination date ($155 million) and shorter of one year or LOC termination date ($129 million). |
On August 20, 2010, FES completed the remarketing of $250 million of PCRBs. Of the $250 million,
$235 million of PCRBs were converted from a variable interest rate to a fixed interest rate. The
remaining $15 million of PCRBs continue to bear a fixed interest rate. The interest rate
conversion minimizes financial risk by converting the long-term debt into a fixed rate and, as
a result, reducing exposure to variable interest rates over the short-term. These remarketings
included two series: $235 million of PCRBs that now bear a per-annum rate of 2.25% and are subject
to mandatory purchase on June 3, 2013; and $15 million of PCRBs that now bear a per-annum rate of
1.5% and are subject to mandatory purchase on June 1, 2011.
82
On October 1, 2010, FES completed the refinancing and remarketing of six series of PCRBs totaling
$313 million. These PCRBs were converted from a variable interest rate to a fixed long term
interest rate of 3.375% per annum and are subject to mandatory purchase on July 1, 2015. The LOCs
for the refinanced series of PCRBs totaling $208 million terminated as of October 1, 2010. The LOCs
for the remarketed series of PCRBs totaling $108 million will terminate on November 1, 2010.
Long-Term Debt Capacity
As of September 30, 2010, the Ohio Companies and Penn had the aggregate capability to issue
approximately $2.5 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 $116 million and $25 million, respectively, as of
September 30, 2010. As a result of the indenture provisions, TE cannot incur any additional secured
debt. Met-Ed and Penelec had the capability to issue secured debt of approximately $380 million and
$358 million, respectively, under provisions of their senior note indentures as of September 30,
2010.
Based upon FGCOs FMB indenture, net earnings and available bondable property additions as of
September 30, 2010, FGCO had the capability to issue $1.9 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 $294 million of additional FMBs as of September
30, 2010.
FirstEnergys access to capital markets and costs of financing are influenced by the ratings of its
securities. On February 11, 2010, S&P issued a report lowering FirstEnergys and its subsidiaries
credit ratings by one notch, while maintaining its stable outlook. Moodys and Fitch affirmed the
ratings and stable outlook of FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries on February 11, 2010. On September
28, 2010, S&P issued a report reaffirming the ratings and stable outlook of FirstEnergy and its
subsidiaries. The following table displays FirstEnergys, FES and the Utilities securities
ratings as of September 30, 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Secured |
|
Senior Unsecured |
Issuer |
|
S&P |
|
Moodys |
|
Fitch |
|
S&P |
|
Moodys |
|
Fitch |
FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BB+ |
|
Baa3 |
|
BBB |
FirstEnergy Solutions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BBB- |
|
Baa2 |
|
BBB |
Ohio Edison |
|
BBB |
|
A3 |
|
BBB+ |
|
BBB- |
|
Baa2 |
|
BBB |
Pennsylvania Power |
|
BBB+ |
|
A3 |
|
BBB+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cleveland Electric Illuminating |
|
BBB |
|
Baa1 |
|
BBB |
|
BBB- |
|
Baa3 |
|
BBB- |
Toledo Edison |
|
BBB |
|
Baa1 |
|
BBB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jersey Central Power & Light |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BBB- |
|
Baa2 |
|
BBB+ |
Metropolitan Edison |
|
BBB |
|
A3 |
|
BBB+ |
|
BBB- |
|
Baa2 |
|
BBB |
Pennsylvania Electric |
|
BBB |
|
A3 |
|
BBB+ |
|
BBB- |
|
Baa2 |
|
BBB |
ATSI |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BBB- |
|
Baa1 |
|
|
Changes in Cash Position
As of September 30, 2010, FirstEnergy had $632 million of cash and cash equivalents compared to
$874 million as of December 31, 2009. As of September 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, FirstEnergy
had approximately $14 million and $12 million, respectively, of restricted cash included in other
current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
During the first nine months of 2010, FirstEnergy received $730 million of cash dividends from its
subsidiaries and paid $503 million in cash dividends to common shareholders.
Cash Flows From Operating Activities
FirstEnergys consolidated net cash from operating activities is provided primarily by its
competitive energy services and energy delivery services businesses (see Results of Operations
above). Net cash provided from operating activities increased by $609 million during the first nine
months of 2010 compared to the comparable period in 2009, as summarized in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended September 30 |
|
|
Increase |
|
Operating Cash Flows |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Net income |
|
$ |
580 |
|
|
$ |
754 |
|
|
$ |
(174 |
) |
Non-cash charges and other adjustments |
|
|
1,648 |
|
|
|
1,755 |
|
|
|
(107 |
) |
Pension trust contribution |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(500 |
) |
|
|
500 |
|
Working Capital and other |
|
|
(155 |
) |
|
|
(545 |
) |
|
|
390 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,073 |
|
|
$ |
1,464 |
|
|
$ |
609 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
83
The decrease in non-cash charges and other adjustments is primarily due to lower net amortization
of regulatory assets of ($354 million), including the impact of CEIs $216 million regulatory asset
impairment recorded during the first quarter of 2009, a $142 million charge relating to loss on
debt redemptions during the third quarter of 2009 and changes in deferred income taxes and
investment tax credits of ($162 million). The decrease in non-cash charges and other adjustments
was partially offset by impairment of long-lived assets of $294 million, including the impact of
the $292 million impairment of certain FGCO facilities and changes in the deferral of new
regulatory assets of $136 million.
The change in working capital and other is primarily due to cash proceeds of $129 million received
on the termination of fixed-for-floating interest rate swaps during the second and third quarters
of 2010, changes in investment securities of $133 million, a decrease in prepaid assets of $345
million and a $250 million increase in accounts receivable.
Cash Flows From Financing Activities
In the first nine months of 2010, cash used for financing activities was $870 million compared to
cash provided from financing activities of $617 million in the first nine months of 2009. The
decrease was primarily due to activity during the first nine months of 2009 which included new debt
issuances and long-term debt retirements associated with a $1.2 billion senior note tender offer
completed by FirstEnergy in September 2009. The following table summarizes security issuances (net
of any discounts) and redemptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months |
|
|
|
Ended September 30 |
|
Securities Issued or Redeemed |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
New Issues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First mortgage bonds |
|
|
|
|
|
|
398 |
|
Pollution control notes |
|
|
250 |
|
|
|
859 |
|
Senior secured notes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
297 |
|
Unsecured Notes |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2,597 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
251 |
|
|
$ |
4,151 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redemptions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First mortgage bonds |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Pollution control notes |
|
|
251 |
|
|
|
687 |
|
Senior secured notes |
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
54 |
|
Unsecured notes |
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
1,472 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
422 |
|
|
$ |
2,213 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
$ |
(171 |
) |
|
$ |
(764 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flows From Investing Activities
Net cash flows used in investing activities resulted primarily from property additions. Additions
for the energy delivery services segment primarily represent expenditures related to transmission
and distribution facilities. Capital spending by the competitive energy services segment is
principally generation-related. The following table summarizes investing activities for the first
nine months of 2010 and 2009 by business segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary of Cash Flows |
|
Property |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provided from (Used for) Investing Activities |
|
Additions |
|
|
Investments |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
Sources (Uses) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy delivery services |
|
$ |
(546 |
) |
|
$ |
82 |
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
(453 |
) |
Competitive energy services |
|
|
(860 |
) |
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
(53 |
) |
|
|
(939 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
Inter-Segment reconciling items |
|
|
(43 |
) |
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(66 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
(1,467 |
) |
|
$ |
30 |
|
|
$ |
(8 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,445 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy delivery services |
|
$ |
(524 |
) |
|
$ |
(121 |
) |
|
$ |
(35 |
) |
|
$ |
(680 |
) |
Competitive energy services |
|
|
(893 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
(920 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(133 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
(144 |
) |
Inter-Segment reconciling items |
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
(44 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
(1,575 |
) |
|
$ |
(152 |
) |
|
$ |
(61 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,788 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
84
Net cash used for investing activities in the first nine months of 2010 decreased by $343 million
compared to the first nine months of 2009. The decrease was principally due to a $108 million
decrease in property additions (principally lower AQC system expenditures) and an increase in cash
proceeds from the sale of assets of $98 million, partially offset by $110 million spent by FES in
the customer acquisition process.
During the remaining quarter of 2010, capital requirements for property additions and capital
leases are expected to be approximately $410 million, including approximately $32 million for
nuclear fuel. These cash requirements are expected to be satisfied from a combination of internal
cash and short-term credit arrangements.
GUARANTEES AND OTHER ASSURANCES
As part of normal business activities, FirstEnergy enters into various agreements on behalf of its
subsidiaries to provide financial or performance assurances to third parties. These agreements
include contract guarantees, surety bonds and LOCs. Some of the guaranteed contracts contain
collateral provisions that are contingent upon either FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries credit
ratings.
As of September 30, 2010, 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) |
|
$ |
300 |
|
LOC (long-term debt) Interest coverage(2) |
|
|
6 |
|
FirstEnergy guarantee of OVEC obligations |
|
|
300 |
|
Other(3) |
|
|
226 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
832 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subsidiaries Guarantees |
|
|
|
|
Energy and Energy-Related Contracts |
|
|
54 |
|
LOC (long-term debt) Interest coverage(2) |
|
|
4 |
|
FES guarantee of NGCs nuclear property insurance |
|
|
70 |
|
FES guarantee of FGCOs sale and leaseback obligations |
|
|
2,413 |
|
Other |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,543 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surety Bonds |
|
|
84 |
|
LOC (long-term debt) Interest coverage(2) |
|
|
3 |
|
LOC (non-debt)(4)(5) |
|
|
380 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
467 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Guarantees and Other Assurances |
|
$ |
3,842 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Issued for open-ended terms, with a 10-day termination right by FirstEnergy. |
|
(2) |
|
Reflects the interest coverage portion of LOCs issued in support of
floating rate PCRBs with various maturities. The principal amount of
floating-rate PCRBs of $1.3 billion is reflected in currently payable
long-term debt on FirstEnergys consolidated balance sheets. |
|
(3) |
|
Includes guarantees of $15 million for nuclear decommissioning funding
assurances, $161 million supporting OEs sale and leaseback arrangement,
and $34 million for railcar leases. |
|
(4) |
|
Includes $201 million issued for various terms pursuant to LOC capacity
available under FirstEnergys revolving credit facility. |
|
(5) |
|
Includes approximately $135 million pledged in connection with the sale and
leaseback of Beaver Valley Unit 2 by OE and $44 million pledged in
connection with the sale and leaseback of Perry by OE. |
85
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 September 30, 2010, FirstEnergys maximum exposure under these collateral
provisions was $419 million, as shown below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collateral Provisions |
|
FES |
|
|
Utilities |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
Credit rating downgrade to below investment grade (1) |
|
$ |
306 |
|
|
$ |
68 |
|
|
$ |
374 |
|
Material adverse event (2) |
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
351 |
|
|
$ |
68 |
|
|
$ |
419 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes $85 million and $57 million that is also considered an acceleration of payment or funding
obligation at FES and the Utilities, respectively. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes $33 million that is also considered an acceleration of payment or funding obligation at FES. |
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 $511 million consisting of $463 million due to a below investment grade credit rating, of
which $175 million is related to an acceleration of payment or funding obligation, and $48 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 $84 million provide additional assurance to
outside parties that contractual and statutory
obligations will be met in a number of areas including construction contracts, environmental
commitments and various retail transactions.
In addition to guarantees and surety bonds, FES contracts, including power contracts with
affiliates awarded through competitive bidding processes, typically contain margining provisions
which require the posting of cash or LOCs in amounts determined by future power price movements.
Based on FES power portfolio as of September 30, 2010, and forward prices as of that date, FES has
posted collateral of $244 million. Under a hypothetical adverse change in forward prices (95%
confidence level change in forward prices over a one year time horizon), FES would be required to
post an additional $46 million. Depending on the volume of forward contracts and future price
movements, FES could be required to post higher amounts for margining.
In connection with FES obligations to post and maintain collateral under the two-year PSA entered
into by FES and the Ohio Companies following the CBP auction on May 13-14, 2009, NGC entered into a
Surplus Margin Guaranty in an amount up to $500 million. The Surplus Margin Guaranty is secured by
an NGC FMB issued in favor of the Ohio Companies.
FES debt obligations are generally guaranteed by its subsidiaries, FGCO and NGC, and FES
guarantees the debt obligations of each of FGCO and NGC. Accordingly, present and future holders of
indebtedness of FES, FGCO and NGC will have claims against each of FES, FGCO and NGC regardless of
whether their primary obligor is FES, FGCO or NGC.
On October 22, 2010, Signal Peak and Global Rail entered into a $350 million syndicated two-year senior secured term loan facility among the two limited
liability companies that comprise Signal Peak and Global Rail, as borrowers, Sovereign Bank, CoBank, Credit Agricole, U.S. Bank, BBVA Compass, Royal Bank
of Canada, Fifth Third, Comerica Bank, CIBC Inc. and First Merit banks, as lenders, and Union Bank, N.A. as lender, administrative agent,
collateral agent and syndication agent. FirstEnergy, together with WMB Loan Ventures LLC and WMB Loan Ventures II LLC, the entities that share ownership with FEV in the borrowers, have provided
a guaranty of the borrowers obligations under the facility. In addition, FEV and the other entities that directly own the equity
interests in the borrowers have pledged those interests to the banks as collateral for the facility.
86
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 September 30, 2010.
MARKET RISK INFORMATION
FirstEnergy uses various market risk sensitive instruments, including derivative contracts,
primarily to manage the risk of price and interest rate fluctuations. FirstEnergys Risk Policy
Committee, comprised of members of senior management, provides general oversight for risk
management activities throughout the company.
Commodity Price Risk
FirstEnergy is exposed to financial and market risks resulting from the fluctuation of interest
rates and commodity prices associated with electricity, energy transmission, natural gas, coal,
nuclear fuel and emission allowances. To manage the volatility relating to these exposures,
FirstEnergy uses a variety of non-derivative and derivative instruments, including forward
contracts, options, futures contracts and swaps. The derivatives are used principally for hedging
purposes.
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 5
to the consolidated financial statements). Sources of information for the valuation of commodity
derivative contracts as of September 30, 2010 are summarized by year in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source of Information- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value by Contract Year |
|
2010 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2012 |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
2014 |
|
|
Thereafter |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prices actively quoted(1) |
|
$ |
(2 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(2 |
) |
Other external sources(2) |
|
|
(328 |
) |
|
|
(369 |
) |
|
|
(164 |
) |
|
|
(53 |
) |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(917 |
) |
Prices based on models |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
141 |
|
|
|
132 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total(3) |
|
$ |
(330 |
) |
|
$ |
(369 |
) |
|
$ |
(164 |
) |
|
$ |
(53 |
) |
|
$ |
(2 |
) |
|
$ |
131 |
|
|
$ |
(787 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents exchange traded New York Mercantile Exchange futures and options. |
|
(2) |
|
Primarily represents contracts based on broker and IntercontinentalExchange quotes. |
|
(3) |
|
Includes $629 million in non-hedge commodity derivative contracts that are
primarily related to NUG contracts. NUG contracts are subject to regulatory
accounting and do not impact earnings. |
FirstEnergy performs sensitivity analyses to estimate its exposure to the market risk of its
commodity positions. Based on derivative contracts held as of September 30, 2010, an adverse 10%
change in commodity prices would decrease net income by approximately $6 million ($4 million net of
tax) during the next 12 months.
Interest Rate Swap Agreements 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
derivatives 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 September 30, 2010, no fixed-for-floating interest rate swap agreements were
outstanding.
Total unamortized gains included in long-term debt associated with prior fixed-for-floating
interest rate swap agreements totaled $129 million ($84 million net of tax) as of September 30,
2010. 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
$5 million and $7 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010.
Equity Price Risk
FirstEnergy provides a noncontributory qualified defined benefit pension plan that covers
substantially all of its employees and non-qualified pension plans that cover certain employees.
The plan provides defined benefits based on years of service and compensation levels. FirstEnergy
also provides health care benefits (which include certain employee contributions, deductibles and
co-payments) upon retirement to employees hired prior to January 1, 2005, their dependents, and
under certain circumstances, their survivors. The benefit plan assets and obligations are
remeasured annually using a December 31 measurement date or as significant triggering events occur.
As of September 30, 2010, approximately 44% of the pension plan assets are invested in equity
securities and 56% are invested in fixed income securities. The plan
is 81% funded on an accumulated benefit obligation basis as of
September 30, 2010. A
decline in the value of FirstEnergys pension plan assets could result in additional funding
requirements. FirstEnergy currently estimates that additional cash contributions will be required
beginning in 2012.
87
Nuclear decommissioning trust funds have been established to satisfy NGCs and the Utilities
nuclear decommissioning obligations. As of September 30, 2010, approximately 15% of the funds were
invested in equity securities and 85% were invested in fixed income securities, with limitations
related to concentration and investment grade ratings. The equity securities are carried at their
market value of approximately $305 million as of September 30, 2010. A hypothetical 10% decrease in
prices quoted by stock exchanges would result in a $31 million reduction in fair value as of
September 30, 2010. The decommissioning trusts of JCP&L and the Pennsylvania Companies are subject
to regulatory accounting, with unrealized gains and losses recorded as regulatory assets or
liabilities, since the difference between investments held in trust and the decommissioning
liabilities will be recovered from or refunded to customers. NGC, OE and TE recognize in earnings
the unrealized losses on available-for-sale securities held in their nuclear decommissioning trusts
as other-than-temporary impairments. A decline in the value of FirstEnergys nuclear
decommissioning trusts could result in additional funding requirements. During 2010, $4 million was
contributed to the OE and TE nuclear decommissioning trusts to comply with requirements under
certain sale-leaseback transactions in which OE and TE continue as lessees, and $4 million was
contributed to the JCP&L and Pennsylvania nuclear decommissioning trusts to comply with regulatory
requirements. FirstEnergy continues to evaluate the status of its funding obligations for the
decommissioning of these nuclear facilities and does not expect to make additional cash
contributions to the nuclear decommissioning trusts for the remainder of 2010 other than those to
the JCP&L and Pennsylvania Companies nuclear decommissioning trusts due to regulatory
requirements.
CREDIT RISK
Credit risk is the risk of an obligors failure to meet the terms of any investment contract, loan
agreement or otherwise perform as agreed. Credit risk arises from all activities in which success
depends on issuer, borrower or counterparty performance, whether reflected on or off the balance
sheet. FirstEnergy engages in transactions for the purchase and sale of commodities including gas,
electricity, coal and emission allowances. These transactions are often with major energy companies
within the industry.
FirstEnergy maintains credit policies with respect to its counterparties to manage overall credit
risk. This includes performing independent risk evaluations, actively monitoring portfolio trends
and using collateral and contract provisions to mitigate exposure. As part of its credit program,
FirstEnergy aggressively manages the quality of its portfolio of energy contracts, evidenced by a
current weighted average risk rating for energy contract counterparties of BBB (S&P). As of
September 30, 2010, the largest credit concentration was with J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., which is
currently rated investment grade, representing 9.42% of FirstEnergys total approved credit risk.
OUTLOOK
Reliability Initiatives
Federally-enforceable mandatory reliability standards apply to the bulk power system and impose
certain operating, record-keeping and reporting requirements on the Utilities and ATSI. The NERC
has delegated day-to-day implementation and enforcement of these reliability standards to eight
regional entities, including ReliabilityFirst Corporation. All of FirstEnergys facilities are
located within the ReliabilityFirst region. FirstEnergy actively participates in the NERC and
ReliabilityFirst stakeholder processes, and otherwise monitors and manages its companies in
response to the ongoing development, implementation and enforcement of the reliability standards
implemented and enforced by the ReliabilityFirst Corporation.
FirstEnergy believes that it generally is in compliance with all currently-effective and
enforceable reliability standards. FirstEnergys practice is to address and resolve any occasional
or isolated incidents of noncompliance as they arise in the normal course of operations.
FirstEnergy also believes that the NERC, ReliabilityFirst and the FERC will continue to refine
existing reliability standards as well as to develop and adopt new reliability standards. The
financial impact of complying with new or amended standards cannot be determined at this time;
however, 2005 amendments to the FPA provide that all prudent costs incurred to comply with the new
reliability standards be recovered in rates. Still, any future inability on FirstEnergys part to
comply with the reliability standards for its bulk power system could result in the imposition of
financial penalties that could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows.
On December 9, 2008, a transformer at JCP&Ls Oceanview substation failed, resulting in an outage
on certain bulk electric system (transmission voltage) lines out of the Oceanview and Atlantic
substations resulting in customers losing power for up to eleven hours. On March 31, 2009, the NERC
initiated a Compliance Violation Investigation in order to determine JCP&Ls contribution to the
electrical event and to review any potential violation of NERC Reliability Standards associated
with the event. NERC has submitted first and second Requests for Information regarding this and
another related matter. JCP&L is complying with these requests. JCP&L is not able to predict what
actions, if any, that the NERC may take with respect to this matter.
88
On
August 23, 2010, FirstEnergy self-reported a vegetation
encroachment event on a Met-Ed 230 kV line
to ReliabilityFirst. 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. At
this time, FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of this investigation.
Ohio
The Ohio Companies operate under an Amended ESP, which expires on May 31, 2011, and provides for
generation supplied through a CBP. The Amended ESP also allows the Ohio Companies to collect a
delivery service improvement rider (Rider DSI) at an overall average rate of $0.002 per KWH for the
period of April 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011. The Ohio Companies currently purchase generation
at the average wholesale rate of a CBP conducted in May 2009. FES is one of the suppliers to the
Ohio Companies through the 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). Applications for
rehearing of the PUCO order in the distribution case were filed by the Ohio Companies and one other
party. The Ohio Companies raised numerous issues in their application for rehearing related to rate
recovery of certain expenses, recovery of line extension costs, the level of rate of return and the
amount of general plant balances. The PUCO has not yet issued a substantive Entry on Rehearing.
On October 20, 2009, the Ohio Companies filed an MRO to procure, through a CBP, generation supply
for customers who do not shop with an alternative supplier for the period beginning June 1, 2011.
The CBP would be similar, in all material respects, to the CBP conducted in May 2009 in that it
would procure energy, capacity and certain transmission services on a slice of system basis.
However, unlike the May 2009 CBP, the MRO would include multiple bidding sessions and multiple
products with different delivery periods for generation supply designed to reduce potential
volatility and supplier risk and encourage bidder participation. Although the Ohio Companies
requested a PUCO determination by January 18, 2010, on February 3, 2010, the PUCO announced that
its determination would be delayed. The PUCO has not yet issued an order in this matter.
On March 23, 2010, the Ohio Companies filed an application for a new ESP. The new ESP will go into
effect on June 1, 2011 and conclude on May 31, 2014. Attached to the application was a Stipulation
and Recommendation signed by the Ohio Companies, the Staff of the PUCO, and an additional fourteen
parties signing as Signatory Parties, with two additional parties agreeing not to oppose the
adoption of the Stipulation. The material terms of the Stipulation include a CBP similar to the one
used in May 2009 and the one proposed in the October 2009 MRO filing; a 6% generation discount to
certain low-income customers provided by the Ohio Companies through a bilateral wholesale contract
with
FES (initial auctions scheduled for October 20, 2010 and January 25, 2011); no increase in base
distribution rates through May 31, 2014; load cap of no less than 80%, which also applies to any
tranches assigned post auction; and a new distribution rider, Delivery Capital Recovery Rider
(Rider DCR), to recover a return of, and on, capital investments in the delivery system. This Rider
substitutes for Rider DSI which terminates by its own terms. The Ohio Companies also agree not to
collect certain amounts associated with RTEP and administrative costs associated with the move to
PJM, dependent on the outcome of certain PJM proceedings. Many of the existing riders approved in
the previous ESP remain in effect, some with modifications. The new ESP also requests the
resolution of current proceedings pending at the PUCO regarding corporate separation, elements of
the smart grid proceeding and the move to PJM. FirstEnergy recorded approximately $39.5 million of
regulatory asset impairments and expenses related to the ESP. On May 12, 2010, a supplemental
stipulation was filed that added two additional parties to the Stipulation, namely the City of
Akron, Ohio and Council for Smaller Enterprises, to provide additional energy efficiency benefits.
On July 22, 2010, a second supplemental stipulation was filed that, among other provisions provides
a commitment that retail customers of the Ohio Companies will not pay certain costs related to the
companies integration into PJM, for the longer of the five year period from June 1, 2011 through
May 31, 2016 or when the amount of costs avoided by customers for certain types of products totals
$360 million dependent on the outcome of certain PJM proceedings, and establishes a $12 million
fund to assist low income customers over the term of the ESP. Additional parties signing or not
opposing the second supplemental stipulation include Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council (NOPEC),
Northwest Ohio Aggregation Coalition (NOAC), Environmental Law and Policy Center and a number of
low income community agencies. The PUCO modified and approved the new ESP on August 25, 2010. The
Companies accepted the PUCOs decision subject to the implementation of certain elements of the ESP
being consistent with the terms as they were included in the stipulation. On September 24, 2010,
an application for rehearing was filed by the OCC and two other parties. The Ohio Companies and
other parties filed their memorandum contra to that application for rehearing on October 4, 2010.
The PUCO granted the application for rehearing on October 22, 2010.
The PUCO has yet to rule on the substance of the application for rehearing.
Under the provisions of SB221, the Ohio Companies are required to implement energy efficiency
programs that will achieve a total annual energy savings equivalent of approximately 166,000 MWH in
2009, 290,000 MWH in 2010, 410,000 MWH in 2011, 470,000 MWH in 2012 and 530,000 MWH in 2013, with
additional savings required through 2025. Utilities are also required to reduce peak demand in 2009
by 1%, with an additional 0.75% reduction each year thereafter through 2018. The Ohio Companies
filed an application with the PUCO seeking amendments to these benchmarks. On January 7, 2010, the
PUCO amended the Ohio Companies 2009 energy efficiency benchmarks to zero, contingent upon the
Ohio Companies meeting the revised benchmarks in a period of not more than three years. On March
10, 2010, the PUCO found that the Ohio Companies peak demand reduction programs complied with PUCO
rules.
89
On December 15, 2009, the Ohio Companies filed the required three year portfolio plan seeking
approval for the programs they intend to implement to meet the energy efficiency and peak demand
reduction requirements for the 2010-2012 period. On March 8, 2010, the Ohio Companies filed their
2009 Status Update Report with the PUCO in which they indicated compliance with the 2009 statutory
energy efficiency and peak demand benchmarks as those benchmarks were amended as described
above. The Ohio Companies expect that all costs associated with compliance will be recoverable
from customers. The Ohio Companies three year portfolio plan is still awaiting decision from the
PUCO. The plan has yet to be approved by the PUCO, which is delaying the launch of the programs
described in the plan. Without such approval, the Ohio Companies compliance with 2010 benchmarks
is jeopardized and if not approved soon may require the Ohio Companies to seek an amendment to
their annual benchmark requirements for 2010. Failure to comply with the benchmarks or to obtain
such an amendment may subject the Companies to an assessment by the PUCO of a forfeiture.
Additionally under SB221, electric utilities and electric service companies are required to serve
part of their load from renewable energy resources equivalent to 0.25% of the KWH they 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. On March 10, 2010, the PUCO found that there was an insufficient
quantity of solar energy resources reasonably available in the market. The PUCO reduced the Ohio
Companies aggregate 2009 benchmark to the level of solar RECs the Ohio Companies acquired through
their 2009 RFP processes, provided the Ohio Companies 2010 alternative energy requirements be
increased to include the shortfall for the 2009 solar REC benchmark. On April 15, 2010, the Ohio
Companies and FES (due to its status as an electric service company in Ohio) filed compliance
reports with the PUCO setting forth how they individually satisfied the alternative energy
requirements in SB221 for 2009. FES also applied for a force majeure determination from the PUCO
regarding a portion of their compliance with the 2009 solar energy resource benchmark, which
application is still pending. 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. As a result of this RFP, contracts were executed in August 2010.
On February 12, 2010, OE and CEI filed an application with the PUCO to establish a new credit for
all-electric customers. On March 3, 2010, the PUCO ordered that rates for the affected customers
be set at a level that will provide bill impacts commensurate with charges in place on December 31,
2008 and authorized the Ohio Companies to defer incurred costs equivalent to the difference between
what the affected customers would have paid under previously existing rates and
what they pay with the new credit in place. Tariffs implementing this new credit went into effect
on March 17, 2010. On April 15, 2010, the PUCO issued a Second Entry on Rehearing that expanded
the group of customers to which the new credit would apply and authorized deferral for the
associated additional amounts. The PUCO also stated that 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 on May 21, 2010. The Ohio Companies also filed on May 14, 2010 an application for
rehearing of the Second Entry on Rehearing, which was granted for purposes of further consideration
on June 9, 2010. On September 9, 2010, the OCC filed a motion requesting that a procedural
schedule be established. The Ohio Companies filed their motion contra on September 23, 2010. The
PUCO Staff issued a report related to the all-electric issue on September 24, 2010, in which it
provides background on the issue and sets forth its bill impact analysis under a number of
different scenarios for a longer term solution, but it made no specific recommendation to the PUCO.
Pennsylvania
Met-Ed and Penelec purchase a portion of their POLR and default service requirements from FES
through a fixed-price partial requirements wholesale power sales agreement. The agreement allows
Met-Ed and Penelec to sell the output of NUG energy to the market and requires FES to provide
energy at fixed prices to replace any NUG energy sold to the extent needed for Met-Ed and Penelec
to satisfy their POLR and default service obligations.
Met-Ed and Penelec filed with the PPUC a generation procurement plan covering the period January 1,
2011 through May 31, 2013. The plan is designed to provide adequate and reliable service via a
prudent mix of long-term, short-term and spot market generation supply, as required by Act 129,
with a staggered procurement schedule, which varies by customer class, through the use of a
descending clock auction. On August 12, 2009, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a settlement agreement with
the PPUC for the generation procurement plan, reflecting the settlement on all but two reserved
issues. On November 6, 2009, the PPUC entered an Order approving the settlement and finding in
favor of Met-Ed and Penelec on the two reserved issues. Generation procurement began in January
2010.
90
On February 8, 2010, Penn filed a Petition for Approval of its Default Service Plan for the period June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2013. On July
29, 2010, the parties to the proceeding filed a Joint Petition for Settlement of all issues. The PPUC adopted a Motion approving the Joint
Petition for Settlement on October 21, 2010. The Joint Petition resolves all issues relating to Penns Default Service Plan for the
next program period, including its procurement method, compliance with the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act, rate design and
retail market issues. The PPUCs approval of the Joint Petition is conditioned by holding that the provision relating to the recovery of
MISO exit cost fees and one-time PJM integration costs (resulting from Penns June 1, 2011 exit of MISO and integration into PJM) be
approved, but made subject to the approval of cost recovery by FERC. Penn may not put these provisions into effect until FERC has approved
the recovery and allocation of MISO exit fees and PJM integration costs. An Order consistent with the Motion is expected to be entered in
the near future.
The PPUC adopted a Motion on January 28, 2010 and subsequently entered an Order on March 3, 2010
which denies the recovery of marginal transmission losses through the TSC rider for the period of
June 1, 2007 through March 31, 2008, and directs Met-Ed and Penelec to submit a new tariff or
tariff supplement reflecting the removal of marginal transmission losses from the TSC, and
instructs Met-Ed and Penelec to work with the various intervening parties to file a recommendation
to the PPUC regarding the establishment of a separate account for all marginal transmission losses
collected from ratepayers plus interest to be used to mitigate future generation rate increases
beginning January 1, 2011. On March 18, 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a Petition with the PPUC
requesting that it stay the portion of the March 3, 2010 Order requiring the filing of tariff
supplements to end collection of costs for marginal transmission losses. By Order entered March 25, 2010,
the PPUC granted the requested stay until December 31, 2010. Pursuant to the PPUCs order, Met-Ed
and Penelec filed the plan to establish separate accounts for marginal transmission loss revenues
and related interest and carrying charges and the plan for the use of these funds to mitigate
future generation rate increases commencing January 1, 2011. The PPUC approved this plan on June 7,
2010. On April 1, 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a Petition for Review with the Commonwealth Court
of Pennsylvania appealing the PPUCs March 3, 2010 Order. Although the ultimate outcome of this
matter cannot be determined at this time, it is the belief of Met-Ed and Penelec that they should
prevail in the appeal and therefore expect to fully recover the approximately $199.7 million
($158.5 million for Met-Ed and $41.2 million for Penelec) in marginal transmission losses for the
period prior to January 1, 2011. On July 9, 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed their briefs with the
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. The Office of Small Business Advocate filed its brief on July
9, 2010. On August 24, 2010, the PPUC as well as MEIUG and PICA filed their briefs. Met-Ed and
Penelec filed their reply brief on September 9, 2010.
On May 20, 2010, the PPUC approved Met-Eds and Penelecs annual updates to their TSC rider for the
period June 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010 including marginal transmission losses as approved by
the PPUC, although the recovery of marginal losses will be subject to the outcome of the proceeding
related to the 2008 TSC filing as described above. The TSC for Met-Eds customers was increased to
provide for full recovery by December 31, 2010.
Act 129 was enacted in 2008 to address issues such as: energy efficiency and peak load reduction;
generation procurement; time-of-use rates; smart meters; and alternative energy. Among other
things, Act 129 required utilities to file with the PPUC an energy efficiency and peak load
reduction plan, or EE&C Plan, by July 1, 2009, setting forth the utilities plans to reduce energy
consumption by a minimum of 1% and 3% by May 31, 2011 and May 31, 2013, respectively, and to reduce
peak demand by a minimum of 4.5% by May 31, 2013. The PPUC entered an Order on February 26, 2010
approving the Pennsylvania Companies EE&C Plans and the tariff rider with rates effective March 1,
2010.
Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn jointly filed a Smart Meter Technology Procurement and Installation Plan
with the PPUC. This plan proposes a 24-month assessment period in which the Pennsylvania Companies
will assess their needs, select the necessary technology, secure vendors, train personnel, install
and test support equipment, and establish a cost effective and strategic deployment schedule, which
currently is expected to be completed in fifteen years. Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn estimate
assessment period costs at approximately $29.5 million, which the Pennsylvania Companies, in their
plan, proposed to recover through an automatic adjustment clause. The ALJs Initial Decision
approved the Smart Meter Plan as modified by the ALJ, including: ensuring that the smart meters to
be deployed include the capabilities listed in the PPUCs Implementation Order; eliminating the
provision of interest in the 1307(e) reconciliation; providing for the recovery of reasonable and
prudent costs minus resulting savings from installation and use of smart meters; and reflecting
that administrative start-up costs be expensed and the costs incurred for research and development
in the assessment period be capitalized. On April 15, 2010, the PPUC adopted a Motion by Chairman
Cawley that modified the ALJs initial decision, and decided various issues regarding the Smart
Meter Implementation Plan for the Pennsylvania Companies. The PPUC entered its Order on June 9,
2010, consistent with the Chairmans Motion. On June 24, 2010, Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn filed a
Petition for Reconsideration of a single portion of the PPUCs Order regarding the future ability
to include smart meter costs in base rates. On August 5, 2010, the PPUC granted in part the petition
for reconsideration 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.
By Tentative Order entered September 17, 2009, the PPUC provided for an additional 30-day comment
period on whether the 1998 Restructuring Settlement allows Met-Ed and Penelec to apply
over-collection of NUG costs for select and isolated months to reduce non-NUG stranded costs when a
cumulative NUG stranded cost balance exists. In response to the Tentative Order, various parties
filed comments objecting to the above accounting method utilized by Met-Ed and Penelec. Met-Ed and
Penelec are awaiting further action by the PPUC.
91
New Jersey
JCP&L is permitted to defer for future collection from customers the amounts by which its costs of
supplying BGS to non-shopping customers, costs incurred under NUG agreements, and certain other
stranded costs, exceed amounts collected through BGS and NUGC rates and market sales of NUG energy
and capacity. As of September 30, 2010, the accumulated deferred cost balance was a credit of
approximately $3 million. To better align the recovery of expected costs, on July 26, 2010, JCP&L
filed a request to decrease the amount recovered for the costs incurred under the NUG agreements by
$180 million annually. If approved as filed, the change would not go into effect until January 1,
2011.
In accordance with an April 28, 2004 NJBPU order, JCP&L filed testimony on June 7, 2004, supporting
continuation of the current level and duration of the funding of TMI-2 decommissioning costs by New
Jersey customers without a reduction, termination or capping of the funding. On September 30, 2004,
JCP&L filed an updated TMI-2 decommissioning study. This study resulted in an updated total
decommissioning cost estimate of $729 million (in 2003 dollars) compared to the estimated
$528 million (in 2003 dollars) from the prior 1995 decommissioning study. The DPA filed comments on
February 28, 2005 requesting that decommissioning funding be suspended. On March 18, 2005, JCP&L
filed a response to those comments. JCP&L responded to additional NJBPU staff discovery requests in
May and November 2007 and also submitted comments in the proceeding in November 2007. A schedule
for further NJBPU proceedings has not yet been set. On March 13, 2009, JCP&L filed its annual SBC
Petition with the NJBPU that includes a request for a reduction in the level of recovery of TMI-2
decommissioning costs based on an updated TMI-2 decommissioning cost analysis dated January 2009
estimated at $736 million (in 2003 dollars). This matter is currently pending before the NJBPU.
New Jersey statutes require that the state periodically undertake a planning process, known as the
EMP, to address energy related issues including energy security, economic growth, and environmental
impact. The NJBPU adopted an order establishing the general process and contents of specific EMP
plans that must be filed by New Jersey electric and gas utilities in order to achieve the goals of
the EMP. On April 16, 2010, the NJBPU issued an order indefinitely suspending the requirement of
New Jersey utilities to submit Utility Master Plans until such time as the status of the EMP has
been made clear. At this time, FirstEnergy and JCP&L cannot determine the impact, if any, the EMP
may have on their operations.
In support of former New Jersey Governor Corzines Economic Assistance and Recovery Plan, JCP&L
announced a proposal to spend approximately $98 million on infrastructure and energy efficiency
projects in 2009. Under the proposal, an estimated $40 million would be spent on infrastructure
projects, including substation upgrades, new transformers, distribution line re-closers and
automated breaker operations. In addition, approximately $34 million would be spent implementing
new demand response programs as well as expanding on existing programs. Another $11 million would
be spent on energy efficiency, specifically replacing transformers and capacitor control systems
and installing new LED street lights. The remaining $13 million would be spent on energy efficiency
programs that would complement those currently being offered. The project relating to expansion of
the existing demand response programs was approved by the NJBPU on August 19, 2009, and
implementation began in 2009. Approval for the project related to energy efficiency programs
intended to complement those currently being offered was denied by the NJBPU on December 1, 2009.
On
July 6, 2010, the January 30, 2009 petition directed to infrastructure investment which had been
pending before the NJBPU was withdrawn by JCP&L. Implementation of the remaining projects is
dependent upon resolution of regulatory issues including recovery of the costs associated with the
proposal.
FERC Matters
PJM Transmission Rate
On April 19, 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 on August 6, 2009. The court affirmed FERCs ratemaking treatment for
existing transmission facilities, but found that FERC had not supported its decision to allocate
costs for new 500+ kV facilities on a load ratio share basis and, based on this finding, remanded
the rate design issue back to FERC.
In an
order dated January 21, 2010, FERC set the matter for paper hearingsmeaning 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 the
reply comments. PJM filed certain studies with FERC on April 13, 2010, in response to the FERC
order. PJMs filing demonstrated that allocation of the cost of high voltage transmission
facilities on a beneficiary pays basis results in certain eastern utilities in PJM bearing the
majority of their costs. Numerous parties filed responsive comments or studies on May 28, 2010 and
reply comments on June 28, 2010. FirstEnergy and a number of other utilities, industrial customers
and state commissions supported the use of the beneficiary pays approach for cost allocation for
high voltage transmission facilities. Certain eastern utilities and their state commissions
supported continued socialization of these costs on a load ratio share basis. FERC is expected to
act before the end of the year.
92
RTO Consolidation
On December 17, 2009, FERC issued an order approving, subject to certain future compliance filings,
ATSIs move to PJM. This move, which is expected to be effective on June 1, 2011, allows
FirstEnergy to consolidate its transmission assets and operations into PJM. Currently,
FirstEnergys transmission assets and operations are divided between PJM and MISO. The
consolidation will make the transmission assets that are part of ATSI, whose footprint includes the
Ohio Companies and Penn, part of PJM. In the order, FERC approved FirstEnergys proposal to use a
Fixed Resource Requirement Plan (FRR Plan) to obtain capacity to satisfy the PJM capacity
requirements for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 delivery years.
On December 17, 2009, ATSI executed the PJM Consolidated Transmission Owners Agreement and on
December 18, 2009, the Ohio Companies and Penn executed the PJM Operating Agreement and the PJM
Reliability Assurance Agreement. Execution of these agreements committed ATSI, the Ohio Companies
and Penn to the move into PJM.
FirstEnergy successfully conducted the FRR auctions on March 19, 2010. Moreover, the ATSI-zone
loads participated in the PJM base residual auction for the 2013 delivery year. Successful
completion of these steps secured the capacity necessary for the ATSI footprint to meet PJMs
capacity requirements.
On September 4, 2009, the PUCO opened a case to take comments from Ohios stakeholders regarding
the RTO consolidation. On August 25, 2010, the PUCO issued an order that, among other things,
committed the PUCO to close this case and also to withdraw its objections that were filed in the
relevant FERC dockets conditioned upon the Ohio Companies not seeking recovery of MISO exit fees or
PJM integration costs (estimated to be approximately $37 million as of September 30, 2010).
Notwithstanding the PUCOs actions, certain other parties protested aspects of the move into PJM,
and certain of these matters remain outstanding and will be resolved in future FERC proceedings.
Under the terms of the ESP order issued August 25, 2010, the PUCO has agreed to close this docket.
MISO Multi-Value Project Rule Proposal
On July 15, 2010, MISO and certain MISO transmission owners jointly filed with FERC their proposed
cost allocation methodology for new transmission projects. The new transmission projectsdescribed
as Multi-Value Projects (MVPs)are a class of MTEP projects. The MISO proposes 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. MISO expects that
its 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. MISO has requested that FERC rule on its MVP proposal by
December, but has asked for an effective date for its proposal of July 16, 2011. On August 19,
2010, MISOs Board approved the first MVP projectthe so-called 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. This approach is reflected in the MISOs estimated allocations of the costs for the
Michigan Thumb Project, where approximately $16 million in annual revenue requirements were
allocated to the ATSI zone.
On
September 10, 2010, FirstEnergy filed a protest to MISOs
MVP proposal. FirstEnergy believes 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 move to 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. FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
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)
under the CAA 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.
93
The Sammis, Burger, Eastlake and Mansfield coal-fired plants are operated under a consent decree
with the EPA and DOJ that requires reductions of NOX and SO2 emissions
through the installation of pollution control devices or repowering. OE and Penn are subject to
stipulated penalties for failure to install and operate such pollution controls or complete
repowering in accordance with that agreement. Capital expenditures necessary to complete
requirements of the consent decree, including repowering Burger Units 4 and 5 for biomass fuel
combustion, are currently estimated to be approximately $399 million for 2010-2012.
In 2007, PennFuture filed a citizen suit under the CAA, alleging violations of air pollution laws
at the Bruce Mansfield Plant, including opacity limitations, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania. In July 2008, three additional complaints were filed against FGCO
seeking damages based on Bruce Mansfield Plant air emissions. Two of these complaints also seek to
enjoin the Bruce Mansfield Plant from operating except in a safe, responsible, prudent and proper
manner, one being a complaint filed on behalf of twenty-one individuals and the other being a
class action complaint seeking certification as a class action with the eight named plaintiffs as
the class representatives. A settlement was reached with PennFuture. FGCO believes the claims of
the remaining plaintiffs are without merit and intends to defend itself against the allegations
made in those three complaints.
The states of New Jersey and Connecticut filed CAA citizen suits in 2007 alleging NSR violations at
the Portland Generation Station against RRI Energy, Inc. (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.
In January 2009, the EPA issued a NOV to Reliant alleging NSR violations at the Portland Generation
Station based on modifications dating back to 1986 and also alleged NSR violations at the
Keystone and Shawville Stations based on modifications dating back to 1984. Met-Ed, JCP&L, as the
former owner of 16.67% of the Keystone Station, and Penelec, as former owner and operator of the
Shawville Station, are unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
In June 2008, the EPA issued a Notice and Finding of Violation to Mission Energy Westside, Inc.
alleging that modifications at the Homer City Power Station occurred since 1988 to the present
without preconstruction NSR permitting in violation of the CAAs PSD program. In May 2010, the EPA
issued a second NOV to Mission Energy Westside, Inc., 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 identical allegations as the June 2008 NOV. On July 20,
2010, the states of New York and Pennsylvania provided Mission Energy Westside, Inc., Penelec,
NYSEG and others that have had an ownership interest in the Homer City Power Station a notification
required 60 days prior to filing a citizen suit under the CAA. Mission Energy Westside, Inc. is
seeking indemnification from Penelec, the co-owner and operator of the Homer City Power Station
prior to its sale in 1999. The scope of Penelecs indemnity obligation to and from Mission Energy
Westside, Inc. 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.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
The EPAs CAIR requires reductions of NOX and SO2 emissions in two phases (2009/2010 and
2015), ultimately capping SO2 emissions in affected states to 2.5 million tons annually
and NOX emissions to 1.3 million tons annually. In 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia vacated CAIR in its entirety and directed the EPA to redo its analysis from the
ground up. In December 2008, the Court reconsidered its prior ruling and allowed CAIR to remain
in effect to temporarily preserve its environmental values until the EPA replaces CAIR with a new
rule consistent with the Courts opinion. The Court ruled in a different case that a cap-and-trade
program similar to CAIR, called the NOX SIP Call, cannot be used to satisfy certain CAA
requirements (known as reasonably available control technology) for areas in non-attainment under
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In July 2010, the EPA proposed the Clean Air Transport Rule (CATR) to
replace CAIR, which remains in effect until the EPA finalizes CATR. CATR requires reductions of NOX
and SO2 emissions in two phases (2012 and 2014), ultimately capping SO2
emissions in affected states to 2.6 million tons annually and NOX emissions to 1.3 million tons
annually. The EPA proposed a preferred regulatory approach that allows trading of NOX and
SO2 emission allowances between power plants located in the same state 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.
94
Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions
The EPAs CAMR provides for a cap-and-trade program to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired
power plants in two phases; initially, capping nationwide emissions of mercury at 38 tons by 2010
(as a co-benefit from implementation of SO2 and NOX emission caps under the
EPAs CAIR program) and 15 tons per year by 2018. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, at the urging of several states and environmental groups, vacated the CAMR, ruling that
the EPA failed to take the necessary steps to de-list coal-fired power plants from its hazardous
air pollutant program and, therefore, could not promulgate a cap-and-trade program. On April 29,
2010, the EPA issued proposed maximum achievable control technology (MACT) regulations requiring
emissions reductions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from non-electric generating
unit boilers, including boilers which do not use fossil fuels such as the proposed Burger biomass
repowering project. On September 1, 2010, the EPA classified Burger as an existing source for
purposes of the industrial Boiler MACT. If finalized, the non-electric generating unit MACT
regulations could also provide precedent for MACT standards applicable to electric generating
units. The EPA entered into a consent decree requiring it to propose MACT regulations for mercury
and other hazardous air pollutants from electric generating units by March 16, 2011, and to
finalize the regulations by November 16, 2011. Depending on the action taken by the EPA and on how
any future regulations are ultimately implemented, FGCOs future cost of compliance with MACT
regulations may be substantial and changes to FGCOs operations may result.
Climate Change
There are a number of initiatives to reduce GHG emissions under consideration at the federal, state
and international level. At the federal level, members of Congress have introduced several bills
seeking to reduce emissions of GHG in the United States, and the House of Representatives passed
one such bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, on June 26, 2009. The Senate
continues to consider a number of measures to regulate GHG emissions. President Obama has
announced his Administrations New Energy for America Plan that includes, among other provisions,
ensuring that 10% of electricity used in the United States comes from renewable sources by 2012,
increasing to 25% by
2025, and implementing an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce GHG emissions by 80% by
2050. State activities, primarily the northeastern states participating in the Regional Greenhouse
Gas Initiative and western states, led by California, have coordinated efforts to develop regional
strategies to control emissions of certain GHGs.
In September 2009, the EPA finalized a national GHG emissions collection and reporting rule that
will require FirstEnergy to measure GHG emissions commencing in 2010 and submit reports commencing
in 2011. In December 2009, the EPA released its final Endangerment and Cause or Contribute
Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act. The EPAs finding concludes that
concentrations of several key 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, but until July 1, 2011 that emissions applicability threshold will only apply if PSD
is triggered by non-carbon dioxide pollutants.
At the international level, the Kyoto Protocol, signed by the U.S. in 1998 but never submitted for
ratification by the U.S. Senate, was intended to address global warming by reducing the amount of
man-made GHG, including CO2, emitted by developed countries by 2012. A December 2009
U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen did not reach a consensus on a successor treaty to the
Kyoto Protocol, but did take note of the Copenhagen Accord, a non-binding political agreement
which recognized the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below two
degrees Celsius; include 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 establish
the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund to support mitigation, adaptation, and other climate-related
activities in developing countries. Once they have become a party to the Copenhagen Accord,
developed economies, such as the European Union, Japan, Russia and the United States, would commit
to quantified economy-wide emissions targets from 2020, while developing countries, including
Brazil, China and India, would agree to take mitigation actions, subject to their domestic
measurement, reporting and verification.
95
On September 21, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and on October 16, 2009,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded lower court decisions that
had dismissed complaints alleging damage from GHG emissions on jurisdictional grounds. However, a
subsequent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reinstated the lower court
dismissal of a complaint alleging damage from GHG emissions. These cases involve common law tort
claims, including public and private nuisance, alleging that GHG emissions contribute to global
warming and result in property damages. While FirstEnergy is not a party to this litigation,
FirstEnergy and/or one or more of its subsidiaries could be named in actions making similar
allegations.
FirstEnergy cannot currently estimate the financial impact of climate change policies, although
potential legislative or regulatory programs restricting CO2 emissions, or litigation
alleging damages from GHG emissions, could require significant capital and other expenditures or
result in changes to its operations. The CO2 emissions per KWH of electricity generated
by FirstEnergy is lower than many regional competitors due to its diversified generation sources,
which include low or non-CO2 emitting gas-fired and nuclear generators.
Clean Water Act
Various water quality regulations, the majority of which are the result of the federal Clean Water
Act and its amendments, apply to FirstEnergys plants. In addition, Ohio, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania have water quality standards applicable to FirstEnergys operations.
The EPA established new performance standards under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act for
reducing impacts on fish and shellfish from cooling water intake structures at certain existing
electric generating plants. The regulations call for reductions in impingement mortality (when
aquatic organisms are pinned against screens or other parts of a cooling water intake system) and
entrainment (which occurs when aquatic life is drawn into a facilitys cooling water system). The
EPA has taken the position that until further rulemaking occurs, permitting authorities should
continue the existing practice of applying their best professional judgment to minimize impacts on
fish and shellfish from cooling water intake structures. On April 1, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court
reversed one significant aspect of the Second Circuits opinion and decided that Section 316(b) of
the Clean Water Act authorizes the EPA to compare costs with benefits in determining the best
technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact at cooling water intake
structures. The EPA is developing a new regulation under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act
consistent with the opinions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals which have created
significant uncertainty about the specific nature, scope and timing of the final performance
standard. FirstEnergy is studying various control options and their costs and effectiveness,
including pilot testing of reverse louvers in a portion of the Bay Shore power plants water intake
channel to divert fish away from the plants water intake system. On March 15, 2010, the EPA
issued a draft permit for the Bay Shore power plant requiring installation of reverse louvers in
its entire water intake channel by December 31, 2014. Depending on the
results of such studies and the EPAs further rulemaking and any final action taken by the states
exercising best professional judgment, the future costs of compliance with these standards may
require material capital expenditures.
In June 2008, the U.S. Attorneys Office in Cleveland, Ohio advised FGCO that it is considering
prosecution under the Clean Water Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for three petroleum spills
at the Edgewater, Lakeshore and Bay Shore plants which occurred on November 1, 2005, January 26,
2007 and February 27, 2007. FGCO is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
Regulation of Waste Disposal
Federal and state hazardous waste regulations have been promulgated as a result of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, and the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
Certain fossil-fuel combustion residuals, such as coal ash, were exempted from hazardous waste
disposal requirements pending the EPAs evaluation of the need for future regulation. In February
2009, the EPA requested comments from the states on options for regulating coal combustion
residuals, including whether they should be regulated as hazardous or non-hazardous waste.
On December 30, 2009, in an advanced notice of public rulemaking, the EPA said that the large
volumes of coal combustion residuals produced by electric utilities pose significant financial risk
to the industry. On May 4, 2010, the EPA proposed two options for additional regulation of coal
combustion residuals, including the option of regulation as a special waste under the EPAs
hazardous waste management program which could have a significant impact on the management,
beneficial use and disposal of coal combustion residuals. FGCOs future cost of compliance with any
coal combustion residuals regulations which may be promulgated could be substantial and would
depend, in part, on the regulatory action taken by the EPA and implementation by the EPA or the
states.
96
The Utilities have been named as potentially responsible parties at waste disposal sites, which may
require cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980. Allegations of disposal of hazardous substances at historical sites and the liability
involved are often unsubstantiated and subject to dispute; however, federal law provides that all
potentially responsible parties for a particular site may be liable on a joint and several basis.
Environmental liabilities that are considered probable have been recognized on the consolidated
balance sheet as of September 30, 2010, based on estimates of the total costs of cleanup, the
Utilities proportionate responsibility for such costs and the financial ability of other
unaffiliated entities to pay. Total liabilities of approximately $105 million (JCP&L $76 million,
TE $1 million, CEI $1 million, FGCO $1 million and FirstEnergy $26 million) have been
accrued through September 30, 2010. Included in the total are accrued liabilities of approximately
$67 million for environmental remediation of former manufactured gas plants and gas holder
facilities in New Jersey, which are being recovered by JCP&L through a non-bypassable SBC.
Other Legal Proceedings
Power Outages and Related Litigation
In July 1999, the Mid-Atlantic States experienced a severe heat wave, which resulted in power
outages throughout the service territories of many electric utilities, including JCP&Ls territory.
Two class action lawsuits (subsequently consolidated into a single proceeding) were filed in New
Jersey Superior Court in July 1999 against JCP&L, GPU and other GPU companies, seeking compensatory
and punitive damages due to the outages. After various motions, rulings and appeals, the
Plaintiffs claims for consumer fraud, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, strict
product liability and punitive damages were dismissed, leaving only the negligence and breach of
contract causes of actions. 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. JCP&L is waiting for the Courts decision.
Litigation Relating to the Proposed Allegheny Energy Merger
In connection with the proposed merger (Note 16), purported shareholders of Allegheny Energy
have filed putative shareholder class action and/or derivative lawsuits against Allegheny Energy
and its directors and certain officers, referred to as the Allegheny Energy defendants, FirstEnergy
and Merger Sub. Four putative class action and derivative lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court
for Baltimore City, Maryland (Maryland Court). One was withdrawn. The Maryland Court has
consolidated the remaining three cases under the caption: In re Allegheny Energy Shareholder and
Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 24-C-10-1301. Three shareholder lawsuits were filed in the Court of
Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania and the court has consolidated these actions
under the caption: In re Allegheny Energy, Inc. Shareholder Class and Derivative, Litigation, Lead
Case No. 1101 of 2010. One putative shareholder class action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania and is captioned Louisiana Municipal Police Employees
Retirement System v. Evanson, et al., C.A. No. 10-319 NBF. In summary, the lawsuits allege, among
other things, that the Allegheny Energy directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the
merger agreement, and that Allegheny Energy, FirstEnergy and Merger Sub aided and abetted in these
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek, among other things, jury trials, money
damages and injunctive relief. While FirstEnergy believes the
lawsuits are without merit and has defended vigorously against the claims, in order to avoid the
costs associated with the litigation, the defendants have agreed to the terms of a disclosure-based
settlement of all these shareholder lawsuits and have reached agreement with counsel for all of the
plaintiffs concerning fee applications. Under the terms of the settlement, no payments are being
made by FirstEnergy or Merger Sub. A formal stipulation of settlement was filed with the Maryland
Court on October 18, 2010 and agreements have been signed with plaintiffs in the Pennsylvania
proceedings to dismiss those actions once the settlement is approved by the Maryland Court.
The Maryland judge has preliminarily approved the stipulation of settlement and set the final approval hearing date for December 13, 2010.
If the parties are unable to obtain final approval of the settlement, then litigation will proceed, and
the outcome of any such litigation is inherently uncertain. If a dismissal is not granted or a
settlement is not reached, these lawsuits could prevent or delay the completion of the merger and
result in substantial costs to FirstEnergy. The defense or settlement of any lawsuit or claim that
remains unresolved at the time the merger closes may adversely affect FirstEnergys business,
financial condition or results of operations.
Nuclear Plant Matters
During a planned refueling outage that began on February 28, 2010, FENOC conducted a non
destructive examination and testing of the Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM) nozzles of the
Davis-Besse reactor pressure vessel head. FENOC identified flaws in CRDM nozzles that required
modification. The NRC was notified of these findings, along with federal, state and local
officials. On March 17, 2010, the NRC sent a special inspection team to Davis-Besse to assess the
adequacy of FENOCs identification, analyses and resolution of the CRDM nozzle flaws and to ensure
acceptable modifications were made prior to placing the RPV head back in service. After
successfully completing the modifications, FENOC committed to take a number of corrective actions
including strengthening leakage monitoring procedures and shutting Davis-Besse down no later than
October 1, 2011, to replace the reactor pressure vessel head with nozzles made of material less
susceptible to primary water stress corrosion cracking, further enhancing the safe and reliable
operations of the plant. On June 29, 2010, FENOC returned Davis-Besse to service. On September 9,
2010, the NRC held a public exit meeting describing the results of the NRC special inspection team
inspection of FENOCs identification of the CRDM nozzles with flaws and the modifications to those
nozzles.
On October 22, 2010, the NRC issued its final report of the special inspection. The report contained three findings characterized
as very low safety significance that were promptly corrected prior to plant operation.
97
On April 5, 2010, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) requested that the NRC issue a Show Cause
Order, or otherwise delay the restart of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station until the NRC
determines that adequate protection standards have been met and reasonable assurance exists that
these standards will continue to be met after the plants operation is resumed. By a letter dated
July 13, 2010, the NRC denied UCSs request for immediate action because the NRC has conducted
rigorous and independent assessments of returning the Davis-Besse reactor vessel head to service
and its continued operation, and determined that it was safe for the plant to restart. The UCS
petition was referred to a petition manager for further review. What additional actions, if any,
that the NRC takes in response to the UCS request have not been determined.
Under NRC regulations, FirstEnergy must ensure that adequate funds will be available to
decommission its nuclear facilities. As required by the NRC, FirstEnergy annually recalculates and
adjusts the amount of obligations. As of September 30, 2010, FirstEnergy had approximately
$2.0 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.
Other Legal Matters
There are various lawsuits, claims (including claims for asbestos exposure) and proceedings related
to FirstEnergys normal business operations pending against FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries. The
other potentially material items not otherwise discussed above are described below.
On February 16, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in Geauga County Court of Common Pleas
against FirstEnergy, CEI and OE seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, as well as
compensatory, incidental and consequential damages, on behalf of a class of customers related to
the reduction of a discount that had previously been in place for residential customers with
electric heating, electric water heating, or load management systems. The reduction in the discount
was approved by the PUCO. On March 18, 2010, the named-defendant companies filed a motion to
dismiss the case due to the lack of jurisdiction of the court of common pleas. The court granted
the motion to dismiss on September 7, 2010.
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 11 of the Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) for
discussion of new accounting pronouncements.
98
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
MANAGEMENTS NARRATIVE
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
FES is a wholly owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy. FES provides energy-related products and services,
and through its subsidiaries, FGCO and NGC, owns or leases and operates and maintains FirstEnergys
fossil and hydroelectric generation facilities, and owns FirstEnergys nuclear generation
facilities, respectively. FENOC, a wholly owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy, operates and maintains
the nuclear generating facilities.
FES revenues are derived from sales to individual retail customers, sales to communities in the
form of government aggregation programs, the sale of electricity to Met-Ed and Penelec to meet all
of their POLR and default service requirements, and its participation in affiliated and
non-affiliated POLR auctions. FES sales are concentrated in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Maryland,
Michigan and New Jersey.
The demand for electricity produced and sold by FES, along with the price of that electricity, is
impacted by conditions in competitive power markets, global economic activity, economic activity in
the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic regions and weather conditions.
For additional information with respect to FES, please see the information contained in
FirstEnergys Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
above under the following subheadings, which information is incorporated by reference herein:
Capital Resources and Liquidity, Guarantees and Other Assurances, Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements,
Market Risk Information, Credit Risk, Outlook and New Accounting Standards and Interpretations.
Results of Operations
Net income decreased by $491 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same period
of 2009. The decrease was primarily due to a $292 million impairment charge ($181 million net of
tax) related to operational changes at certain smaller coal-fired units in response to the
continued slow economy, lower demand for electricity and uncertainty related to proposed new
federal environmental regulations. In addition, the absence of a $252 million ($158 million after
tax) gain in 2009 from the sale of a 9% participation interest in OVEC, lower investment income
from the nuclear decommissioning trusts and a decrease in sales margins also contributed to the
decline in net income.
Revenues
Excluding the impact of the 2009 gain on the OVEC sale, total revenues increased $836 million in
the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same period of 2009, primarily due to an increase in
direct and government aggregation sales volumes and sales of RECs, partially offset by decreases in
POLR sales to the Ohio Companies and wholesale sales.
The increase in revenues resulted from the following sources:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended September 30 |
|
|
Increase |
|
Revenues by Type of Service |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Direct and Government Aggregation |
|
$ |
1,814 |
|
|
$ |
406 |
|
|
$ |
1,408 |
|
POLR |
|
|
1,911 |
|
|
|
2,369 |
|
|
|
(458 |
) |
Other Wholesale |
|
|
322 |
|
|
|
503 |
|
|
|
(181 |
) |
Transmission |
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
RECs |
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67 |
|
Sale of OVEC participation interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
252 |
|
|
|
(252 |
) |
Other |
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
85 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
4,256 |
|
|
$ |
3,672 |
|
|
$ |
584 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in direct and government aggregation revenues of $1,408 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 1.2 million
residential and small commercial customers at the end of September 2010 compared to 500,000 such
customers at the end of September 2009, partially offset by lower unit prices. In addition, sales
to residential and small commercial customers were bolstered by weather in the delivery area that
was 69% warmer than in 2009.
99
The decrease in POLR revenues of $458 million was due to lower sales volumes to the Ohio Companies
and lower unit prices, partially offset by increased sales volumes and higher unit prices to the
Pennsylvania Companies. The lower sales volumes and unit prices to the Ohio Companies in 2010
reflected the results of the May 2009 power procurement process. The increased revenues from the
Pennsylvania Companies resulted from FES supplying Met-Ed and Penelec with volumes previously
supplied through a third-party contract and at prices that were slightly higher than in 2009.
Other wholesale revenues decreased $181 million due to reduced volumes and lower
prices. The lower sales volumes were due to available capacity serving increased retail sales in
Ohio. In July 2010, FES entered into financial transactions that offset the mark-to-market impact
of legacy purchased power contracts totaling 500 MW entered into in 2008 for delivery in 2010 and
2011 and which have been marked to market since December 2009. These financial transactions
mitigate the volatility of these contracts through the end of 2011 and resulted in revenues of $13
million in 2010.
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 |
|
$ |
909 |
|
Change in prices |
|
|
(73 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
836 |
|
|
|
|
|
Government Aggregation |
|
|
|
|
Effect of increase in sales volumes |
|
|
570 |
|
Change in prices |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
572 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Direct and Govt Aggregation Revenues |
|
$ |
1,408 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Wholesale Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
POLR: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of decrease in sales volumes |
|
$ |
(200 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
(258 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(458 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other Wholesale: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of decrease in sales volumes |
|
|
(147 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
(34 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(181 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Wholesale Revenues |
|
$ |
(639 |
) |
|
|
|
|
The sale of RECs resulted in gains of $67 million in the nine months ended September 2010.
Transmission revenues increased $1 million due primarily to higher MISO congestion revenue, offset
by lower PJM congestion revenue.
Expenses
Total expenses increased $1.2 billion in the first nine months of 2010, compared with the same
period of 2009.
100
The following table summarizes the factors contributing to the changes in fuel and purchased power
costs in the first nine months of 2010, from the same period last year:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Fuel and Purchased Power |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Fossil Fuel: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to increased unit costs |
|
$ |
30 |
|
Change due to volume consumed |
|
|
135 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
165 |
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear Fuel: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to increased unit costs |
|
|
23 |
|
Change due to volume consumed |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
Non-affiliated Purchased Power: |
|
|
|
|
Power contract mark-to-market adjustment |
|
|
43 |
|
Change due to decreased unit costs |
|
|
(84 |
) |
Change due to volume purchased |
|
|
650 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
609 |
|
|
|
|
|
Affiliated Purchased Power: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to increased unit costs |
|
|
81 |
|
Change due to volume purchased |
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Fuel and Purchased Power Costs |
|
$ |
896 |
|
|
|
|
|
Fossil fuel costs increased $165 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same
period of 2009, as a result of higher generation volumes consumed combined with increased unit
prices. Increased volume reflects higher generation in the first nine months of 2010, compared to
the same period last year due to improving economic conditions. The increased costs reflect higher
coal and transportation charges in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same period last
year. Nuclear fuel costs increased $26 million primarily due to the replacement of nuclear fuel at
higher unit costs following the refueling outages that occurred in 2009.
Non-affiliated purchased power costs increased $609 million due primarily to higher volumes
purchased and a power contract mark-to-market adjustment, partially offset by lower unit costs. The
increase in volume primarily relates to the assumption of a 1,300 MW third party contract from
Met-Ed and Penelec. Affiliated purchased power increased $96 million primarily due to higher unit
costs combined with higher volumes purchased from affiliated companies.
Other operating expenses increased $25 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same period of 2009, primarily due to
increased transmission expenses ($36 million), from $111 million in the first nine months of 2009 to $147 million in the same time period
of 2010, primarily due to increased sales volumes and increased uncollectible customer accounts and agent fees ($22 million) associated with the growth in direct and government
aggregation sales, partially offset by lower nuclear ($39 million) and fossil ($18 million)
operating costs. Nuclear operating costs decreased primarily due to lower labor, consulting and contractor costs. The first nine months
of 2010 had one less refueling outage and fewer extended outages than the same period of 2009. Fossil operating costs decreased primarily
due to lower labor costs.
In the first nine month of 2010 impairment charges of long-lived assets increased expenses by $294
million primarily due to a $292 million impairment charge ($181 million net of tax) related to
operational changes at certain smaller coal-fired units in response to the continued slow economy,
lower demand for electricity, as well as uncertainty related to proposed new federal environmental
regulations. As a result of this impairment depreciation expense decreased in the first nine month
of 2010 compared to the same time period of 2009.
General taxes increased $5 million due to sales taxes associated with increased revenues.
Other Expense
Total other expense increased $128 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same
period of 2009, primarily due to a decrease in nuclear decommissioning trust investment income ($94
million) combined with an increase in interest expense (net of capitalized interest).
Interest expense increased primarily due to new long-term debt issued combined with the
restructuring of existing PCRBs.
101
OHIO EDISON COMPANY
MANAGEMENTS NARRATIVE
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
OE is a wholly owned electric utility subsidiary of FirstEnergy. OE and its wholly owned
subsidiary, Penn, conduct business in portions of Ohio and Pennsylvania, providing regulated
electric distribution services. They procure generation services for those franchise customers
electing to retain OE and Penn as their power supplier.
For additional information with respect to OE, please see the information contained in
FirstEnergys Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
above under the following subheadings, which information is incorporated by reference herein:
Capital Resources and Liquidity, Guarantees and Other Assurances, Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements,
Market Risk Information, Credit Risk, Outlook and New Accounting Standards and Interpretations.
Results of Operations
Earnings available to parent increased by $40 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to
the same period of 2009. The increase primarily resulted from lower purchased power costs and other
operating costs, partially offset by lower revenues and investment income.
Revenues
Revenues decreased $589 million, or 29%, in the first nine months of 2010, compared with the same
period in 2009, due primarily to a decrease in generation revenues.
Retail generation revenues decreased $584 million primarily due to a decrease in KWH sales in all
customer classes. Lower KWH sales were primarily the result of a 42% increase in customer shopping
in the first nine months of 2010. That condition is expected to continue to impact the comparative
sales levels for the remainder of 2010. Lower KWH sales to residential customers were partially
offset by increased weather-related usage in the first nine months of 2010, reflecting an 87%
increase in cooling degree days in OEs service territory. Decreased volumes were partially offset
by higher average prices in the commercial and industrial classes. Higher average prices in the
commercial and industrial classes resulted from the CBP auction for the service period beginning
June 1, 2009.
Changes in retail generation KWH sales and revenues in the first nine months of 2010, compared to
the same period in 2009, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation KWH Sales |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
(26.0 |
)% |
Commercial |
|
|
(60.0 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
(62.7 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Sales |
|
|
(45.7 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation Revenues |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
(166 |
) |
Commercial |
|
|
(236 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(182 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
(584 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Wholesale generation revenues increased $4 million primarily due to an increase in sales to FES
from OEs leasehold interests in Perry Unit 1 and Beaver Valley Unit 2, partially offset by lower
unit prices.
Distribution revenues decreased $1 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same
period in 2009, due to lower commercial and industrial revenues, partially offset by higher
residential revenues. Commercial and industrial revenues were primarily impacted by lower average
unit prices, resulting from lower transmission rates in 2010. Residential distribution revenues
were higher due to higher average unit prices resulting from the 2009 ESP and higher KWH deliveries
resulting from the warmer conditions described above. Increased industrial deliveries were the
result of an
increase in KWH deliveries to major steel customers (42%) and automotive customers (25%),
reflecting improving economic conditions.
102
Changes in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first nine months of 2010, compared to
the same period in 2009, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution KWH Sales |
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
6.3 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
2.1 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
10.6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Increase in Distribution Deliveries |
|
|
6.2 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Distribution Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
27 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
(9 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Distribution Revenues |
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Expenses
Total expenses decreased $674 million in the first nine months of 2010, from the same period of
2009. The following table presents changes from the prior period by expense category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Expenses - Changes |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Purchased power costs |
|
$ |
(564 |
) |
Other operating expenses |
|
|
(100 |
) |
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(11 |
) |
General taxes |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Expenses |
|
$ |
(674 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchased power costs decreased in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same period of
2009, primarily due to lower KWH purchases resulting from reduced requirements from increased
customer shopping in the first nine months of 2010 and slightly lower unit costs. The decrease in
other operating costs for the first nine months of 2010, was primarily due to lower MISO
transmission expenses ($48 million) (assumed by third party suppliers beginning June 1, 2009) and
lower costs associated with regulatory obligations for economic development and energy efficiency
programs under OEs 2009 ESP ($18 million). The amortization of regulatory assets decreased
primarily due to lower MISO transmission cost amortization, partially offset by the recovery of
certain regulatory assets.
Other Expense
Other expense increased $21 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same period
of 2009, primarily due to lower nuclear decommissioning trust investment income.
103
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 increased by $93 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to
the same period of 2009. The increase in earnings was primarily due to the absence in 2010 of
one-time regulatory charges recognized in 2009, and decreased purchased power and other operating
costs, partially offset by decreased revenues and deferred regulatory assets.
Revenues
Revenues decreased $406 million, or 30%, in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same
period of 2009, due to decreased retail generation and distribution revenues.
Distribution revenues decreased $76 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same
period of 2009, due to lower average unit prices for all customer classes offset by increased KWH
deliveries in all sectors. The lower average unit prices were the result of lower transition rates
in 2010. Higher residential deliveries resulted from increased weather-related usage in the first
nine months of 2010, reflecting a 73% increase in cooling degree days. Increased industrial
deliveries were the result of an increase in KWH deliveries to major steel customers (168%) and
automotive customers (12%), reflecting improving economic conditions.
Changes in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first nine months of 2010, compared to
the same period of 2009, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution KWH Sales |
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
7.3 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
2.4 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
14.4 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Increase in Distribution Deliveries |
|
|
8.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution Revenues |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
|
|
Commercial |
|
|
(29 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(47 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Distribution Revenues |
|
$ |
(76 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Retail generation revenues decreased $321 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the
same period of 2009, primarily due to lower KWH sales across all customer classes. Reduced KWH
sales were primarily the result of increased customer shopping in the first nine months of 2010.
That condition is expected to continue to impact the comparative sales levels for the remainder of
2010. Lower KWH sales to residential customers were partially offset by increased KWH deliveries
resulting from the warmer weather conditions described above. Decreased volumes were partially
offset by higher average unit prices in all customer classes. Retail generation prices increased
in 2010 as a result of the CBP auction for the service period beginning June 1, 2009.
104
Changes in retail generation sales and revenues in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the
same period of 2009, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation KWH Sales |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
(51.7 |
)% |
Commercial |
|
|
(69.4 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
(47.4 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Sales |
|
|
(54.2 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation Revenues |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
(78 |
) |
Commercial |
|
|
(126 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(117 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
(321 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Expenses
Total expenses decreased $561 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same period
of 2009. The following table presents the change from the prior period by expense category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Expenses - Changes |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Purchased power costs |
|
$ |
(441 |
) |
Other operating costs |
|
|
(45 |
) |
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(205 |
) |
Deferral of new regulatory assets |
|
|
135 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Expenses |
|
$ |
(561 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchased power costs decreased in the first nine months of 2010, primarily due to lower KWH sales
requirements as discussed above. Other operating costs decreased due to lower transmission expenses
(assumed by third party suppliers beginning June 1, 2009), labor and employee benefit expenses and
the absence in 2010 of $12 million of costs incurred in the first nine months of 2009 associated
with regulatory obligations for economic development and energy efficiency programs. Decreased
amortization of regulatory assets was due primarily to the 2009 impairment of CEIs Extended RTC
regulatory asset of $216 million in accordance with the PUCO-approved ESP. A decrease in the
deferral of new regulatory assets was primarily due to CEIs contemporaneous recovery of purchased
power costs in 2010. General taxes decreased in the first nine months of 2010, primarily due to a
2010 favorable tax settlement in Ohio.
Other Expense
Other expense increased $4 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same period of
2009 due primarily to lower investment income.
105
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY
MANAGEMENTS NARRATIVE
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
TE is a wholly owned electric utility subsidiary of FirstEnergy. TE conducts business in
northwestern Ohio, providing regulated electric distribution services. TE also procures generation
services for those customers electing to retain TE as their power supplier.
For additional information with respect to TE, please see the information contained in
FirstEnergys Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
under the following subheadings, which information is incorporated by reference herein: Capital
Resources and Liquidity, Guarantees and Other Assurances, Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements, Market
Risk Information, Credit Risk, Outlook and New Accounting Standards and Interpretations.
Results of Operations
Earnings available to parent increased by $13 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to
the same period of 2009. The increase was primarily due to decreased net amortization of regulatory
assets, purchased power and other operating costs, partially offset by an increase in interest
expense and decreases in revenues and investment income.
Revenues
Revenues decreased $287 million, or 42%, in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same
period of 2009, primarily due to lower retail generation and distribution revenues, partially
offset by an increase in wholesale generation revenues.
Distribution revenues decreased $22 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same
period of 2009, primarily due to lower unit prices, partially offset by increased KWH deliveries to
all customer classes. Lower unit prices are primarily due to lower transmission rates. Higher KWH
deliveries were influenced by weather-related usage in the first nine months of 2010, reflecting an
84% increase in cooling degree days in TEs service territory. Increased industrial deliveries were
the result of an increase in KWH deliveries to major automotive customers (29%) and steel customers
(27%), reflecting improving economic conditions.
Changes in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first nine months of 2010, compared to
the same period of 2009, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution KWH Sales |
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
9.8 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
2.2 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
15.5 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Increase in Distribution Deliveries |
|
|
10.3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Distribution Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
2 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
(7 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Distribution Revenues |
|
$ |
(22 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Retail generation revenues decreased $282 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the
same period of 2009, primarily due to lower KWH sales across all customer classes and lower unit
prices to industrial customers. Lower KWH sales to all customer classes were primarily the result
of a 59% increase in customer shopping in the first nine months of 2010. That condition is expected
to continue to impact the comparative sales levels for the remainder of 2010. Lower unit prices
for industrial customers were primarily due to the absence of TEs fuel cost recovery and rate
stabilization riders that were effective from January through May 2009, partially offset by
increased generation prices resulting from the CBP auction, effective June 1, 2009.
106
Changes in retail generation KWH sales and revenues in the first nine months of 2010, compared to
the same period of 2009, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation KWH Sales |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
(45.1 |
)% |
Commercial |
|
|
(72.5 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
(59.4 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Sales |
|
|
(59.0 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation Revenues |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
(57 |
) |
Commercial |
|
|
(104 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(121 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
(282 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Wholesale revenues increased $14 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same
period of 2009, primarily due to higher revenues from sales to NGC from TEs leasehold interest in
Beaver Valley Unit 2.
Expenses
Total expenses decreased $328 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same period
of 2009. The following table presents changes from the prior period by expense category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Expenses - Changes |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Purchased power costs |
|
$ |
(263 |
) |
Other operating expenses |
|
|
(31 |
) |
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
1 |
|
Amortization (deferral) of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Expenses |
|
$ |
(328 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchased power costs decreased in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same period of
2009, due to lower volume as a result of decreased KWH sales requirements. Other operating costs
decreased primarily due to reduced transmission expense (assumed by third party suppliers beginning
June 1, 2009), lower costs associated with regulatory obligations for economic development and
energy efficiency programs and decreased labor expenses. The amortization of regulatory assets
decreased primarily due to PUCO-approved cost deferrals and lower MISO transmission cost
amortization in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same period of 2009.
Other Expense
Other expense increased $17 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same period
of 2009, primarily due to higher interest expense associated with the April 2009 issuance of $300
million senior secured notes and lower nuclear decommissioning trust investment income.
107
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
MANAGEMENTS NARRATIVE
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
JCP&L is a wholly owned, electric utility subsidiary of FirstEnergy. JCP&L conducts business in New
Jersey, providing regulated electric transmission and distribution services. JCP&L also procures
generation services for franchise customers electing to retain JCP&L as their power supplier. JCP&L
procures electric supply to serve its BGS customers through a statewide auction process approved by
the NJBPU.
For additional information with respect to JCP&L, please see the information contained in
FirstEnergys Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
under the following subheadings, which information is incorporated by reference herein: Capital
Resources and Liquidity, Guarantees and Other Assurances, Market Risk Information, Credit Risk,
Outlook and New Accounting Standards and Interpretations.
Results of Operations
Net income increased by $34 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same period
of 2009. The increase was primarily due to higher revenues, lower purchased power costs and
decreased net amortization of regulatory assets, partially offset by increased other operating
costs.
Revenues
In the first nine months of 2010, revenues increased $43 million, or 2%, compared to the same
period of 2009. The increase in revenues is primarily due to higher distribution, wholesale
generation and other revenues, partially offset by a decrease in retail generation revenues.
Distribution revenues increased $63 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same
period of 2009, due to higher KWH deliveries in all customer classes. Increased usage was due to
warmer weather and improved economic conditions in JCP&Ls service territory. Decreased composite
unit prices in the commercial and industrial classes partially offset the increased volume.
Changes in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first nine months of 2010 compared to
the same period of 2009 are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution KWH Sales |
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
10.6 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
2.9 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
3.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Increase in Distribution Deliveries |
|
|
6.3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution Revenues |
|
Increase |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
58 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
5 |
|
Industrial |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase in Distribution Revenues |
|
$ |
63 |
|
|
|
|
|
Retail generation revenues decreased $54 million due to lower retail generation KWH sales in the
commercial and industrial classes, partially offset by higher KWH sales in the residential class.
Lower sales to the commercial and industrial classes were primarily due to an increase in the
number of shopping customers. Higher KWH sales to the residential class reflected increased
weather-related usage resulting from a 60% increase in cooling degree days during the first nine
months of 2010.
108
Changes in retail generation KWH sales and revenues in the first nine months of 2010, compared to
the same period of 2009, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Retail Generation KWH Sales |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
10.1 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
(27.7 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
(21.4 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Retail Generation Sales |
|
|
(5.0 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Retail Generation Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
81 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
(127 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Retail Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
(54 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Wholesale generation revenues increased $22 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to
the same period of 2009, due primarily to higher wholesale energy prices.
Other revenues increased $8 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same period
of 2009, primarily due to an increase in transition bond revenues as a result of higher KWH
deliveries in all customer classes.
Expenses
Total expenses decreased $18 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same period
of 2009. The following table presents changes from the prior period by expense category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Expenses - Changes |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Purchased power costs |
|
$ |
(33 |
) |
Other operating costs |
|
|
19 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
5 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(12 |
) |
General taxes |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Expenses |
|
$ |
(18 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchased power costs decreased in the first nine months of 2010 primarily due to the lower retail
generation KWH sales requirements. Other operating costs increased in the first nine months of 2010
primarily due to major storm clean up costs in JCP&Ls service territory, partially offset by a
favorable settlement of $7 million for collective bargaining agreement recognized in the second
quarter of 2010. Depreciation expense increased due to an increase in depreciable property since
the third quarter of 2009. The amortization of regulatory assets decreased in the first nine months
of 2010 primarily due to the deferral of storm costs.
109
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
MANAGEMENTS NARRATIVE
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Met-Ed is a wholly owned electric utility subsidiary of FirstEnergy. Met-Ed conducts business in
eastern Pennsylvania, providing regulated electric transmission and distribution services. Met-Ed
also procures generation service for those customers electing to retain Met-Ed as their power
supplier. Met-Ed has a wholesale power sales agreement with FES, to supply all of its energy
requirements at fixed prices through the end of 2010.
For additional information with respect to Met-Ed, please see the information contained in
FirstEnergys Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
under the following subheadings, which information is incorporated by reference herein: Capital
Resources and Liquidity, Guarantees and Other Assurances, Market Risk Information, Credit Risk,
Outlook and New Accounting Standards and Interpretations.
Results of Operations
Net income increased by $6 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same period of
2009. The increase was primarily due to increased revenues and decreased amortization of net
regulatory assets, partially offset by increased purchased power and other operating expenses.
Revenues
Revenue increased $147 million, or 12%, in the first nine months of 2010 compared to the same
period of 2009, reflecting higher distribution and generation revenues, partially offset by a
decrease in transmission revenues.
Distribution revenues increased $82 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same
period of 2009, primarily due to higher rates resulting from the annual update to Met-Eds TSC
rider effective June 1, 2010, partially offset by lower CTC rates for the residential class. 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 a 59% increase in cooling degree days in the first nine months of
2010, partially offset by an 11% decrease in heating degree days for the same period.
Changes in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first nine months of 2010, compared to
the same period of 2009, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
5.0 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
4.4 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
4.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Increase in Distribution Deliveries |
|
|
4.6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution Revenues |
|
Increase |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
40 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
27 |
|
Industrial |
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
Increase in Distribution Revenues |
|
$ |
82 |
|
|
|
|
|
Retail generation revenues increased $36 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the
same period of 2009, due to higher composite unit prices in the residential and commercial customer
classes and higher KWH sales to all customer classes. The higher unit prices were primarily due to
an increase in the generation rate, effective January 1, 2010. Higher KWH sales to residential and
commercial customers increased primarily due to weather-related usage described above. Increased
customer shopping in the commercial and industrial classes partially offset the higher KWH sales in
these classes.
110
Changes in retail generation KWH sales and revenues in the first nine months of 2010, compared to
the same period of 2009, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation KWH Sales |
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
5.0 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
2.8 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
1.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Increase in Retail Generation Sales |
|
|
3.3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation Revenues |
|
Increase |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
30 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
5 |
|
Industrial |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Increase in Retail Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
36 |
|
|
|
|
|
Wholesale revenues increased $42 million in the first nine months of 2010 compared to the same
period of 2009, primarily reflecting higher PJM capacity prices.
Transmission revenues decreased $13 million in the first nine months of 2010 compared to the same
period of 2009 primarily due to decreased Financial Transmission Rights revenues. Met-Ed defers the
difference between transmission revenues and transmission costs incurred, resulting in no material
effect to current period earnings.
Expenses
Total expenses increased $130 million in the first nine months of 2010 compared to the same period
of 2009. The following table presents changes from the prior year by expense category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Expenses - Changes |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Purchased power costs |
|
$ |
78 |
|
Other operating costs |
|
|
112 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
1 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(61 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Expenses |
|
$ |
130 |
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power costs increased $78 million in the first nine months of 2010 due to an increase in
unit costs and increased KWH purchased to source increased generation sales requirements. Other
operating costs increased $112 million in the first nine months of 2010 compared to the same period
in 2009 primarily due to higher transmission congestion and transmission loss expenses (see
reference to deferral accounting above). Depreciation expense increased $1 million due to an
increase in depreciable property since September of 2009. The amortization of regulatory assets
decreased $61 million in the first nine months of 2010 primarily due to higher PJM deferrals
resulting from increased transmission costs and reduced amortization from decreasing asset
balances.
Other Expense
In the first nine months of 2010, interest income decreased $4 million due to reduced CTC stranded
asset balances.
111
PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
MANAGEMENTS NARRATIVE
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Penelec is a wholly owned electric utility subsidiary of FirstEnergy. Penelec conducts business in
northern and south central Pennsylvania, providing regulated transmission and distribution
services. Penelec also procures generation services for those customers electing to retain Penelec
as their power supplier. Penelec has a wholesale power sales agreement with FES, to supply all of
its energy requirements at fixed prices through the end of 2010.
For additional information with respect to Penelec, please see the information contained in
FirstEnergys Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
under the following subheadings, which information is incorporated by reference herein: Capital
Resources and Liquidity, Guarantees and Other Assurances, Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements, Market
Risk Information, Credit Risk, Outlook and New Accounting Standards and Interpretations.
Results of Operations
Net income increased by $1 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same period of
2009. The increase was primarily due to higher revenues and net deferral of regulatory assets,
partially offset by higher purchased power, other operating costs and interest expense.
Revenues
In the first nine months of 2010, revenues increased $84 million, or 7.8%, compared to the same
period of 2009. The increase in revenue was primarily due to higher generation revenues, partially
offset by lower distribution and transmission revenues.
Distribution revenues decreased by $2 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the
same period of 2009, primarily due to a decrease in the CTC rate in all customer classes, partially
offset by an increase in the universal service and energy efficiency rates for the residential
customer class and increased KWH sales in all customer classes.
Changes in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first nine months of 2010, compared to
the same period of 2009, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
4.6 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
4.6 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
6.3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Increase in Distribution Deliveries |
|
|
5.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Distribution Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
19 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
(12 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Distribution Revenues |
|
$ |
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Retail generation revenues increased $66 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the
same period of 2009, primarily due to higher unit prices and KWH sales in all customer classes. The
higher unit prices were primarily due to an increase in the generation rate, effective January 1,
2010. Higher KWH sales to industrial customers were due to improved economic conditions in
Penelecs service territory. Higher KWH sales to residential and commercial customers increased
primarily due to weather-related usage, reflecting a 94% increase in cooling degree days in the
first nine months of 2010, partially offset by a 10% decrease in heating degree days for the same
period.
112
Changes in retail generation sales and revenues in the first nine months of 2010 compared to the
same period of 2009 are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation KWH Sales |
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
4.6 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
4.3 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
6.9 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Increase in Retail Generation Sales |
|
|
5.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation Revenues |
|
Increase |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
17 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
26 |
|
Industrial |
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
Increase in Retail Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
66 |
|
|
|
|
|
Wholesale generation revenues increased $39 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to
the same period of 2009, due primarily to higher PJM capacity prices.
Transmission revenues decreased by $13 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the
same period of 2009, primarily due to lower Financial Transmission Rights revenue. Penelec defers
the difference between transmission revenues and transmission costs incurred, resulting in no
material effect to current period earnings.
Expenses
Total expenses increased by $71 million in the first nine months of 2010, as compared with the same
period of 2009. The following table presents changes from the prior period by expense category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Expenses - Changes |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Purchased power costs |
|
$ |
111 |
|
Other operating costs |
|
|
27 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
1 |
|
Amortization (deferral) of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(66 |
) |
General taxes |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Expenses |
|
$ |
71 |
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power costs increased $111 million in the first nine months of 2010, compared to the same
period of 2009, primarily due to an increase in unit costs and increased KWH purchased to source
increased generation sales requirements. Other operating costs increased $27 million in the first
nine months of 2010, primarily due to higher transmission congestion and transmission loss expenses
(see reference to deferral accounting above). The amortization (deferral) of net regulatory assets
decreased $66 million in the first nine months of 2010, primarily due to increased cost deferrals
resulting from higher transmission expenses and decreased amortization of regulatory assets
resulting from lower CTC revenues. General taxes decreased $2 million primarily due to a favorable
ruling on a property tax appeal in the first quarter of 2010.
Other Expense
In the first nine months of 2010, other expense increased $14 million primarily due to an increase
in interest expense on long-term debt due to a $500 million debt issuance in September 2009.
113
ITEM 3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
See Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Market Risk Information in Item 2 above.
ITEM 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
(a) EVALUATION OF DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES FIRSTENERGY
FirstEnergys management, with the participation of its chief executive officer and chief financial
officer, have reviewed and evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures, as defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, Rules 13a-15(e) and
15(d)-15(e), as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based on that evaluation, the
chief executive officer and chief financial officer have concluded that the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures were effective as of the end of the period covered by this report.
(b) CHANGES IN INTERNAL CONTROLS
During the quarter ended September 30, 2010, there were no changes in FirstEnergys internal
control over financial reporting that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
ITEM 4T. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES FES, OE, CEI, TE, JCP&L, MET-ED AND PENELEC
(a) EVALUATION OF DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
Each registrants management, with the participation of its chief executive officer and chief
financial officer, have reviewed and evaluated the effectiveness of such registrants disclosure
controls and procedures, as defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, Rules
13a-15(e) and 15(d)-15(e), as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based on that
evaluation, each registrants chief executive officer and chief financial officer have concluded
that such registrants disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of the end of the
period covered by this report.
(b) CHANGES IN INTERNAL CONTROLS
During the quarter ended September 30, 2010, there were no changes in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that has materially affected, or are reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Information required for Part II, Item 1 is incorporated by reference to the discussions in Notes 9
and 10 of the Consolidated Financial Statements in Part I, Item 1 of this Form 10-Q.
ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
FirstEnergys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, includes a detailed
discussion of its risk factors. There have been no material changes to these risk factors for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.
ITEM 2. UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS
(c) FirstEnergy
The table below includes information on a monthly basis regarding purchases made by FirstEnergy of
its common stock during the third quarter of 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period |
|
|
|
July |
|
|
August |
|
|
September |
|
|
Third Quarter |
|
Total Number of Shares
Purchased(a) |
|
|
38,180 |
|
|
|
43,103 |
|
|
|
460,312 |
|
|
|
541,595 |
|
Average Price Paid per
Share |
|
$ |
36.41 |
|
|
$ |
37.28 |
|
|
$ |
36.76 |
|
|
$ |
36.78 |
|
Total Number of Shares
Purchased As Part of
Publicly Announced
Plans or Programs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maximum Number (or
Approximate Dollar
Value) of Shares that
May Yet Be Purchased
Under the Plans or
Programs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Share amounts reflect purchases on the open market to satisfy
FirstEnergys obligations to deliver common stock under its 2007
Incentive Compensation Plan, Deferred Compensation Plan for Outside
Directors, Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, Savings Plan and
Stock Investment Plan. In addition, such amounts reflect shares
tendered by employees to pay the exercise price or withholding taxes
upon exercise of stock options granted under the 2007 Incentive
Compensation Plan and the Executive Deferred Compensation Plan. |
ITEM 5. OTHER INFORMATION
Signal Peak and Global Rail Credit Facility
On October 22, 2010, FEV, WMB Loan Ventures LLC and WMB Loan Ventures II LLC, the entities that own mining and coal transportation operations near Roundup, Montana
(Signal Peak and Global Rail) entered into a $350 million syndicated two-year senior secured term loan facility among the two limited liability
companies that comprise Signal Peak and Global Rail, as borrowers Sovereign Bank, CoBank, Credit Agricole, U.S. Bank, BBVA Compass, Royal Bank of Canada,
Fifth Third, Comerica Bank, CIBC Inc. and First Merit banks, as lenders, and Union Bank, N.A., as lender, administrative agent, collateral
agent and syndication agent. FirstEnergy, together with WMB Loan Ventures LLC and WMB Loan Ventures II LLC, the entities that share ownership with FEV in the borrowers have provided a guaranty
of the borrowers obligations under the facility. In addition, FEV and the other entities that directly own the equity interests in
the borrowers have pledged those interests to the banks as collateral for the facility. The loan matures on October 22, 2012. The loan
proceeds were used by the borrowers primarily to repay $258 million of notes payable to FirstEnergy, including $9 million of interest,
and $63 million of bank loans that were scheduled to mature on November 16, 2010. Additional proceeds will be used for general company
purposes, including an $11 million repayment of a third-party sellers note maturing October 29, 2010.
114
The facility contains customary representations, warranties, covenants and events of defaults of
the borrowers, the guarantors and the pledgors and the foregoing description of the facility is
qualified in its entirety by reference to the copy
of the credit agreement, including the forms of the guaranty and pledge agreement attached as
exhibits thereto, included with this report as Exhibit 10.3.
ITEM 6. EXHIBITS
Exhibit Number
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.1 |
|
|
Amended FirstEnergy Corp. Deferred Compensation Plan for Outside Directors,
amended and restated as of September 21, 2010. |
|
|
|
10.2 |
|
|
Amended FirstEnergy Corp. Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, amended and
restated as of September 21, 2010. |
|
|
|
10.3 |
|
|
Signal Peak Credit Agreement, including the forms of the guaranty and pledge
agreement attached as exhibits thereto |
|
|
|
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 September 30, 2010, formatted in XBRL (extensible
Business Reporting Language): (i) Consolidated Statements of Income and
Comprehensive Income, (ii) Consolidated Balance Sheets, (iii) Consolidated
Statements of Cash Flows, (iv) related notes to these financial statements
tagged as blocks of text and (v) document and entity information. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
Fixed charge ratios |
|
|
|
31.1 |
|
|
Certification of chief executive officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
|
31.2 |
|
|
Certification of chief financial officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
Certification of chief executive officer and chief financial officer, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
Fixed charge ratios |
|
|
|
31.1 |
|
|
Certification of chief executive officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
|
31.2 |
|
|
Certification of chief financial officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
Certification of chief executive officer and chief financial officer, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEI
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
Fixed charge ratios |
|
|
|
31.1 |
|
|
Certification of chief executive officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
|
31.2 |
|
|
Certification of chief financial officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
Certification of chief executive officer and chief financial officer, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
Fixed charge ratios |
|
|
|
31.1 |
|
|
Certification of chief executive officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
|
31.2 |
|
|
Certification of chief financial officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
Certification of chief executive officer and chief financial officer, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JCP&L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
Fixed charge ratios |
|
|
|
31.1 |
|
|
Certification of chief executive officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
|
31.2 |
|
|
Certification of chief financial officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
Certification of chief executive officer and chief financial officer, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 |
115
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
116
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.
October 26, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
Registrant
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
Registrant
OHIO EDISON COMPANY
Registrant
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC
ILLUMINATING COMPANY
Registrant
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY
Registrant
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
Registrant
PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
Registrant
|
|
|
|
/s/ Harvey L. Wagner
|
|
|
Harvey L. Wagner |
|
|
Vice President, Controller
and Chief Accounting Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
Registrant
|
|
|
/s/ K. Jon Taylor
|
|
|
K. Jon Taylor |
|
|
Controller
(Principal Accounting Officer) |
|
117