Form 10-Q
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D. C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
(Mark One)
þ QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011
OR
o TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from to
|
|
|
|
|
Commission |
|
Registrant; State of Incorporation; |
|
I.R.S. Employer |
File Number |
|
Address; and Telephone Number |
|
Identification No. |
|
333-21011
|
|
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
|
|
34-1843785 |
|
|
(An Ohio Corporation) |
|
|
|
|
76 South Main Street |
|
|
|
|
Akron, OH 44308 |
|
|
|
|
Telephone (800)736-3402 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
000-53742
|
|
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
|
|
31-1560186 |
|
|
(An Ohio Corporation) |
|
|
|
|
c/o FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
|
|
|
76 South Main Street |
|
|
|
|
Akron, OH 44308 |
|
|
|
|
Telephone (800)736-3402 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-2578
|
|
OHIO EDISON COMPANY
|
|
34-0437786 |
|
|
(An Ohio Corporation) |
|
|
|
|
c/o FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
|
|
|
76 South Main Street |
|
|
|
|
Akron, OH 44308 |
|
|
|
|
Telephone (800)736-3402 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-2323
|
|
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY
|
|
34-0150020 |
|
|
(An Ohio Corporation) |
|
|
|
|
c/o FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
|
|
|
76 South Main Street |
|
|
|
|
Akron, OH 44308 |
|
|
|
|
Telephone (800)736-3402 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-3583
|
|
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY
|
|
34-4375005 |
|
|
(An Ohio Corporation) |
|
|
|
|
c/o FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
|
|
|
76 South Main Street |
|
|
|
|
Akron, OH 44308 |
|
|
|
|
Telephone (800)736-3402 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-3141
|
|
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
|
|
21-0485010 |
|
|
(A New Jersey Corporation) |
|
|
|
|
c/o FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
|
|
|
76 South Main Street |
|
|
|
|
Akron, OH 44308 |
|
|
|
|
Telephone (800)736-3402 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-446
|
|
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
|
|
23-0870160 |
|
|
(A Pennsylvania Corporation) |
|
|
|
|
c/o FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
|
|
|
76 South Main Street |
|
|
|
|
Akron, OH 44308 |
|
|
|
|
Telephone (800)736-3402 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-3522
|
|
PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
25-0718085 |
|
|
(A Pennsylvania Corporation) |
|
|
|
|
c/o FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
|
|
|
76 South Main Street |
|
|
|
|
Akron, OH 44308 |
|
|
|
|
Telephone (800)736-3402 |
|
|
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by
Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for
such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
|
|
|
Yes þ No o
|
|
FirstEnergy Corp., FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., Ohio
Edison Company, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating
Company, The Toledo Edison Company, Jersey Central Power
& Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company and
Pennsylvania Electric Company |
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its
corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted
pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months
(or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
|
|
|
Yes þ No o
|
|
FirstEnergy Corp., FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., Ohio
Edison Company, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating
Company, The Toledo Edison Company, Jersey Central Power &
Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company, and
Pennsylvania Electric Company |
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a
non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of large accelerated
filer, accelerated filer and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
|
|
|
Large Accelerated Filer þ
|
|
FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
|
|
Accelerated Filer o
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
Non-accelerated Filer (Do not check
if a smaller reporting company)
þ
|
|
FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., Ohio
Edison Company, The Cleveland
Electric Illuminating Company, The
Toledo Edison Company, Jersey
Central Power & Light Company,
Metropolitan Edison Company and
Pennsylvania Electric Company |
|
|
|
Smaller Reporting Company o
|
|
N/A |
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the
Act).
|
|
|
Yes o No þ
|
|
FirstEnergy Corp., FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., Ohio
Edison Company, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating
Company, The Toledo Edison Company, Jersey Central Power &
Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company and
Pennsylvania Electric Company |
Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuers classes of common stock, as of
the latest practicable date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OUTSTANDING |
|
CLASS |
|
AS OF JULY 29, 2011 |
|
FirstEnergy Corp., $.10 par value |
|
|
418,216,437 |
|
FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., no par value |
|
|
7 |
|
Ohio Edison Company, no par value |
|
|
60 |
|
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, no par value |
|
|
67,930,743 |
|
The Toledo Edison Company, $5 par value |
|
|
29,402,054 |
|
Jersey Central Power & Light Company, $10 par value |
|
|
13,628,447 |
|
Metropolitan Edison Company, no par value |
|
|
740,905 |
|
Pennsylvania Electric Company, $20 par value |
|
|
4,427,577 |
|
FirstEnergy Corp. is the sole holder of FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., Ohio Edison Company, The
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, The Toledo Edison Company, Jersey Central Power & Light
Company, Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company common stock.
This combined Form 10-Q is separately filed by FirstEnergy Corp., FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., Ohio
Edison Company, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, The Toledo Edison Company, Jersey
Central Power & Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company.
Information contained herein relating to any
individual registrant is filed by such registrant on its own behalf. No registrant makes any
representation as to information relating to any other registrant, except that information relating
to any of the FirstEnergy subsidiary registrants is also attributed to FirstEnergy Corp.
FirstEnergy Web Site
Each of the registrants Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current
Reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed with or furnished to the SEC pursuant to
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are also made available free of
charge on or through FirstEnergys Internet web site at www.firstenergycorp.com.
These reports are posted on the web site as soon as reasonably practicable after they are
electronically filed with the SEC. Additionally, the registrants routinely post important
information on FirstEnergys Internet web site and recognize FirstEnergys Internet web site as a
channel of distribution to reach public investors and as a means of disclosing material non-public
information for complying with disclosure obligations under SEC Regulation FD. Information
contained on FirstEnergys Internet web site shall not be deemed incorporated into, or to be part
of, this report.
OMISSION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION
FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., Ohio Edison Company, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, The
Toledo Edison Company, Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company and
Pennsylvania Electric Company meet the conditions set forth in General Instruction H(1)(a) and (b)
of Form 10-Q and are therefore filing this Form 10-Q with the reduced disclosure format specified
in General Instruction H(2) to Form 10-Q.
Forward-Looking Statements: This Form 10-Q includes forward-looking statements based on information
currently available to management. Such statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties.
These statements include declarations regarding managements intents, beliefs and current
expectations. These statements typically contain, but are not limited to, the terms anticipate,
potential, expect, believe, estimate and similar words. Forward-looking statements involve
estimates, assumptions, known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause
actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results,
performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements.
Actual results may differ materially due to:
|
|
The speed and nature of increased competition in the electric utility industry. |
|
|
The impact of the regulatory process on the pending matters in the various states in which
we do business including, but not limited to, matters related to rates. |
|
|
The status of the PATH project in light of PJMs direction to suspend work on the project
pending review of its planning process, its re-evaluation of the need for the project and the
uncertainty of the timing and amounts of any related capital expenditures. |
|
|
Business and regulatory impacts from ATSIs realignment into PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. |
|
|
Economic or weather conditions affecting future sales and margins. |
|
|
Changes in markets for energy services. |
|
|
Changing energy and commodity market prices and availability. |
|
|
Financial derivative reforms that could increase our liquidity needs and collateral costs. |
|
|
The continued ability of FirstEnergys regulated utilities to collect transition and other
costs. |
|
|
Operation and maintenance costs being higher than anticipated. |
|
|
Other legislative and regulatory changes, and revised environmental requirements, including
possible GHG emission, water intake and coal combustion residual regulations, the potential
impacts of any laws, rules or regulations that ultimately replace CAIR, including the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), and the effects of the EPAs recently released MACT
proposal to establish certain mercury and other emission standards for electric generating
units. |
|
|
The uncertainty of the timing and amounts of the capital expenditures that may arise in
connection with any NSR litigation or potential regulatory initiatives or rulemakings
(including that such expenditures could result in our decision to shut down or idle certain
generating units). |
|
|
Adverse regulatory or legal decisions and outcomes with respect to our nuclear operations
(including, but not limited to the revocation or non-renewal of necessary licenses, approvals
or operating permits by the NRC including as a result of the incident at Japans Fukushima
Daiichi Nuclear Plant). |
|
|
Adverse legal decisions and outcomes related to Met-Eds and Penelecs ability to recover
certain transmission costs through their transmission service charge riders. |
|
|
The continuing availability of generating units and changes in their ability to operate at
or near full capacity. |
|
|
Replacement power costs being higher than anticipated or inadequately hedged. |
|
|
The ability to comply with applicable state and federal reliability standards and energy
efficiency mandates. |
|
|
Changes in customers demand for power, including but not limited to, changes resulting
from the implementation of state and federal energy efficiency mandates. |
|
|
The ability to accomplish or realize anticipated benefits from strategic goals. |
|
|
Efforts and our ability to improve electric commodity margins and the impact of, among
other factors, the increased cost of coal and coal transportation on such margins. |
|
|
The ability to experience growth in the distribution business. |
|
|
The changing market conditions that could affect the value of assets held in FirstEnergys
nuclear decommissioning trusts, pension trusts and other trust funds, and cause us to make
additional contributions sooner, or in amounts that are larger than currently anticipated. |
|
|
The ability to access the public securities and other capital and credit markets in
accordance with FirstEnergys financing plan, the cost of such capital and overall condition
of the capital and credit markets affecting FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries. |
|
|
Changes in general economic conditions affecting FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries. |
|
|
Interest rates and any actions taken by credit rating agencies that could negatively affect
FirstEnergys and its subsidiaries access to financing or their costs and increase
requirements to post additional collateral to support outstanding commodity positions, LOCs
and other financial guarantees. |
|
|
The continuing uncertainty of the national and regional economy and its impact on
FirstEnergys and its subsidiaries major industrial and commercial customers. |
|
|
Issues concerning the soundness of financial institutions and counterparties with which
FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries do business. |
|
|
Issues arising from the recently completed merger of FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy, Inc.
and the ongoing coordination of their combined operations including FirstEnergys ability to
maintain relationships with customers, employees or suppliers, as well as the ability to
successfully integrate the businesses and realize cost savings and any other synergies and the
risk that the credit ratings of the combined company or its subsidiaries may be different from
what the companies expect. |
|
|
The risks and other factors discussed from time to time in the registrants SEC filings,
and other similar factors. |
Dividends declared from time to time on FirstEnergys common stock during any annual period may in
aggregate vary from the indicated amount due to circumstances considered by FirstEnergys Board of
Directors at the time of the actual declarations. A security rating is not a recommendation to buy,
or hold securities and is subject to revision or withdrawal at any time by the assigning rating
agency. Each rating should be evaluated independently of any other rating.
The foregoing review of factors should not be construed as exhaustive. New factors emerge from time
to time, and it is not possible for management to predict all such factors, nor assess the impact
of any such factor on the registrants business or the extent to which any factor, or combination
of factors, may cause results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking
statements. The registrants expressly disclaim any current intention to update any forward-looking
statements contained herein as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iii |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25 |
|
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Contd)
ii
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
The following abbreviations and acronyms are used in this report to identify FirstEnergy Corp. and
its current and former subsidiaries:
|
|
|
AE
|
|
Allegheny Energy, Inc., a Maryland utility holding company that merged with a subsidiary of
FirstEnergy on February 25, 2011 |
AESC
|
|
Allegheny Energy Service Corporation, a subsidiary of AE |
AE Supply
|
|
Allegheny Energy Supply Company LLC, an unregulated generation subsidiary of AE |
AET
|
|
Allegheny Energy Transmission, LLC, a parent of TrAIL and PATH |
AGC
|
|
Allegheny Generating Company, a generation subsidiary of AE |
Allegheny
|
|
Allegheny Energy, Inc., together with its consolidated subsidiaries |
AVE
|
|
Allegheny Ventures, Inc. |
ATSI
|
|
American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, which owns and operates transmission facilities |
CEI
|
|
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, an Ohio electric utility operating subsidiary |
FENOC
|
|
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, which operates nuclear generating facilities |
FES
|
|
FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., which provides energy-related products and services |
FESC
|
|
FirstEnergy Service Company, which provides legal, financial and other corporate support services |
FEV
|
|
FirstEnergy Ventures Corp., which invests in certain unregulated enterprises and business ventures |
FGCO
|
|
FirstEnergy Generation Corp., which owns and operates non-nuclear generating facilities |
FirstEnergy
|
|
FirstEnergy Corp., a public utility holding company |
Global Rail
|
|
A joint venture between FEV and WMB Loan Ventures II LLC, that owns coal transportation operations
near Roundup, Montana |
GPU
|
|
GPU, Inc., former parent of JCP&L, Met-Ed and Penelec, that merged with FirstEnergy on
November 7, 2001 |
JCP&L
|
|
Jersey Central Power & Light Company, a New Jersey electric utility operating subsidiary |
Met-Ed
|
|
Metropolitan Edison Company, a Pennsylvania electric utility operating subsidiary |
MP
|
|
Monongahela Power Company, a West Virginia electric utility operating subsidiary of AE |
NGC
|
|
FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation Corp., owns nuclear generating facilities |
OE
|
|
Ohio Edison Company, an Ohio electric utility operating subsidiary |
Ohio Companies
|
|
CEI, OE and TE |
PATH
|
|
Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline LLC, a joint venture between Allegheny and a subsidiary
of American Electric Power Company, Inc. |
PATH-VA
|
|
PATH Allegheny Virginia Transmission Corporation |
PE
|
|
The Potomac Edison Company, a Maryland electric operating subsidiary of AE |
Penelec
|
|
Pennsylvania Electric Company, a Pennsylvania electric utility operating subsidiary |
Penn
|
|
Pennsylvania Power Company, a Pennsylvania electric utility operating subsidiary of OE |
Pennsylvania Companies
|
|
Met-Ed, Penelec, Penn and WP |
PNBV
|
|
PNBV Capital Trust, a special purpose entity created by OE in 1996 |
Shippingport
|
|
Shippingport Capital Trust, a special purpose entity created by CEI and TE in 1997 |
Signal Peak
|
|
A joint venture between FEV and WMB Loan Ventures LLC, that owns mining operations near Roundup,
Montana |
TE
|
|
The Toledo Edison Company, an Ohio electric utility operating subsidiary |
TrAIL
|
|
Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company |
Utilities
|
|
OE, CEI, TE, Penn, JCP&L, Met-Ed, Penelec, MP, PE and WP |
Utility Registrants
|
|
OE, CEI, TE, JCP&L, Met-Ed and Penelec |
WP
|
|
West Penn Power Company, a Pennsylvania electric utility operating subsidiary of AE |
|
The following abbreviations and acronyms are used to identify frequently used terms in this report: |
|
ALJ
|
|
Administrative Law Judge |
AOCL
|
|
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss |
AEP
|
|
American Electric Power |
AQC
|
|
Air Quality Control |
ARO
|
|
Asset Retirement Obligation |
ARR
|
|
Auction Revenue Rights |
BGS
|
|
Basic Generation Service |
BMP
|
|
Bruce Mansfield Plant |
CAA
|
|
Clean Air Act |
CAIR
|
|
Clean Air Interstate Rule |
CAMR
|
|
Clean Air Mercury Rule |
CATR
|
|
Clean Air Transport Rule |
CBP
|
|
Competitive Bid Process |
iii
GLOSSARY OF TERMS, Contd.
|
|
|
CCB
|
|
Coal Combustion By-products |
CDWR
|
|
California Department of Water Resources |
CO2
|
|
Carbon Dioxide |
CSAPR
|
|
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule |
CTC
|
|
Competitive Transition Charge |
CWA
|
|
Clean Water Act |
CWIP
|
|
Construction Work in Progress |
DCPD
|
|
Deferred Compensation Plan for Outside Directors |
DOE
|
|
United States Department of Energy |
DOJ
|
|
United States Department of Justice |
DPA
|
|
Department of the Public Advocate, Division of Rate Counsel (New Jersey) |
DSP
|
|
Default Service Plan |
EDCP
|
|
Executive Deferred Compensation Plan |
EE&C
|
|
Energy Efficiency and Conservation |
EIS
|
|
Energy Insurance Services, Inc. |
EMP
|
|
Energy Master Plan |
ENEC
|
|
Expanded Net Energy Cost |
EPA
|
|
United States Environmental Protection Agency |
ESOP
|
|
Employee Stock Ownership Plan |
ESP
|
|
Electric Security Plan |
FASB
|
|
Financial Accounting Standards Board |
FERC
|
|
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission |
FMB
|
|
First Mortgage Bond |
FPA
|
|
Federal Power Act |
FRR
|
|
Fixed Resource Requirement |
FTRs
|
|
Financial Transmission Rights |
GAAP
|
|
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the United States |
RGGI
|
|
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative |
GHG
|
|
Greenhouse Gases |
IRS
|
|
Internal Revenue Service |
JOA
|
|
Joint Operating Agreement |
kV
|
|
Kilovolt |
KWH
|
|
Kilowatt-hours |
LBR
|
|
Little Blue Run |
LED
|
|
Light-Emitting Diode |
LOC
|
|
Letter of Credit |
LSE
|
|
Load Serving Entity |
LTIP
|
|
Long-Term Incentive Plan |
MACT
|
|
Maximum Achievable Control Technology |
MDE
|
|
Maryland Department of the Environment |
MDPSC
|
|
Maryland Public Service Commission |
MEIUG
|
|
Met-Ed Industrial Users Group |
MISO
|
|
Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. |
Moodys
|
|
Moodys Investors Service, Inc. |
MRO
|
|
Market Rate Offer |
MSHA
|
|
Mine Safety and Health Administration |
MTEP
|
|
MISO Regional Transmission Expansion Plan |
MVP
|
|
Multi-value Project |
MW
|
|
Megawatts |
MWH
|
|
Megawatt-hours |
NAAQS
|
|
National Ambient Air Quality Standards |
NDT
|
|
Nuclear Decommissioning Trusts |
NERC
|
|
North American Electric Reliability Corporation |
NJBPU
|
|
New Jersey Board of Public Utilities |
NNSR
|
|
Non-Attainment New Source Review |
NOAC
|
|
Northwest Ohio Aggregation Coalition |
NOPEC
|
|
Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council |
NOV
|
|
Notice of Violation |
NOX
|
|
Nitrogen Oxide |
NPDES
|
|
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System |
NRC
|
|
Nuclear Regulatory Commission |
iv
GLOSSARY OF TERMS, Contd.
|
|
|
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 |
OSBA
|
|
Office of Small Business Advocate |
OVEC
|
|
Ohio Valley Electric Corporation |
PA DEP
|
|
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection |
PCRB
|
|
Pollution Control Revenue Bond |
PICA
|
|
Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority |
PJM
|
|
PJM Interconnection L. L. C. |
POLR
|
|
Provider of Last Resort; an electric utilitys obligation to provide generation service to customers
whose alternative supplier fails to deliver service |
PPUC
|
|
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission |
PSCWV
|
|
Public Service Commission of West Virginia |
PSA
|
|
Power Supply Agreement |
PSD
|
|
Prevention of Significant Deterioration |
PUCO
|
|
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio |
PURPA
|
|
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 |
RECs
|
|
Renewable Energy Credits |
RFP
|
|
Request for Proposal |
RGGI
|
|
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative |
RPM
|
|
Reliability Pricing Model |
RTEP
|
|
Regional Transmission Expansion Plan |
RTC
|
|
Regulatory Transition Charge |
RTO
|
|
Regional Transmission Organization |
S&P
|
|
Standard & Poors Ratings Service |
SB221
|
|
Amended Substitute Senate Bill 221 |
SBC
|
|
Societal Benefits Charge |
SEC
|
|
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission |
SIP
|
|
State Implementation Plan(s) Under the Clean Air Act |
SMIP
|
|
Smart Meter Implementation Plan |
SNCR
|
|
Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction |
SO2
|
|
Sulfur Dioxide |
SOS
|
|
Standard Offer Service |
TBC
|
|
Transition Bond Charge |
TDS
|
|
Total Dissolved Solid |
TMDL
|
|
Total Maximum Daily Load |
TMI-2
|
|
Three Mile Island Unit 2 |
TSC
|
|
Transmission Service Charge |
VIE
|
|
Variable Interest Entity |
VSCC
|
|
Virginia State Corporation Commission |
WVDEP
|
|
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection |
WVPSC
|
|
Public Service Commission of West Virginia |
v
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
Six Months |
|
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
In millions, except per share amounts |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric utilities |
|
$ |
2,590 |
|
|
$ |
2,373 |
|
|
$ |
4,925 |
|
|
$ |
4,916 |
|
Unregulated businesses |
|
|
1,470 |
|
|
|
766 |
|
|
|
2,711 |
|
|
|
1,522 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues* |
|
|
4,060 |
|
|
|
3,139 |
|
|
|
7,636 |
|
|
|
6,438 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
635 |
|
|
|
350 |
|
|
|
1,088 |
|
|
|
684 |
|
Purchased power |
|
|
1,220 |
|
|
|
1,063 |
|
|
|
2,406 |
|
|
|
2,301 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
1,105 |
|
|
|
673 |
|
|
|
2,138 |
|
|
|
1,374 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
282 |
|
|
|
190 |
|
|
|
502 |
|
|
|
383 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
222 |
|
|
|
373 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
242 |
|
|
|
176 |
|
|
|
479 |
|
|
|
381 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
3,574 |
|
|
|
2,613 |
|
|
|
6,835 |
|
|
|
5,496 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
486 |
|
|
|
526 |
|
|
|
801 |
|
|
|
942 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(265 |
) |
|
|
(207 |
) |
|
|
(496 |
) |
|
|
(420 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(214 |
) |
|
|
(136 |
) |
|
|
(406 |
) |
|
|
(292 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
272 |
|
|
|
390 |
|
|
|
395 |
|
|
|
650 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
134 |
|
|
|
179 |
|
|
|
245 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
|
171 |
|
|
|
256 |
|
|
|
216 |
|
|
|
405 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EARNINGS AVAILABLE TO FIRSTENERGY CORP. |
|
$ |
181 |
|
|
$ |
265 |
|
|
$ |
231 |
|
|
$ |
420 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EARNINGS PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
0.43 |
|
|
$ |
0.87 |
|
|
$ |
0.61 |
|
|
$ |
1.38 |
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
0.43 |
|
|
$ |
0.87 |
|
|
$ |
0.61 |
|
|
$ |
1.37 |
|
AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
|
418 |
|
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
380 |
|
|
|
304 |
|
Diluted |
|
|
420 |
|
|
|
305 |
|
|
|
382 |
|
|
|
305 |
|
DIVIDENDS DECLARED PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
0.55 |
|
|
$ |
0.55 |
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Includes excise tax collections of $116 million and $99 million in the three months ended June
30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and $235 million and $208 million in the six months ended June 30,
2011 and 2010, respectively. |
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of
these financial statements.
1
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
Six Months |
|
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
(In millions) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
171 |
|
|
$ |
256 |
|
|
$ |
216 |
|
|
$ |
405 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
130 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
Unrealized gain on derivative hedges |
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
Change in unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income |
|
|
138 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
160 |
|
|
|
52 |
|
Income tax expense related to other comprehensive income |
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income, net of tax |
|
|
85 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
256 |
|
|
|
276 |
|
|
|
322 |
|
|
|
441 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE LOSS ATTRIBUTABLE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TO NONCONTROLLING INTEREST |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME AVAILABLE TO FIRSTENERGY CORP. |
|
$ |
266 |
|
|
$ |
285 |
|
|
$ |
337 |
|
|
$ |
456 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of
these financial statements.
2
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(In millions) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
476 |
|
|
$ |
1,019 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers, net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $35 in 2011 and $36 in 2010 |
|
|
1,578 |
|
|
|
1,392 |
|
Other, net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $8 in 2011 and 2010 |
|
|
256 |
|
|
|
176 |
|
Materials and supplies, at average cost |
|
|
866 |
|
|
|
638 |
|
Prepaid taxes |
|
|
474 |
|
|
|
199 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
265 |
|
|
|
182 |
|
Other |
|
|
203 |
|
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,118 |
|
|
|
3,698 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
39,568 |
|
|
|
29,451 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
11,593 |
|
|
|
11,180 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,975 |
|
|
|
18,271 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
1,465 |
|
|
|
1,517 |
|
Property, plant and equipment held for sale, net |
|
|
502 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,942 |
|
|
|
19,788 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
2,051 |
|
|
|
1,973 |
|
Investments in lease obligation bonds |
|
|
414 |
|
|
|
476 |
|
Nuclear fuel disposal trust |
|
|
212 |
|
|
|
208 |
|
Other |
|
|
479 |
|
|
|
345 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,156 |
|
|
|
3,002 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
6,456 |
|
|
|
5,575 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
2,182 |
|
|
|
1,826 |
|
Intangible assets |
|
|
973 |
|
|
|
256 |
|
Other |
|
|
769 |
|
|
|
660 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,380 |
|
|
|
8,317 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
47,596 |
|
|
$ |
34,805 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
2,058 |
|
|
$ |
1,486 |
|
Short-term borrowings |
|
|
656 |
|
|
|
700 |
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
1,122 |
|
|
|
872 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
399 |
|
|
|
326 |
|
Accrued compensation and benefits |
|
|
331 |
|
|
|
315 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
287 |
|
|
|
266 |
|
Other |
|
|
691 |
|
|
|
733 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,544 |
|
|
|
4,698 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $0.10 par value, authorized 490,000,000 and 375,000,000 shares, respectively-
418,216,437 and 304,835,407 shares outstanding, respectively |
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
Other paid-in capital |
|
|
9,782 |
|
|
|
5,444 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(1,433 |
) |
|
|
(1,539 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
4,607 |
|
|
|
4,609 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
12,998 |
|
|
|
8,545 |
|
Noncontrolling interest |
|
|
(48 |
) |
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity |
|
|
12,950 |
|
|
|
8,513 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
16,491 |
|
|
|
12,579 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,441 |
|
|
|
21,092 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
5,219 |
|
|
|
2,879 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
2,134 |
|
|
|
1,868 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
1,459 |
|
|
|
1,407 |
|
Deferred gain on sale and leaseback transaction |
|
|
942 |
|
|
|
959 |
|
Adverse power contract liability |
|
|
649 |
|
|
|
466 |
|
Other |
|
|
2,208 |
|
|
|
1,436 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,611 |
|
|
|
9,015 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
47,596 |
|
|
$ |
34,805 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of
these financial statements.
3
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
(In millions) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
216 |
|
|
$ |
405 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
502 |
|
|
|
383 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
222 |
|
|
|
373 |
|
Nuclear fuel and lease amortization |
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
Deferred purchased power and other costs |
|
|
(168 |
) |
|
|
(146 |
) |
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
552 |
|
|
|
159 |
|
Deferred rents and lease market valuation liability |
|
|
(61 |
) |
|
|
(62 |
) |
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
(27 |
) |
Commodity derivative transactions, net |
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
(29 |
) |
Pension trust contribution |
|
|
(262 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Asset impairments |
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
Cash collateral paid, net |
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
(63 |
) |
Interest rate swap transactions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
43 |
|
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
199 |
|
|
|
(156 |
) |
Materials and supplies |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
(17 |
) |
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
(268 |
) |
|
|
(81 |
) |
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
18 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(66 |
) |
|
|
(58 |
) |
Accrued interest |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
10 |
|
Other |
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from operating activities |
|
|
1,031 |
|
|
|
858 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
503 |
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
281 |
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(1,002 |
) |
|
|
(407 |
) |
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
(44 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Common stock dividend payments |
|
|
(420 |
) |
|
|
(335 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(76 |
) |
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for financing activities |
|
|
(1,039 |
) |
|
|
(484 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(1,018 |
) |
|
|
(997 |
) |
Proceeds from asset sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
116 |
|
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
1,703 |
|
|
|
1,915 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(1,807 |
) |
|
|
(1,934 |
) |
Customer acquisition costs |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(105 |
) |
Cash investments |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
59 |
|
Cash received in Allegheny merger |
|
|
590 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
(51 |
) |
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for investing activities |
|
|
(535 |
) |
|
|
(967 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(543 |
) |
|
|
(593 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
1,019 |
|
|
|
874 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
476 |
|
|
$ |
281 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUPPLEMENTAL CASH FLOW INFORMATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-cash transaction: merger with Allegheny, common stock issued |
|
$ |
4,354 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral
part of these financial statements.
4
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
(In millions) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
STATEMENTS OF INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales to non-affiliates |
|
$ |
1,052 |
|
|
$ |
729 |
|
|
$ |
2,097 |
|
|
$ |
1,397 |
|
Electric sales to affiliates |
|
|
170 |
|
|
|
539 |
|
|
|
431 |
|
|
|
1,146 |
|
Other |
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
156 |
|
|
|
171 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
1,292 |
|
|
|
1,326 |
|
|
|
2,684 |
|
|
|
2,714 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
316 |
|
|
|
343 |
|
|
|
659 |
|
|
|
671 |
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
134 |
|
|
|
130 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
329 |
|
|
|
310 |
|
|
|
626 |
|
|
|
760 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
429 |
|
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
910 |
|
|
|
608 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
126 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
49 |
|
Impairment of long-lived assets |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
1,244 |
|
|
|
1,111 |
|
|
|
2,545 |
|
|
|
2,346 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
215 |
|
|
|
139 |
|
|
|
368 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
Miscellaneous income (expense) |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
Interest expense affiliates |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
Interest expense other |
|
|
(52 |
) |
|
|
(51 |
) |
|
|
(105 |
) |
|
|
(101 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
(58 |
) |
|
|
(41 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
203 |
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
327 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
113 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
20 |
|
|
$ |
134 |
|
|
$ |
56 |
|
|
$ |
214 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
20 |
|
|
$ |
134 |
|
|
$ |
56 |
|
|
$ |
214 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
Unrealized gain on derivative hedges |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
Change in unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income |
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
Income taxes related to other comprehensive income |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income, net of tax |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
$ |
33 |
|
|
$ |
140 |
|
|
$ |
71 |
|
|
$ |
218 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of
these financial statements.
5
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(In millions) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers, net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $18 in 2011 and $17 in 2010 |
|
|
450 |
|
|
|
366 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
490 |
|
|
|
478 |
|
Other, net of allowances for uncollectible accounts of $3 in 2011 and $7 in 2010 |
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
90 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
490 |
|
|
|
397 |
|
Materials and supplies, at average cost |
|
|
499 |
|
|
|
545 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
221 |
|
|
|
182 |
|
Prepayments and other |
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,256 |
|
|
|
2,126 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
11,455 |
|
|
|
11,321 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
4,206 |
|
|
|
4,024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,249 |
|
|
|
7,297 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
694 |
|
|
|
1,063 |
|
Property, plant and equipment held for sale, net |
|
|
487 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,430 |
|
|
|
8,360 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
1,184 |
|
|
|
1,146 |
|
Other |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,194 |
|
|
|
1,158 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customer intangibles |
|
|
129 |
|
|
|
134 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
Unamortized sale and leaseback costs |
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
73 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
135 |
|
|
|
98 |
|
Other |
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
480 |
|
|
|
418 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
12,360 |
|
|
$ |
12,062 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
1,088 |
|
|
$ |
1,132 |
|
Short-term borrowings- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
541 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
Other |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
393 |
|
|
|
467 |
|
Other |
|
|
191 |
|
|
|
241 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
242 |
|
|
|
266 |
|
Other |
|
|
262 |
|
|
|
322 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,718 |
|
|
|
2,440 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, without par value, authorized 750 shares- 7 shares outstanding |
|
|
1,488 |
|
|
|
1,490 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(105 |
) |
|
|
(120 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
2,474 |
|
|
|
2,418 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
3,857 |
|
|
|
3,788 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
|
3,181 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,857 |
|
|
|
6,969 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred gain on sale and leaseback transaction |
|
|
942 |
|
|
|
959 |
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
216 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
875 |
|
|
|
892 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
295 |
|
|
|
285 |
|
Lease market valuation liability |
|
|
194 |
|
|
|
217 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
85 |
|
|
|
81 |
|
Other |
|
|
178 |
|
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,785 |
|
|
|
2,653 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
12,360 |
|
|
$ |
12,062 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an
integral part of these financial statements.
6
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
(In millions) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
56 |
|
|
$ |
214 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
126 |
|
Nuclear fuel and lease amortization |
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
78 |
|
Deferred rents and lease market valuation liability |
|
|
(58 |
) |
|
|
(59 |
) |
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
126 |
|
|
|
114 |
|
Asset impairments |
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
Commodity derivative transactions, net |
|
|
(60 |
) |
|
|
(29 |
) |
Cash collateral paid, net |
|
|
(40 |
) |
|
|
(38 |
) |
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
(36 |
) |
|
|
(193 |
) |
Materials and supplies |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
(29 |
) |
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
Decrease in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
(124 |
) |
|
|
(32 |
) |
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(29 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
Other |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from operating activities |
|
|
182 |
|
|
|
218 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
247 |
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
530 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
Redemptions and repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(472 |
) |
|
|
(295 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) financing activities |
|
|
294 |
|
|
|
(220 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(334 |
) |
|
|
(566 |
) |
Proceeds from asset sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
116 |
|
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
513 |
|
|
|
957 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(545 |
) |
|
|
(979 |
) |
Loans to associated companies, net |
|
|
(93 |
) |
|
|
631 |
|
Customer acquisition costs |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(105 |
) |
Leasehold improvement payments to associated companies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(51 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities |
|
|
(479 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part
of these financial statements.
7
OHIO EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales |
|
$ |
360,203 |
|
|
$ |
415,437 |
|
|
$ |
724,034 |
|
|
$ |
895,362 |
|
Excise and gross receipts tax collections |
|
|
24,941 |
|
|
|
23,949 |
|
|
|
53,136 |
|
|
|
52,424 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
385,144 |
|
|
|
439,386 |
|
|
|
777,170 |
|
|
|
947,786 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
69,134 |
|
|
|
134,050 |
|
|
|
162,396 |
|
|
|
287,727 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
62,667 |
|
|
|
78,826 |
|
|
|
123,046 |
|
|
|
173,057 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
110,778 |
|
|
|
88,275 |
|
|
|
212,240 |
|
|
|
177,130 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
22,470 |
|
|
|
22,014 |
|
|
|
44,346 |
|
|
|
43,894 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
2,405 |
|
|
|
9,424 |
|
|
|
3,179 |
|
|
|
38,769 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
45,592 |
|
|
|
43,362 |
|
|
|
95,018 |
|
|
|
90,854 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
313,046 |
|
|
|
375,951 |
|
|
|
640,225 |
|
|
|
811,431 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
72,098 |
|
|
|
63,435 |
|
|
|
136,945 |
|
|
|
136,355 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
5,043 |
|
|
|
6,309 |
|
|
|
9,351 |
|
|
|
11,553 |
|
Miscellaneous income (expense) |
|
|
(477 |
) |
|
|
1,295 |
|
|
|
(187 |
) |
|
|
1,003 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(22,011 |
) |
|
|
(22,155 |
) |
|
|
(44,156 |
) |
|
|
(44,465 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
510 |
|
|
|
295 |
|
|
|
841 |
|
|
|
503 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(16,935 |
) |
|
|
(14,256 |
) |
|
|
(34,151 |
) |
|
|
(31,406 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
55,163 |
|
|
|
49,179 |
|
|
|
102,794 |
|
|
|
104,949 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
16,538 |
|
|
|
11,856 |
|
|
|
34,029 |
|
|
|
31,465 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
|
38,625 |
|
|
|
37,323 |
|
|
|
68,765 |
|
|
|
73,484 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
114 |
|
|
|
130 |
|
|
|
230 |
|
|
|
262 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EARNINGS AVAILABLE TO PARENT |
|
$ |
38,511 |
|
|
$ |
37,193 |
|
|
$ |
68,535 |
|
|
$ |
73,222 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
38,625 |
|
|
$ |
37,323 |
|
|
$ |
68,765 |
|
|
$ |
73,484 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
1,122 |
|
|
|
322 |
|
|
|
1,461 |
|
|
|
4,337 |
|
Increase in unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities |
|
|
1,591 |
|
|
|
520 |
|
|
|
1,569 |
|
|
|
811 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income |
|
|
2,713 |
|
|
|
842 |
|
|
|
3,030 |
|
|
|
5,148 |
|
Income tax expense (benefit) related to other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
comprehensive income |
|
|
386 |
|
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
(1,110 |
) |
|
|
667 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income, net of tax |
|
|
2,327 |
|
|
|
868 |
|
|
|
4,140 |
|
|
|
4,481 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
40,952 |
|
|
|
38,191 |
|
|
|
72,905 |
|
|
|
77,965 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCONTROLLING INTEREST |
|
|
114 |
|
|
|
130 |
|
|
|
230 |
|
|
|
262 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME AVAILABLE TO PARENT |
|
$ |
40,838 |
|
|
$ |
38,061 |
|
|
$ |
72,675 |
|
|
$ |
77,703 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of
these financial statements.
8
OHIO EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
176 |
|
|
$ |
420,489 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers, net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $3,564 in 2011
and $4,086 in 2010 |
|
|
159,393 |
|
|
|
176,591 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
68,709 |
|
|
|
118,135 |
|
Other |
|
|
32,798 |
|
|
|
12,232 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
95,884 |
|
|
|
16,957 |
|
Prepayments and other |
|
|
35,339 |
|
|
|
6,393 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
392,299 |
|
|
|
750,797 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UTILITY PLANT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
3,176,455 |
|
|
|
3,136,623 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
1,230,570 |
|
|
|
1,207,745 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,945,885 |
|
|
|
1,928,878 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
66,656 |
|
|
|
45,103 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,012,541 |
|
|
|
1,973,981 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in lease obligation bonds |
|
|
177,835 |
|
|
|
190,420 |
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
133,354 |
|
|
|
127,017 |
|
Other |
|
|
92,440 |
|
|
|
95,563 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
403,629 |
|
|
|
413,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
392,580 |
|
|
|
400,322 |
|
Pension assets |
|
|
62,612 |
|
|
|
28,596 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
71,331 |
|
|
|
71,331 |
|
Unamortized sale and leaseback costs |
|
|
27,628 |
|
|
|
30,126 |
|
Other |
|
|
19,041 |
|
|
|
17,634 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
573,192 |
|
|
|
548,009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,381,661 |
|
|
$ |
3,685,787 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
1,429 |
|
|
$ |
1,419 |
|
Short-term borrowings- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
142,116 |
|
Other |
|
|
166 |
|
|
|
320 |
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
94,821 |
|
|
|
99,421 |
|
Other |
|
|
41,417 |
|
|
|
29,639 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
69,364 |
|
|
|
78,707 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
25,374 |
|
|
|
25,382 |
|
Other |
|
|
79,795 |
|
|
|
74,947 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
312,366 |
|
|
|
451,951 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, without par value, authorized 175,000,000 shares
60 shares outstanding |
|
|
783,871 |
|
|
|
951,866 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(174,936 |
) |
|
|
(179,076 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
110,156 |
|
|
|
141,621 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
719,091 |
|
|
|
914,411 |
|
Noncontrolling interest |
|
|
5,313 |
|
|
|
5,680 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity |
|
|
724,404 |
|
|
|
920,091 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
1,151,720 |
|
|
|
1,152,134 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,876,124 |
|
|
|
2,072,225 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
749,687 |
|
|
|
696,410 |
|
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits |
|
|
9,439 |
|
|
|
10,159 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
183,345 |
|
|
|
183,712 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
69,164 |
|
|
|
74,456 |
|
Other |
|
|
181,536 |
|
|
|
196,874 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,193,171 |
|
|
|
1,161,611 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,381,661 |
|
|
$ |
3,685,787 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part
of these financial statements. |
9
OHIO EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
68,765 |
|
|
$ |
73,484 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
44,346 |
|
|
|
43,894 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
3,179 |
|
|
|
38,769 |
|
Purchased power cost recovery reconciliation |
|
|
(8,584 |
) |
|
|
(1,514 |
) |
Amortization of lease costs |
|
|
(4,696 |
) |
|
|
(4,619 |
) |
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
62,216 |
|
|
|
4,964 |
|
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
(8,328 |
) |
|
|
(16,154 |
) |
Accrued regulatory obligations |
|
|
(3,309 |
) |
|
|
(2,309 |
) |
Cash collateral from (to) suppliers, net |
|
|
(850 |
) |
|
|
1,215 |
|
Pension trust contribution |
|
|
(27,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
80,968 |
|
|
|
49,250 |
|
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
(28,947 |
) |
|
|
5,072 |
|
Decrease in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
(22,253 |
) |
|
|
(57,208 |
) |
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(9,360 |
) |
|
|
(25,685 |
) |
Other |
|
|
4,261 |
|
|
|
(114 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from operating activities |
|
|
150,408 |
|
|
|
109,045 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(707 |
) |
|
|
(2,957 |
) |
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
(142,270 |
) |
|
|
(93,017 |
) |
Common stock dividend payments |
|
|
(268,000 |
) |
|
|
(250,000 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(2,340 |
) |
|
|
(881 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for financing activities |
|
|
(413,317 |
) |
|
|
(346,855 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(78,894 |
) |
|
|
(71,698 |
) |
Leasehold improvement payments from associated companies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,375 |
|
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
19,595 |
|
|
|
59,804 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(25,547 |
) |
|
|
(64,063 |
) |
Loans to associated companies, net |
|
|
(78,927 |
) |
|
|
12,420 |
|
Cash investments |
|
|
11,962 |
|
|
|
11,774 |
|
Other |
|
|
(5,593 |
) |
|
|
(1,298 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for investing activities |
|
|
(157,404 |
) |
|
|
(34,686 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(420,313 |
) |
|
|
(272,496 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
420,489 |
|
|
|
324,175 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
176 |
|
|
$ |
51,679 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part
of these financial statements.
10
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales |
|
$ |
202,148 |
|
|
$ |
280,180 |
|
|
$ |
408,890 |
|
|
$ |
592,677 |
|
Excise tax collections |
|
|
15,706 |
|
|
|
15,495 |
|
|
|
33,851 |
|
|
|
33,068 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
217,854 |
|
|
|
295,675 |
|
|
|
442,741 |
|
|
|
625,745 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
36,040 |
|
|
|
99,422 |
|
|
|
82,208 |
|
|
|
208,815 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
23,099 |
|
|
|
32,651 |
|
|
|
41,319 |
|
|
|
70,049 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
31,625 |
|
|
|
28,937 |
|
|
|
66,661 |
|
|
|
60,172 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
18,488 |
|
|
|
18,336 |
|
|
|
36,914 |
|
|
|
36,447 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
18,166 |
|
|
|
30,807 |
|
|
|
41,536 |
|
|
|
75,946 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
36,954 |
|
|
|
28,840 |
|
|
|
77,166 |
|
|
|
67,329 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
164,372 |
|
|
|
238,993 |
|
|
|
345,804 |
|
|
|
518,758 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
53,482 |
|
|
|
56,682 |
|
|
|
96,937 |
|
|
|
106,987 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
5,637 |
|
|
|
6,605 |
|
|
|
12,234 |
|
|
|
14,152 |
|
Miscellaneous income |
|
|
1,038 |
|
|
|
675 |
|
|
|
1,674 |
|
|
|
1,257 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(32,135 |
) |
|
|
(33,262 |
) |
|
|
(65,213 |
) |
|
|
(66,883 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(25,424 |
) |
|
|
(25,975 |
) |
|
|
(51,242 |
) |
|
|
(51,441 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
28,058 |
|
|
|
30,707 |
|
|
|
45,695 |
|
|
|
55,546 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
6,209 |
|
|
|
8,785 |
|
|
|
10,645 |
|
|
|
19,628 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
|
21,849 |
|
|
|
21,922 |
|
|
|
35,050 |
|
|
|
35,918 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
309 |
|
|
|
366 |
|
|
|
675 |
|
|
|
785 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EARNINGS AVAILABLE TO PARENT |
|
$ |
21,540 |
|
|
$ |
21,556 |
|
|
$ |
34,375 |
|
|
$ |
35,133 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
21,849 |
|
|
$ |
21,922 |
|
|
$ |
35,050 |
|
|
$ |
35,918 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits (charges) |
|
|
2,975 |
|
|
|
3,228 |
|
|
|
5,942 |
|
|
|
(19,357 |
) |
Income tax expense (benefit) related to other
comprehensive income |
|
|
860 |
|
|
|
976 |
|
|
|
398 |
|
|
|
(7,301 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax |
|
|
2,115 |
|
|
|
2,252 |
|
|
|
5,544 |
|
|
|
(12,056 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
23,964 |
|
|
|
24,174 |
|
|
|
40,594 |
|
|
|
23,862 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO
NONCONTROLLING INTEREST |
|
|
309 |
|
|
|
366 |
|
|
|
675 |
|
|
|
785 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME AVAILABLE TO PARENT |
|
$ |
23,655 |
|
|
$ |
23,808 |
|
|
$ |
39,919 |
|
|
$ |
23,077 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of
these financial statements.
11
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
244 |
|
|
$ |
238 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers, net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $2,801 in 2011 and
$4,589 in 2010 |
|
|
97,997 |
|
|
|
183,744 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
32,348 |
|
|
|
77,047 |
|
Other |
|
|
13,476 |
|
|
|
11,544 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
71,911 |
|
|
|
23,236 |
|
Materials and supplies, at average cost |
|
|
13,784 |
|
|
|
398 |
|
Prepayments and other |
|
|
6,431 |
|
|
|
3,258 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
236,191 |
|
|
|
299,465 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UTILITY PLANT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
2,417,031 |
|
|
|
2,396,893 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
944,379 |
|
|
|
932,246 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,472,652 |
|
|
|
1,464,647 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
59,281 |
|
|
|
38,610 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,531,933 |
|
|
|
1,503,257 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in lessor notes |
|
|
286,745 |
|
|
|
340,029 |
|
Other |
|
|
10,048 |
|
|
|
10,074 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
296,793 |
|
|
|
350,103 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
1,688,521 |
|
|
|
1,688,521 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
320,337 |
|
|
|
370,403 |
|
Pension assets |
|
|
14,652 |
|
|
|
|
|
Property taxes |
|
|
80,614 |
|
|
|
80,614 |
|
Other |
|
|
12,884 |
|
|
|
11,486 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,117,008 |
|
|
|
2,151,024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
4,181,925 |
|
|
$ |
4,303,849 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
188 |
|
|
$ |
161 |
|
Short-term borrowings from associated companies |
|
|
23,303 |
|
|
|
105,996 |
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
51,001 |
|
|
|
32,020 |
|
Other |
|
|
18,700 |
|
|
|
14,947 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
83,265 |
|
|
|
84,668 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
18,551 |
|
|
|
18,555 |
|
Other |
|
|
38,685 |
|
|
|
44,569 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
233,693 |
|
|
|
300,916 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, without par value, authorized 105,000,000 shares,
67,930,743 shares outstanding |
|
|
887,053 |
|
|
|
887,087 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(147,643 |
) |
|
|
(153,187 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
539,280 |
|
|
|
568,906 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
1,278,690 |
|
|
|
1,302,806 |
|
Noncontrolling interest |
|
|
15,195 |
|
|
|
18,017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity |
|
|
1,293,885 |
|
|
|
1,320,823 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
1,831,023 |
|
|
|
1,852,530 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,124,908 |
|
|
|
3,173,353 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
640,059 |
|
|
|
622,771 |
|
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits |
|
|
10,574 |
|
|
|
10,994 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
76,010 |
|
|
|
95,654 |
|
Other |
|
|
96,681 |
|
|
|
100,161 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
823,324 |
|
|
|
829,580 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
4,181,925 |
|
|
$ |
4,303,849 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part
of these financial statements.
12
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
35,050 |
|
|
$ |
35,918 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
36,914 |
|
|
|
36,447 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
41,536 |
|
|
|
75,946 |
|
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
17,221 |
|
|
|
(18,083 |
) |
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
5,421 |
|
|
|
5,421 |
|
Accrued regulatory obligations |
|
|
(2,001 |
) |
|
|
(444 |
) |
Cash collateral from suppliers, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
685 |
|
Pension trust contribution |
|
|
(35,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
140,455 |
|
|
|
51,757 |
|
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
(17,469 |
) |
|
|
5,392 |
|
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
10,135 |
|
|
|
(34,488 |
) |
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(346 |
) |
|
|
(11,317 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(4,436 |
) |
|
|
2,023 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from operating activities |
|
|
227,480 |
|
|
|
149,257 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(74 |
) |
|
|
(54 |
) |
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
(104,228 |
) |
|
|
(136,013 |
) |
Common stock dividend payments |
|
|
(64,000 |
) |
|
|
(100,000 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(5,239 |
) |
|
|
(3,367 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for financing activities |
|
|
(173,541 |
) |
|
|
(239,434 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(52,743 |
) |
|
|
(44,373 |
) |
Loans to associated companies, net |
|
|
(48,676 |
) |
|
|
2,322 |
|
Redemptions of lessor notes |
|
|
53,283 |
|
|
|
48,608 |
|
Other |
|
|
(5,797 |
) |
|
|
(2,365 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities |
|
|
(53,933 |
) |
|
|
4,192 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
(85,985 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
238 |
|
|
|
86,230 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
244 |
|
|
$ |
245 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part
of these financial statements.
13
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales |
|
$ |
93,048 |
|
|
$ |
114,691 |
|
|
$ |
199,373 |
|
|
$ |
240,122 |
|
Excise tax collections |
|
|
6,270 |
|
|
|
6,059 |
|
|
|
13,572 |
|
|
|
13,100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
99,318 |
|
|
|
120,750 |
|
|
|
212,945 |
|
|
|
253,222 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
17,037 |
|
|
|
47,106 |
|
|
|
52,554 |
|
|
|
101,725 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
16,114 |
|
|
|
15,223 |
|
|
|
30,102 |
|
|
|
33,713 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
32,549 |
|
|
|
25,499 |
|
|
|
69,136 |
|
|
|
51,044 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
7,959 |
|
|
|
8,013 |
|
|
|
15,890 |
|
|
|
15,963 |
|
Deferral of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(7,054 |
) |
|
|
(1,800 |
) |
|
|
(18,532 |
) |
|
|
(10,299 |
) |
General taxes |
|
|
12,438 |
|
|
|
12,282 |
|
|
|
26,890 |
|
|
|
25,743 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
79,043 |
|
|
|
106,323 |
|
|
|
176,040 |
|
|
|
217,889 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
20,275 |
|
|
|
14,427 |
|
|
|
36,905 |
|
|
|
35,333 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
2,599 |
|
|
|
5,057 |
|
|
|
5,521 |
|
|
|
8,857 |
|
Miscellaneous income (expense) |
|
|
396 |
|
|
|
(945 |
) |
|
|
(1,233 |
) |
|
|
(2,351 |
) |
Interest expense |
|
|
(10,415 |
) |
|
|
(10,455 |
) |
|
|
(20,858 |
) |
|
|
(20,942 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
135 |
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
237 |
|
|
|
158 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(7,285 |
) |
|
|
(6,263 |
) |
|
|
(16,333 |
) |
|
|
(14,278 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
12,990 |
|
|
|
8,164 |
|
|
|
20,572 |
|
|
|
21,055 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
1,429 |
|
|
|
948 |
|
|
|
3,164 |
|
|
|
6,330 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
|
11,561 |
|
|
|
7,216 |
|
|
|
17,408 |
|
|
|
14,725 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EARNINGS AVAILABLE TO PARENT |
|
$ |
11,559 |
|
|
$ |
7,214 |
|
|
$ |
17,404 |
|
|
$ |
14,720 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
11,561 |
|
|
$ |
7,216 |
|
|
$ |
17,408 |
|
|
$ |
14,725 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
575 |
|
|
|
714 |
|
|
|
1,167 |
|
|
|
1,010 |
|
Increase (decrease) in unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities |
|
|
754 |
|
|
|
(330 |
) |
|
|
2,059 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income |
|
|
1,329 |
|
|
|
384 |
|
|
|
3,226 |
|
|
|
1,049 |
|
Income tax expense related to other comprehensive income |
|
|
351 |
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
685 |
|
|
|
235 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income, net of tax |
|
|
978 |
|
|
|
319 |
|
|
|
2,541 |
|
|
|
814 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
12,539 |
|
|
|
7,535 |
|
|
|
19,949 |
|
|
|
15,539 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO
NONCONTROLLING INTEREST |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME AVAILABLE TO PARENT |
|
$ |
12,537 |
|
|
$ |
7,533 |
|
|
$ |
19,945 |
|
|
$ |
15,534 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of
these financial statements.
14
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
149,262 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers, net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $1,142 in 2011
and $1 in 2010 |
|
|
45,931 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
48,340 |
|
|
|
31,777 |
|
Other, net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $339 in 2011
and $330 in 2010 |
|
|
5,272 |
|
|
|
18,464 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
128,815 |
|
|
|
96,765 |
|
Prepayments and other |
|
|
12,052 |
|
|
|
2,306 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
240,422 |
|
|
|
298,603 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UTILITY PLANT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
955,002 |
|
|
|
947,203 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
453,517 |
|
|
|
446,401 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
501,485 |
|
|
|
500,802 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
17,386 |
|
|
|
12,604 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
518,871 |
|
|
|
513,406 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in lessor notes |
|
|
82,153 |
|
|
|
103,872 |
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
79,018 |
|
|
|
75,558 |
|
Other |
|
|
1,448 |
|
|
|
1,492 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
162,619 |
|
|
|
180,922 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
500,576 |
|
|
|
500,576 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
89,112 |
|
|
|
72,059 |
|
Pension assets |
|
|
24,603 |
|
|
|
|
|
Property taxes |
|
|
24,990 |
|
|
|
24,990 |
|
Other |
|
|
42,341 |
|
|
|
23,750 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
681,622 |
|
|
|
621,375 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,603,534 |
|
|
$ |
1,614,306 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
188 |
|
|
$ |
199 |
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
22,144 |
|
|
|
17,168 |
|
Other |
|
|
12,524 |
|
|
|
7,351 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
23,699 |
|
|
|
24,401 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
5,933 |
|
|
|
5,931 |
|
Lease market valuation liability |
|
|
36,900 |
|
|
|
36,900 |
|
Other |
|
|
18,060 |
|
|
|
23,145 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
119,448 |
|
|
|
115,095 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $5 par value, authorized 60,000,000 shares,
29,402,054 shares outstanding |
|
|
147,010 |
|
|
|
147,010 |
|
Other paid-in capital |
|
|
178,157 |
|
|
|
178,182 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(46,642 |
) |
|
|
(49,183 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
100,937 |
|
|
|
117,534 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
379,462 |
|
|
|
393,543 |
|
Noncontrolling interest |
|
|
2,593 |
|
|
|
2,589 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity |
|
|
382,055 |
|
|
|
396,132 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
600,524 |
|
|
|
600,493 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
982,579 |
|
|
|
996,625 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
168,429 |
|
|
|
132,019 |
|
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits |
|
|
5,715 |
|
|
|
5,930 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
51,764 |
|
|
|
71,486 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
29,737 |
|
|
|
28,762 |
|
Lease market valuation liability |
|
|
180,850 |
|
|
|
199,300 |
|
Other |
|
|
65,012 |
|
|
|
65,089 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
501,507 |
|
|
|
502,586 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,603,534 |
|
|
$ |
1,614,306 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part
of these financial statements.
15
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
17,408 |
|
|
$ |
14,725 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
15,890 |
|
|
|
15,963 |
|
Deferral of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(18,532 |
) |
|
|
(10,299 |
) |
Deferred rents and lease market valuation liability |
|
|
(43,851 |
) |
|
|
(42,264 |
) |
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
41,457 |
|
|
|
16,503 |
|
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
1,085 |
|
|
|
2,600 |
|
Accrued regulatory obligations |
|
|
(1,193 |
) |
|
|
(632 |
) |
Pension trust contribution |
|
|
(45,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Cash collateral from (to) suppliers, net |
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
343 |
|
Increase (decrease) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
(48,807 |
) |
|
|
52,754 |
|
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
(9,758 |
) |
|
|
3,608 |
|
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
3,661 |
|
|
|
(61,195 |
) |
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(701 |
) |
|
|
(4,007 |
) |
Other |
|
|
5,771 |
|
|
|
(8,960 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for operating activities |
|
|
(82,584 |
) |
|
|
(20,861 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(105 |
) |
|
|
(111 |
) |
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(225,975 |
) |
Common stock dividend payments |
|
|
(34,000 |
) |
|
|
(130,000 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(1,742 |
) |
|
|
(112 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for financing activities |
|
|
(35,847 |
) |
|
|
(356,198 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(17,386 |
) |
|
|
(20,237 |
) |
Leasehold improvement payments from associated companies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
32,829 |
|
Loans to associated companies, net |
|
|
(32,050 |
) |
|
|
(10,818 |
) |
Redemptions of lessor notes |
|
|
21,739 |
|
|
|
20,485 |
|
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
28,401 |
|
|
|
106,814 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(30,050 |
) |
|
|
(107,978 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(1,473 |
) |
|
|
(2,905 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities |
|
|
(30,819 |
) |
|
|
18,190 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(149,250 |
) |
|
|
(358,869 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
149,262 |
|
|
|
436,712 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
77,843 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part
of these financial statements.
16
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales |
|
$ |
576,977 |
|
|
$ |
709,606 |
|
|
$ |
1,211,000 |
|
|
$ |
1,400,998 |
|
Excise tax collections |
|
|
11,120 |
|
|
|
11,012 |
|
|
|
23,607 |
|
|
|
23,364 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
588,097 |
|
|
|
720,618 |
|
|
|
1,234,607 |
|
|
|
1,424,362 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power |
|
|
328,463 |
|
|
|
410,470 |
|
|
|
698,631 |
|
|
|
824,486 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
78,603 |
|
|
|
75,177 |
|
|
|
164,682 |
|
|
|
170,837 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
26,773 |
|
|
|
27,093 |
|
|
|
52,087 |
|
|
|
55,064 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
40,046 |
|
|
|
81,326 |
|
|
|
121,633 |
|
|
|
150,774 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
15,115 |
|
|
|
14,902 |
|
|
|
32,526 |
|
|
|
31,338 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
489,000 |
|
|
|
608,968 |
|
|
|
1,069,559 |
|
|
|
1,232,499 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
99,097 |
|
|
|
111,650 |
|
|
|
165,048 |
|
|
|
191,863 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Miscellaneous income |
|
|
3,554 |
|
|
|
1,649 |
|
|
|
5,464 |
|
|
|
3,482 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(31,125 |
) |
|
|
(30,041 |
) |
|
|
(61,782 |
) |
|
|
(59,464 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
618 |
|
|
|
156 |
|
|
|
1,045 |
|
|
|
289 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(26,953 |
) |
|
|
(28,236 |
) |
|
|
(55,273 |
) |
|
|
(55,693 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
72,144 |
|
|
|
83,414 |
|
|
|
109,775 |
|
|
|
136,170 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
30,383 |
|
|
|
33,521 |
|
|
|
48,461 |
|
|
|
57,051 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
41,761 |
|
|
$ |
49,893 |
|
|
$ |
61,314 |
|
|
$ |
79,119 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
41,761 |
|
|
$ |
49,893 |
|
|
$ |
61,314 |
|
|
$ |
79,119 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
4,290 |
|
|
|
4,135 |
|
|
|
8,511 |
|
|
|
20,063 |
|
Unrealized gain on derivative hedges |
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
138 |
|
|
|
138 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income |
|
|
4,359 |
|
|
|
4,204 |
|
|
|
8,649 |
|
|
|
20,201 |
|
Income tax expense related to other comprehensive income |
|
|
1,612 |
|
|
|
1,441 |
|
|
|
3,202 |
|
|
|
7,999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income, net of tax |
|
|
2,747 |
|
|
|
2,763 |
|
|
|
5,447 |
|
|
|
12,202 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
$ |
44,508 |
|
|
$ |
52,656 |
|
|
$ |
66,761 |
|
|
$ |
91,321 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of
these financial statements.
17
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
42 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers, net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $3,306 in 2011
and $3,769 in 2010 |
|
|
259,313 |
|
|
|
323,044 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
66,069 |
|
|
|
53,780 |
|
Other |
|
|
25,580 |
|
|
|
26,119 |
|
Notes receivable associated companies |
|
|
16,288 |
|
|
|
177,228 |
|
Prepaid taxes |
|
|
135,679 |
|
|
|
10,889 |
|
Other |
|
|
15,421 |
|
|
|
12,654 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
518,392 |
|
|
|
603,718 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UTILITY PLANT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
4,589,369 |
|
|
|
4,562,781 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
1,682,577 |
|
|
|
1,656,939 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,906,792 |
|
|
|
2,905,842 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
112,573 |
|
|
|
63,535 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,019,365 |
|
|
|
2,969,377 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear fuel disposal trust |
|
|
212,419 |
|
|
|
207,561 |
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
190,422 |
|
|
|
181,851 |
|
Other |
|
|
2,118 |
|
|
|
2,104 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
404,959 |
|
|
|
391,516 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
1,810,936 |
|
|
|
1,810,936 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
469,490 |
|
|
|
513,395 |
|
Other |
|
|
34,028 |
|
|
|
27,938 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,314,454 |
|
|
|
2,352,269 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6,257,170 |
|
|
$ |
6,316,880 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
33,315 |
|
|
$ |
32,402 |
|
Short-term borrowings- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
360,917 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
50,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
56,544 |
|
|
|
28,571 |
|
Other |
|
|
159,720 |
|
|
|
158,442 |
|
Accrued compensation and benefits |
|
|
35,578 |
|
|
|
35,232 |
|
Customer deposits |
|
|
23,684 |
|
|
|
23,385 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
1,346 |
|
|
|
2,509 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
18,059 |
|
|
|
18,111 |
|
Other |
|
|
13,487 |
|
|
|
22,263 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
752,650 |
|
|
|
320,915 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $10 par value, authorized 16,000,000 shares-
13,628,447 shares outstanding |
|
|
136,284 |
|
|
|
136,284 |
|
Other paid-in capital |
|
|
2,008,847 |
|
|
|
2,508,874 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(248,095 |
) |
|
|
(253,542 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
288,484 |
|
|
|
227,170 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
2,185,520 |
|
|
|
2,618,786 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
1,754,582 |
|
|
|
1,769,849 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,940,102 |
|
|
|
4,388,635 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
761,844 |
|
|
|
715,527 |
|
Power purchase contract liability |
|
|
239,943 |
|
|
|
233,492 |
|
Nuclear fuel disposal costs |
|
|
196,868 |
|
|
|
196,768 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
71,711 |
|
|
|
182,364 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
111,831 |
|
|
|
108,297 |
|
Other |
|
|
182,221 |
|
|
|
170,882 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,564,418 |
|
|
|
1,607,330 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6,257,170 |
|
|
$ |
6,316,880 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part
of these financial statements.
18
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
61,314 |
|
|
$ |
79,119 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
52,087 |
|
|
|
55,064 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
121,633 |
|
|
|
150,774 |
|
Deferred purchased power and other costs |
|
|
(70,998 |
) |
|
|
(67,664 |
) |
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
51,222 |
|
|
|
(1,425 |
) |
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
1,319 |
|
|
|
2,608 |
|
Cash collateral paid, net |
|
|
(235 |
) |
|
|
(23,400 |
) |
Pension trust contribution |
|
|
(105,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
58,466 |
|
|
|
(46,788 |
) |
Prepaid taxes |
|
|
(124,790 |
) |
|
|
(111,968 |
) |
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
13,856 |
|
|
|
11,924 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(1,167 |
) |
|
|
10,368 |
|
Other |
|
|
612 |
|
|
|
(6,446 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from operating activities |
|
|
58,319 |
|
|
|
52,166 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
410,917 |
|
|
|
57,850 |
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(14,671 |
) |
|
|
(13,830 |
) |
Common stock dividend payments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(90,000 |
) |
Equity payment to parent |
|
|
(500,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
(1,452 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for financing activities |
|
|
(105,206 |
) |
|
|
(45,980 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(98,153 |
) |
|
|
(80,727 |
) |
Loans to associated companies, net |
|
|
160,940 |
|
|
|
85,049 |
|
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
375,885 |
|
|
|
281,242 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(385,448 |
) |
|
|
(289,454 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(6,299 |
) |
|
|
(2,224 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities |
|
|
46,925 |
|
|
|
(6,114 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
42 |
|
|
$ |
99 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part
of these financial statements.
19
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales |
|
$ |
265,363 |
|
|
$ |
422,030 |
|
|
$ |
603,779 |
|
|
$ |
873,590 |
|
Gross receipts tax collections |
|
|
14,601 |
|
|
|
20,629 |
|
|
|
33,401 |
|
|
|
42,196 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
279,964 |
|
|
|
442,659 |
|
|
|
637,180 |
|
|
|
915,786 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
34,935 |
|
|
|
149,000 |
|
|
|
84,824 |
|
|
|
310,080 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
100,836 |
|
|
|
85,276 |
|
|
|
253,879 |
|
|
|
177,204 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
50,075 |
|
|
|
90,151 |
|
|
|
97,307 |
|
|
|
192,134 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
12,766 |
|
|
|
13,440 |
|
|
|
25,189 |
|
|
|
26,198 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
22,167 |
|
|
|
48,589 |
|
|
|
54,261 |
|
|
|
97,389 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
17,152 |
|
|
|
19,894 |
|
|
|
39,302 |
|
|
|
41,634 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
237,931 |
|
|
|
406,350 |
|
|
|
554,762 |
|
|
|
844,639 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
42,033 |
|
|
|
36,309 |
|
|
|
82,418 |
|
|
|
71,147 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
880 |
|
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
2,097 |
|
Miscellaneous income |
|
|
915 |
|
|
|
1,381 |
|
|
|
1,885 |
|
|
|
3,554 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(13,130 |
) |
|
|
(13,002 |
) |
|
|
(26,187 |
) |
|
|
(26,775 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
228 |
|
|
|
159 |
|
|
|
375 |
|
|
|
285 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(11,974 |
) |
|
|
(10,582 |
) |
|
|
(23,821 |
) |
|
|
(20,839 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
30,059 |
|
|
|
25,727 |
|
|
|
58,597 |
|
|
|
50,308 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
13,281 |
|
|
|
8,618 |
|
|
|
19,232 |
|
|
|
20,884 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
16,778 |
|
|
$ |
17,109 |
|
|
$ |
39,365 |
|
|
$ |
29,424 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
16,778 |
|
|
$ |
17,109 |
|
|
$ |
39,365 |
|
|
$ |
29,424 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
2,227 |
|
|
|
2,162 |
|
|
|
4,190 |
|
|
|
11,871 |
|
Unrealized gain on derivative hedges |
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
168 |
|
|
|
168 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income |
|
|
2,311 |
|
|
|
2,246 |
|
|
|
4,358 |
|
|
|
12,039 |
|
Income tax expense related to other comprehensive income |
|
|
869 |
|
|
|
724 |
|
|
|
1,632 |
|
|
|
4,901 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income, net of tax |
|
|
1,442 |
|
|
|
1,522 |
|
|
|
2,726 |
|
|
|
7,138 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
$ |
18,220 |
|
|
$ |
18,631 |
|
|
$ |
42,091 |
|
|
$ |
36,562 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of
these financial statements.
20
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
157 |
|
|
$ |
243,220 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers, net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $3,087 in 2011
and $3,868 in 2010 |
|
|
143,820 |
|
|
|
178,522 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
12,849 |
|
|
|
24,920 |
|
Other |
|
|
16,437 |
|
|
|
13,007 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
10,432 |
|
|
|
11,028 |
|
Prepaid taxes |
|
|
27,083 |
|
|
|
343 |
|
Other |
|
|
1,443 |
|
|
|
2,289 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
212,221 |
|
|
|
473,329 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UTILITY PLANT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
2,266,437 |
|
|
|
2,247,853 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
859,055 |
|
|
|
846,003 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,407,382 |
|
|
|
1,401,850 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
42,604 |
|
|
|
23,663 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,449,986 |
|
|
|
1,425,513 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
301,188 |
|
|
|
289,328 |
|
Other |
|
|
840 |
|
|
|
884 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
302,028 |
|
|
|
290,212 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
416,499 |
|
|
|
416,499 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
341,488 |
|
|
|
295,856 |
|
Power purchase contract asset |
|
|
65,861 |
|
|
|
111,562 |
|
Other |
|
|
54,587 |
|
|
|
31,699 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
878,435 |
|
|
|
855,616 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,842,670 |
|
|
$ |
3,044,670 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
28,760 |
|
|
$ |
28,760 |
|
Short-term borrowings- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
238,399 |
|
|
|
124,079 |
|
Other |
|
|
50,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
24,377 |
|
|
|
33,942 |
|
Other |
|
|
48,262 |
|
|
|
29,862 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
12,844 |
|
|
|
60,856 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
16,011 |
|
|
|
16,114 |
|
Other |
|
|
29,605 |
|
|
|
29,278 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
448,258 |
|
|
|
322,891 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, without par value, authorized 900,000 shares,
740,905 and 859,500 shares outstanding, respectively |
|
|
842,023 |
|
|
|
1,197,076 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(139,657 |
) |
|
|
(142,383 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
46,772 |
|
|
|
32,406 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
749,138 |
|
|
|
1,087,099 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
704,486 |
|
|
|
718,860 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,453,624 |
|
|
|
1,805,959 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
494,716 |
|
|
|
473,009 |
|
Accumulated deferred investment tax credits |
|
|
6,656 |
|
|
|
6,866 |
|
Nuclear fuel disposal costs |
|
|
44,471 |
|
|
|
44,449 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
199,162 |
|
|
|
192,659 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
22,276 |
|
|
|
29,121 |
|
Power purchase contract liability |
|
|
121,924 |
|
|
|
116,027 |
|
Other |
|
|
51,583 |
|
|
|
53,689 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
940,788 |
|
|
|
915,820 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,842,670 |
|
|
$ |
3,044,670 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
21
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
39,365 |
|
|
$ |
29,424 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
25,189 |
|
|
|
26,198 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
54,261 |
|
|
|
97,389 |
|
Deferred costs recoverable as regulatory assets |
|
|
(41,699 |
) |
|
|
(38,358 |
) |
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
11,972 |
|
|
|
(12,079 |
) |
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
(510 |
) |
|
|
(1,573 |
) |
Cash collateral from suppliers, net |
|
|
174 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
Pension trust contribution |
|
|
(35,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
46,240 |
|
|
|
(29,439 |
) |
Prepaid taxes |
|
|
(26,740 |
) |
|
|
(31,246 |
) |
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
5,148 |
|
|
|
733 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(47,676 |
) |
|
|
9,519 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
(103 |
) |
|
|
(1,277 |
) |
Other |
|
|
10,903 |
|
|
|
7,553 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from operating activities |
|
|
41,524 |
|
|
|
56,894 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
164,320 |
|
|
|
17,898 |
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock |
|
|
(150,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(14,784 |
) |
|
|
(100,000 |
) |
Common stock dividend payments |
|
|
(80,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Equity payment to parent |
|
|
(150,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for financing activities |
|
|
(230,464 |
) |
|
|
(82,102 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(46,647 |
) |
|
|
(54,405 |
) |
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
501,260 |
|
|
|
376,610 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(506,220 |
) |
|
|
(381,219 |
) |
Loans to associated companies, net |
|
|
596 |
|
|
|
85,943 |
|
Other |
|
|
(3,112 |
) |
|
|
(1,715 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities |
|
|
(54,123 |
) |
|
|
25,214 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(243,063 |
) |
|
|
6 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
243,220 |
|
|
|
120 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
157 |
|
|
$ |
126 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
22
PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric sales |
|
$ |
238,942 |
|
|
$ |
350,335 |
|
|
$ |
547,258 |
|
|
$ |
736,271 |
|
Gross receipts tax collections |
|
|
12,727 |
|
|
|
16,162 |
|
|
|
29,256 |
|
|
|
33,686 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
251,669 |
|
|
|
366,497 |
|
|
|
576,514 |
|
|
|
769,957 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
54,635 |
|
|
|
152,945 |
|
|
|
102,119 |
|
|
|
321,345 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
64,459 |
|
|
|
86,829 |
|
|
|
205,895 |
|
|
|
178,252 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
44,570 |
|
|
|
67,070 |
|
|
|
85,898 |
|
|
|
139,464 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
15,770 |
|
|
|
16,605 |
|
|
|
30,343 |
|
|
|
31,287 |
|
Amortization (deferral) of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
12,608 |
|
|
|
(10,522 |
) |
|
|
25,615 |
|
|
|
(20,488 |
) |
General taxes |
|
|
14,665 |
|
|
|
18,647 |
|
|
|
35,401 |
|
|
|
35,181 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
206,707 |
|
|
|
331,574 |
|
|
|
485,271 |
|
|
|
685,041 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
44,962 |
|
|
|
34,923 |
|
|
|
91,243 |
|
|
|
84,916 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Miscellaneous income |
|
|
644 |
|
|
|
1,310 |
|
|
|
669 |
|
|
|
2,923 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(17,361 |
) |
|
|
(17,630 |
) |
|
|
(34,595 |
) |
|
|
(34,920 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
183 |
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
323 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(16,676 |
) |
|
|
(16,137 |
) |
|
|
(33,863 |
) |
|
|
(31,674 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
28,286 |
|
|
|
18,786 |
|
|
|
57,380 |
|
|
|
53,242 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
13,568 |
|
|
|
5,812 |
|
|
|
25,356 |
|
|
|
22,969 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
14,718 |
|
|
$ |
12,974 |
|
|
$ |
32,024 |
|
|
$ |
30,273 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
14,718 |
|
|
$ |
12,974 |
|
|
$ |
32,024 |
|
|
$ |
30,273 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits |
|
|
1,890 |
|
|
|
1,830 |
|
|
|
3,475 |
|
|
|
10,377 |
|
Unrealized gain on derivative hedges |
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income |
|
|
1,907 |
|
|
|
1,846 |
|
|
|
3,508 |
|
|
|
10,409 |
|
Income tax expense related to other comprehensive income |
|
|
678 |
|
|
|
483 |
|
|
|
1,233 |
|
|
|
3,767 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income, net of tax |
|
|
1,229 |
|
|
|
1,363 |
|
|
|
2,275 |
|
|
|
6,642 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
$ |
15,947 |
|
|
$ |
14,337 |
|
|
$ |
34,299 |
|
|
$ |
36,915 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
23
PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers, net of allowance for uncollectible accounts of $2,856 in 2011
and $3,369 in 2010 |
|
|
121,511 |
|
|
|
148,864 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
65,989 |
|
|
|
54,052 |
|
Other |
|
|
11,420 |
|
|
|
11,314 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
13,498 |
|
|
|
14,404 |
|
Prepaid taxes |
|
|
26,372 |
|
|
|
14,026 |
|
Other |
|
|
1,423 |
|
|
|
1,592 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
240,215 |
|
|
|
244,257 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UTILITY PLANT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
2,552,303 |
|
|
|
2,532,629 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
947,315 |
|
|
|
935,259 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,604,988 |
|
|
|
1,597,370 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
62,592 |
|
|
|
30,505 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,667,580 |
|
|
|
1,627,875 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
162,154 |
|
|
|
152,928 |
|
Non-utility generation trusts |
|
|
126,786 |
|
|
|
80,244 |
|
Other |
|
|
292 |
|
|
|
297 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
289,232 |
|
|
|
233,469 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
768,628 |
|
|
|
768,628 |
|
Regulatory assets |
|
|
222,804 |
|
|
|
163,407 |
|
Power purchase contract asset |
|
|
4,000 |
|
|
|
5,746 |
|
Other |
|
|
15,272 |
|
|
|
19,287 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,010,704 |
|
|
|
957,068 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,207,731 |
|
|
$ |
3,062,669 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
45,000 |
|
|
$ |
45,000 |
|
Short-term borrowings- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
159,902 |
|
|
|
101,338 |
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
77,121 |
|
|
|
35,626 |
|
Other |
|
|
29,217 |
|
|
|
41,420 |
|
Accrued taxes |
|
|
3,397 |
|
|
|
5,075 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
17,454 |
|
|
|
17,378 |
|
Other |
|
|
23,280 |
|
|
|
22,541 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
355,371 |
|
|
|
268,378 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $20 par value, authorized 5,400,000 shares-
4,427,577 shares outstanding |
|
|
88,552 |
|
|
|
88,552 |
|
Other paid-in capital |
|
|
913,486 |
|
|
|
913,519 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(161,251 |
) |
|
|
(163,526 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
23,017 |
|
|
|
60,993 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total common stockholders equity |
|
|
863,804 |
|
|
|
899,538 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
1,072,417 |
|
|
|
1,072,262 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,936,221 |
|
|
|
1,971,800 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
415,899 |
|
|
|
371,877 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
188,407 |
|
|
|
187,621 |
|
Power purchase contract liability |
|
|
160,130 |
|
|
|
116,972 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
101,441 |
|
|
|
98,132 |
|
Other |
|
|
50,262 |
|
|
|
47,889 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
916,139 |
|
|
|
822,491 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES AND CONTINGENCIES (Note 9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,207,731 |
|
|
$ |
3,062,669 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
24
PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
(In thousands) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
32,024 |
|
|
$ |
30,273 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash from operating activities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
30,343 |
|
|
|
31,287 |
|
Amortization (deferral) of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
25,615 |
|
|
|
(20,488 |
) |
Deferred costs recoverable as regulatory assets |
|
|
(38,291 |
) |
|
|
(38,955 |
) |
Deferred income taxes and investment tax credits, net |
|
|
46,687 |
|
|
|
42,943 |
|
Accrued compensation and retirement benefits |
|
|
4,733 |
|
|
|
4,216 |
|
Cash collateral paid, net |
|
|
(1,276 |
) |
|
|
(3,613 |
) |
Decrease (increase) in operating assets- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
19,561 |
|
|
|
3,266 |
|
Prepaid taxes |
|
|
(12,346 |
) |
|
|
(37,504 |
) |
Increase (decrease) in operating liabilities- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
23,449 |
|
|
|
(4,603 |
) |
Accrued taxes |
|
|
(12,373 |
) |
|
|
(1,339 |
) |
Other |
|
|
13,153 |
|
|
|
10,227 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from operating activities |
|
|
131,279 |
|
|
|
15,710 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
25,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
58,564 |
|
|
|
25,313 |
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(25,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Common stock dividend payments |
|
|
(70,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
(1,353 |
) |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) financing activities |
|
|
(12,789 |
) |
|
|
25,318 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(64,177 |
) |
|
|
(58,293 |
) |
Loans to
associated companies, net |
|
|
906 |
|
|
|
498 |
|
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
265,223 |
|
|
|
133,934 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
(314,738 |
) |
|
|
(113,067 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(5,707 |
) |
|
|
(4,104 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for investing activities |
|
|
(118,493 |
) |
|
|
(41,032 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of these financial statements.
25
FIRSTENERGY CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMBINED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
26
COMBINED NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED)
1. ORGANIZATION AND BASIS OF PRESENTATION
FirstEnergy is a diversified energy company that holds, directly or indirectly, all of the
outstanding common stock of its principal subsidiaries: OE, CEI, TE, Penn (a wholly owned
subsidiary of OE), ATSI, JCP&L, Met-Ed, Penelec, FENOC, AE and its principal subsidiaries (AE
Supply, AGC, MP, PE, WP and TrAIL), FES and its subsidiaries FGCO and NGC, and FESC. AE merged with
a subsidiary of FirstEnergy on February 25, 2011, with AE continuing as the surviving corporation
and becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy (See Note 2, Merger).
FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries follow GAAP and comply with the related regulations, orders,
policies and practices prescribed by the SEC, FERC, and, as applicable, the PUCO, the PPUC, the
MDPSC, the NYPSC, the WVPSC and the NJBPU. These unaudited interim financial statements and notes
were prepared in accordance with GAAP for interim financial information. Accordingly, they do not
include all of the information and footnotes required by GAAP for complete annual financial
statements. 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.
These unaudited interim financial statements should be read in conjunction with the financial
statements and notes included in the combined Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2010 for FirstEnergy, FES and the Utility Registrants, as applicable. The consolidated
unaudited financial statements of FirstEnergy, FES and each of the Utility Registrants reflect all
normal recurring adjustments that, in the opinion of management, are necessary to fairly present
results of operations for the interim periods. Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to
conform to the current year presentation. Unless otherwise indicated, defined terms used herein
have the meanings set forth in the accompanying Glossary of Terms.
FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries consolidate all majority-owned subsidiaries over which they
exercise control and, when applicable, entities for which they have a controlling financial
interest. Intercompany transactions and balances are eliminated in consolidation. FirstEnergy
consolidates a VIE when it is determined that it is the primary beneficiary (see Note 7, Variable
Interest Entities). Investments in affiliates over which FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries have the
ability to exercise significant influence, but with respect to which are not the primary
beneficiary and do not exercise control, follow the equity method of accounting. Under the equity
method, the interest in the entity is reported as an investment in the Consolidated Balance Sheets
and the percentage share of the entitys earnings is reported in the Consolidated Statements of
Income.
2. MERGER
Merger
On February 25, 2011, the merger between FirstEnergy and Allegheny closed. Pursuant to the terms of
the Agreement and Plan of Merger among FirstEnergy, Element Merger Sub, Inc., a Maryland
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy (Merger Sub) and AE, Merger Sub merged
with and into AE, with AE continuing as the surviving corporation and becoming a wholly-owned
subsidiary of FirstEnergy. As part of the merger, AE shareholders received 0.667 of a share of
FirstEnergy common stock for each share of AE common stock outstanding as of the date the merger
was completed, and all outstanding AE equity-based employee compensation awards were converted into
FirstEnergy equity-based awards on the same basis.
The total consideration in the merger was based on the closing price of a share of FirstEnergy
common stock on February 24, 2011, the day prior to the date the merger was completed, and was
calculated as follows (in millions, except per share data):
|
|
|
|
|
Shares of Allegheny common stock outstanding on February 24, 2011 |
|
|
170 |
|
Exchange ratio |
|
|
0.667 |
|
|
|
|
|
Number of shares of FirstEnergy common stock issued |
|
|
113 |
|
Closing price of FirstEnergy common stock on February 24, 2011 |
|
$ |
38.16 |
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of shares issued by FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
4,327 |
|
Fair value of replacement share-based compensation awards
relating to pre-merger service |
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total consideration transferred |
|
$ |
4,354 |
|
|
|
|
|
27
The allocation of the total consideration transferred to the assets acquired and liabilities
assumed includes adjustments for the fair value of coal contracts, energy supply contracts,
emission allowances, unregulated property, plant and
equipment, derivative instruments, goodwill, intangible assets, long-term debt and accumulated
deferred income taxes. The preliminary allocation of the purchase price is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets |
|
$ |
1,494 |
|
Property, plant and equipment |
|
|
9,656 |
|
Investments |
|
|
138 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
881 |
|
Other noncurrent assets |
|
|
1,347 |
|
Current liabilities |
|
|
(716 |
) |
Noncurrent liabilities |
|
|
(3,452 |
) |
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
(4,994 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
4,354 |
|
|
|
|
|
The allocation of purchase price in the table above reflects a refinement made during the
quarter ended June 30, 2011 in the determination of the fair values of income tax benefits, certain
coal contracts and an adverse purchase power contract. This resulted in an increase in noncurrent
assets of approximately $85 million and decreases in current assets and goodwill of $15 million and
$71 million, respectively. The impact of the refinements on the amortization of purchase
accounting adjustments recorded during the quarter ended March 31, 2011 was not significant.
Further modifications to the purchase price allocation may occur as a result of continuing review
of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed.
The estimated fair values of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed have been determined based
on the accounting guidance for fair value measurements under GAAP, which defines fair value as the
price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly
transaction between market participants at the measurement date.
The excess of the purchase price over the estimated fair values of the assets acquired and
liabilities assumed was recognized as goodwill. The Allegheny delivery, transmission and generation
businesses have been assigned to the Regulated Distribution, Regulated Independent Transmission and
Competitive Energy Services segments, respectively. The preliminary estimate of goodwill from the
merger of $881 million has been assigned to the Competitive Energy Services segment based on
expected synergies from the merger. The goodwill is not deductible for tax purposes.
Total goodwill recognized by segment in FirstEnergys Consolidated Balance Sheet is as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Competitive |
|
|
Regulated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Independent |
|
|
Other/ |
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Distribution |
|
|
Services |
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
Corporate |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2010 |
|
$ |
5,551 |
|
|
$ |
24 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
5,575 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Merger with Allegheny |
|
|
|
|
|
|
881 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
881 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of June 30, 2011 |
|
$ |
5,551 |
|
|
$ |
905 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
6,456 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28
The preliminary valuation of the additional intangible assets and liabilities recorded as
result of the merger is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preliminary |
|
|
Weighted Average |
|
(In millions) |
|
Valuation |
|
|
Amortization Period |
|
Above market contracts: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy contracts |
|
$ |
189 |
|
|
10 years |
NUG contracts |
|
|
124 |
|
|
25 years |
Coal supply contracts |
|
|
516 |
|
|
8 years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
829 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Below market contracts: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NUG contracts |
|
|
143 |
|
|
13 years |
Coal supply contracts |
|
|
83 |
|
|
7 years |
Transportation contract |
|
|
35 |
|
|
8 years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
261 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net intangible assets |
|
$ |
568 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fair value measurements of intangible assets and liabilities were based on significant
unobservable inputs and thus represent level 3 measurements as defined in accounting guidance for
fair value measurements.
The fair value of Alleghenys energy, NUG and gas transportation contracts, both above-market and
below-market, were estimated based on the present value of the above/below market cash flows
attributable to the contracts based on the contract type, discounted by a current market interest
rate consistent with the overall credit quality of the portfolio. The above/below market cash flows
were estimated by comparing the expected cash flow based on existing contracted prices and expected
volumes with the cash flows from estimated current market contract prices for the same expected
volumes. The estimated current market contract prices were derived considering current market
prices, such as the price of energy and transmission, miscellaneous fees and a normal profit
margin. The weighted average amortization period was determined based on the expected volumes to be
delivered over the life of the contract.
The fair value of coal supply contracts was determined in a similar manner based on the present
value of the above/below market cash flows attributable to the contracts. The fair value adjustment
for these contracts is being amortized based on expected deliveries under each contract.
As of June 30, 2011, intangible assets on FirstEnergys Consolidated Balance Sheet, including those
recorded in connection with the merger, include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intangible |
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
Purchase contract assets |
|
|
|
|
NUG |
|
$ |
198 |
|
OVEC |
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
252 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intangible assets |
|
|
|
|
Coal contracts |
|
|
487 |
|
FES customer intangible assets |
|
|
129 |
|
Energy contracts |
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
721 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total intangible assets |
|
$ |
973 |
|
|
|
|
|
Acquired land easements and software with a fair value of $169 million are included in
Property, plant and equipment on FirstEnergys Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2011.
In connection with the merger, FirstEnergy recorded merger transaction costs of approximately $7
million ($5 million net of tax) and $7 million ($5 million net of tax) during the three months
ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively and approximately $89 million ($72 million net of tax)
and $21 million ($15 million net of tax) during the first six months of 2011 and 2010,
respectively. These costs are included in Other operating expenses in the Consolidated Statements
of Income. Merger transaction costs recognized in the first six months of 2011 include $56 million
($47 net of tax) of change in control and other benefit payments to AE executives.
29
FirstEnergy also recorded approximately $10 million ($6 million net of tax) and $85 million ($66
million net of tax) in merger integration costs during the three and six months ended June 30 2011,
respectively, including an inventory valuation adjustment. In connection with the merger,
FirstEnergy reviewed its inventory levels as a result of combining the inventory of both companies.
Following this review, FirstEnergy management determined that the combined inventory stock
contained excess and duplicative items. FirstEnergy management also adopted a consistent excess and
obsolete inventory practice for the combined entity. Application of the revised practice, in
conjunction with those items identified as excess and duplicative, resulted in an inventory
valuation adjustment of $67 million ($42 million net of tax) in the first quarter of 2011.
Revenues and earnings of Allegheny included in FirstEnergys Consolidated Statement of Income for
the periods subsequent to the February 25, 2011 merger date are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
April 1 |
|
|
February 26 |
|
(In millions, except per share amounts) |
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
$ |
1,181 |
|
|
$ |
1,618 |
|
Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp.(1) |
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic Earnings Per Share |
|
$ |
0.15 |
|
|
$ |
0.04 |
|
Diluted Earnings Per Share |
|
$ |
0.15 |
|
|
$ |
0.04 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes Alleghenys after-tax merger costs of $4 million and $56 million,
respectively. |
Pro Forma Financial Information
The following unaudited pro forma financial information reflects the consolidated results of
operations of FirstEnergy as if the merger with Allegheny had taken place on January 1, 2010. The
unaudited pro forma information has been calculated after applying FirstEnergys accounting
policies and adjusting Alleghenys results to reflect the depreciation and amortization that would
have been charged assuming fair value adjustments to property, plant and equipment, debt and
intangible assets had been applied on January 1, 2010, together with the consequential tax effects.
FirstEnergy and Allegheny both incurred non-recurring costs directly related to the merger that
have been included in the pro forma earnings presented below. Combined pre-tax transaction costs
incurred were approximately $7 million and $11 million in the three months ended June 30, 2011 and
2010, respectively, and approximately $90 million and $39 million in the six months ended June 30,
2011 and 2010, respectively. In addition, during the six months ended June 30, 2011, $85 million
of pre-tax merger integration costs and $32 million of charges from merger settlements approved by
regulatory agencies were recognized. Charges resulting from merger settlements are not expected to
be material in future periods.
The unaudited pro forma financial information has been presented below for illustrative purposes
only and is not necessarily indicative of results of operations that would have been achieved or
the future consolidated results of operations of the combined company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
(Pro forma amounts in millions, except |
|
June 30 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
per share amounts) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues |
|
$ |
4,062 |
|
|
$ |
4,401 |
|
|
$ |
8,848 |
|
|
$ |
9,086 |
|
Earnings available to FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
186 |
|
|
$ |
389 |
|
|
$ |
323 |
|
|
$ |
644 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic Earnings Per Share |
|
$ |
0.44 |
|
|
$ |
0.93 |
|
|
$ |
0.77 |
|
|
$ |
1.54 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted Earnings Per Share |
|
$ |
0.44 |
|
|
$ |
0.93 |
|
|
$ |
0.77 |
|
|
$ |
1.53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30
3. EARNINGS PER SHARE
Basic earnings per share of common stock are computed using the weighted average of actual common
shares outstanding during the relevant period as the denominator. The denominator for diluted
earnings per share of common stock reflects the weighted average of common shares outstanding plus
the potential additional common shares that would be issued if dilutive securities and other
agreements to issue common stock were exercised. The following table reconciles basic and diluted
earnings per share of common stock:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
Six Months |
|
Reconciliation of Basic and Diluted Earnings per Share |
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
of Common Stock |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
(In millions, except per share amounts) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
$ |
181 |
|
|
$ |
265 |
|
|
$ |
231 |
|
|
$ |
420 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average number of basic shares outstanding(1) |
|
|
418 |
|
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
380 |
|
|
|
304 |
|
Assumed exercise of dilutive stock options and awards |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average number of diluted shares outstanding(1) |
|
|
420 |
|
|
|
305 |
|
|
|
382 |
|
|
|
305 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings per share of common stock |
|
$ |
0.43 |
|
|
$ |
0.87 |
|
|
$ |
0.61 |
|
|
$ |
1.38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted earnings per share of common stock |
|
$ |
0.43 |
|
|
$ |
0.87 |
|
|
$ |
0.61 |
|
|
$ |
1.37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes 113 million shares issued to AE stockholders for the periods subsequent to
the merger date. (See Note 2) |
4. FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS
(A) LONG-TERM DEBT AND OTHER LONG-TERM OBLIGATIONS
All borrowings with initial maturities of less than one year are defined as short-term financial
instruments under GAAP and are reported on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at cost, which
approximates their fair market value, in the caption short-term borrowings. The following table
provides the approximate fair value and related carrying amounts of long-term debt and other
long-term obligations as of June 30, 2011 and December 31 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
Value |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Value |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
FirstEnergy(1) |
|
$ |
18,371 |
|
|
$ |
19,436 |
|
|
$ |
13,928 |
|
|
$ |
14,845 |
|
FES |
|
|
4,056 |
|
|
|
4,310 |
|
|
|
4,279 |
|
|
|
4,403 |
|
OE |
|
|
1,158 |
|
|
|
1,367 |
|
|
|
1,159 |
|
|
|
1,321 |
|
CEI |
|
|
1,831 |
|
|
|
2,083 |
|
|
|
1,853 |
|
|
|
2,035 |
|
TE |
|
|
600 |
|
|
|
690 |
|
|
|
600 |
|
|
|
653 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
1,795 |
|
|
|
2,008 |
|
|
|
1,810 |
|
|
|
1,962 |
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
729 |
|
|
|
828 |
|
|
|
742 |
|
|
|
821 |
|
Penelec |
|
|
1,120 |
|
|
|
1,231 |
|
|
|
1,120 |
|
|
|
1,189 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes debt assumed in the Allegheny merger (See Note 2) with a carrying value
and a fair value as of June 30, 2011 of $4,530 million and $4,127 million, respectively. |
The fair values of long-term debt and other long-term obligations reflect the present value of
the cash outflows relating to those obligations based on the current call price, the yield to
maturity or the yield to call, as deemed appropriate at the end of each respective period. The
yields assumed were based on debt with similar characteristics offered by corporations with credit
ratings similar to those of FirstEnergy, FES, the Utilities and other subsidiaries.
(B) INVESTMENTS
All temporary cash investments purchased with an initial maturity of three months or less are
reported as cash equivalents on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at cost, which approximates their
fair market value. Investments other than cash and cash equivalents include held-to-maturity
securities, available-for-sale securities and notes receivable.
FES and the Utilities periodically evaluate their investments for other-than-temporary impairment.
They first consider their intent and ability to hold an equity investment until recovery and then
consider, among other factors, the duration and the extent to which the securitys fair value has
been less than cost and the near-term financial prospects of the security issuer when evaluating an
investment for impairment. For debt securities, FES and the Utilities consider their intent to hold
the security, the likelihood that they will be required to sell the security before recovery of
their cost basis, and the likelihood of recovery of the securitys entire amortized cost basis.
31
Unrealized gains applicable to the decommissioning trusts of FES, OE and TE are recognized in OCI
because fluctuations in fair value will eventually impact earnings while unrealized losses are
recorded to earnings. The
decommissioning trusts of JCP&L, Met-Ed and Penelec are subject to regulatory accounting. Net
unrealized gains and losses are recorded as regulatory assets or liabilities because the difference
between investments held in the trust and the decommissioning liabilities will be recovered from or
refunded to customers.
The investment policy for the nuclear decommissioning trust funds restricts or limits the trusts
ability to hold certain types of assets including private or direct placements, warrants,
securities of FirstEnergy, investments in companies owning nuclear power plants, financial
derivatives, preferred stocks, securities convertible into common stock and securities of the trust
funds custodian or managers and their parents or subsidiaries.
Available-For-Sale Securities
FES and the Utilities hold debt and equity securities within their NDT, nuclear fuel disposal
trusts and NUG trusts. These trust investments are considered as available-for-sale at fair market
value. FES and the Utilities have no securities held for trading purposes.
The following table summarizes the amortized cost basis, unrealized gains and losses and fair
values of investments held in NDT, nuclear fuel disposal trusts and NUG trusts as of June 30, 2011
and December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2011(1) |
|
|
December 31, 2010(2) |
|
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
Basis |
|
|
Gains |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Basis |
|
|
Gains |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Value |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
2,015 |
|
|
$ |
48 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2,063 |
|
|
$ |
1,699 |
|
|
$ |
31 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,730 |
|
FES |
|
|
1,023 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,049 |
|
|
|
980 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
993 |
|
OE |
|
|
128 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
131 |
|
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
124 |
|
TE |
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
353 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
362 |
|
|
|
281 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
290 |
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
249 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
254 |
|
|
|
127 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
131 |
|
Penelec |
|
|
210 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
214 |
|
|
|
145 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
149 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
187 |
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
198 |
|
|
$ |
268 |
|
|
$ |
69 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
337 |
|
FES |
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TE |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JCP&L |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
97 |
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
125 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
160 |
|
Penelec |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes cash investments, receivables, payables, deferred taxes and accrued
income: FirstEnergy $130 million; FES $39 million; OE $3 million; JCP&L $19 million;
Met-Ed $14 million and Penelec $55 million. |
|
(2) |
|
Excludes cash investments, receivables, payables, deferred taxes and accrued
income: FirstEnergy $193 million; FES $153 million; OE $3 million; TE $34 million;
JCP&L $3 million; Met-Ed $(3) million and Penelec $4 million. |
32
Proceeds from the sale of investments in available-for-sale securities, realized gains and
losses on those sales net of adjustments recorded to earnings and interest and dividend income for
the three months and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest and |
|
2011 |
|
Sales Proceeds |
|
|
Realized Gains |
|
|
Realized Losses |
|
|
Dividend Income |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
734 |
|
|
$ |
22 |
|
|
$ |
(16 |
) |
|
$ |
28 |
|
FES |
|
|
297 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
17 |
|
OE |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
TE |
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
159 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
4 |
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
165 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
3 |
|
Penelec |
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest and |
|
2010 |
|
Sales Proceeds |
|
|
Realized Gains |
|
|
Realized Losses |
|
|
Dividend Income |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
1,183 |
|
|
$ |
46 |
|
|
$ |
(36 |
) |
|
$ |
16 |
|
FES |
|
|
685 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
|
9 |
|
OE |
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TE |
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JCP&L |
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
233 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
Penelec |
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended June 30, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest and |
|
2011 |
|
Sales Proceeds |
|
|
Realized Gains |
|
|
Realized Losses |
|
|
Dividend Income |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
1,703 |
|
|
$ |
122 |
|
|
$ |
(45 |
) |
|
$ |
52 |
|
FES |
|
|
513 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
32 |
|
OE |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
TE |
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
376 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
8 |
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
501 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
5 |
|
Penelec |
|
|
265 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest and |
|
2010 |
|
Sales Proceeds |
|
|
Realized Gains |
|
|
Realized Losses |
|
|
Dividend Income |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
1,915 |
|
|
$ |
83 |
|
|
$ |
(86 |
) |
|
$ |
37 |
|
FES |
|
|
957 |
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
(58 |
) |
|
|
22 |
|
OE |
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
TE |
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
281 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
7 |
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
377 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
3 |
|
Penelec |
|
|
134 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
3 |
|
Held-To-Maturity Securities
The following table provides the amortized cost basis, unrealized gains and losses, and approximate
fair values of investments in held-to-maturity securities as of June 30, 2011 and December 31,
2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
Basis |
|
|
Gains |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Basis |
|
|
Gains |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Value |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Debt Securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
414 |
|
|
$ |
84 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
498 |
|
|
$ |
476 |
|
|
$ |
91 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
567 |
|
OE |
|
|
178 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
223 |
|
|
|
190 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
241 |
|
CEI |
|
|
287 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
326 |
|
|
|
340 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
381 |
|
Investments in emission allowances, employee benefits and cost and equity method investments
totaling $345 million as of June 30, 2011 and $259 million as of December 31, 2010, are not
required to be disclosed and are excluded from the amounts reported above.
33
Notes Receivable
The table below provides the approximate fair value and related carrying amounts of notes
receivable as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. The fair value of notes receivable represents
the present value of the cash inflows based on the yield to maturity. The yields assumed were based
on financial instruments with similar characteristics and terms. The maturity dates range from
2013 to 2021.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
Value |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Value |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Notes Receivable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
TE |
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
118 |
|
34
(C) RECURRING FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS
Authoritative accounting guidance establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs
used to measure fair value. This hierarchy gives the highest priority to Level 1 measurements and
the lowest priority to Level 3 measurements.
The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are as follows:
|
|
|
Level 1
|
|
Quoted prices for identical instruments in active markets. |
|
|
|
Level 2
|
|
Quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets; |
|
|
|
|
|
quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active; and |
|
|
|
|
|
model-derived valuations for which all significant inputs are observable market data. |
|
|
|
Level 3
|
|
Valuation inputs are unobservable and significant to the fair value measurement. |
The following tables set forth financial assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a
recurring basis by level within the fair value hierarchy. There were no significant transfers
between levels during the three months and six months ended June 30, 2011.
35
FirstEnergy Corp.
The following tables summarize assets and liabilities recorded on FirstEnergys Consolidated
Balance Sheets at fair value as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
868 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
868 |
|
Derivative assets commodity contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
312 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
312 |
|
Derivative assets FTRs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
Derivative assets interest rate swaps |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
Derivative assets NUG contracts(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
Equity securities(2) |
|
|
198 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
198 |
|
Foreign government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
206 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
206 |
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
673 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
673 |
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
306 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
306 |
|
Other(4) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
146 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
146 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
198 |
|
|
$ |
2,515 |
|
|
$ |
88 |
|
|
$ |
2,801 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative liabilities commodity contracts |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(362 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(362 |
) |
Derivative liabilities FTRs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
) |
Derivative liabilities interest rate swaps |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
Derivative liabilities NUG contracts(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(522 |
) |
|
|
(522 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(367 |
) |
|
$ |
(529 |
) |
|
$ |
(896 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets (liabilities)(3) |
|
$ |
198 |
|
|
$ |
2,148 |
|
|
$ |
(441 |
) |
|
$ |
1,905 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
597 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
597 |
|
Derivative assets commodity contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
250 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
250 |
|
Derivative assets NUG contracts(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
122 |
|
|
|
122 |
|
Equity securities(2) |
|
|
338 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
338 |
|
Foreign government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
149 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
149 |
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
595 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
595 |
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
379 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
379 |
|
Other(4) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
219 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
219 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
338 |
|
|
$ |
2,189 |
|
|
$ |
122 |
|
|
$ |
2,649 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative liabilities commodity contracts |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(348 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(348 |
) |
Derivative liabilities NUG contracts(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(466 |
) |
|
|
(466 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(348 |
) |
|
$ |
(466 |
) |
|
$ |
(814 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets (liabilities)(3) |
|
$ |
338 |
|
|
$ |
1,841 |
|
|
$ |
(344 |
) |
|
$ |
1,835 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
NUG contracts are generally subject to regulatory accounting and do not
materially impact earnings. |
|
(2) |
|
NDT funds hold equity portfolios the performance of which is benchmarked against
the S&P 500 Index or Russell 3000 Index. |
|
(3) |
|
Excludes $6 million and $(7) million as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010,
respectively, of receivables, payables, deferred taxes and accrued income associated with
the financial instruments reflected within the fair value table. |
|
(4) |
|
Primarily consists of cash and cash equivalents. |
36
Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements
The following table provides a reconciliation of changes in the fair value of NUG contracts held by
the Utilities and FTRs held by FirstEnergy and classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy
during the periods ending June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative Asset(1) |
|
|
Derivative Liability(1) |
|
|
Net(1) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
January 1, 2011 Balance |
|
$ |
122 |
|
|
$ |
(466 |
) |
|
$ |
(344 |
) |
Realized gain (loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) |
|
|
(40 |
) |
|
|
(203 |
) |
|
|
(243 |
) |
Purchases |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
10 |
|
Issuances |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Settlements |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
154 |
|
|
|
148 |
|
Transfers
into Level 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 Balance |
|
$ |
89 |
|
|
$ |
(530 |
) |
|
$ |
(441 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2010 Balance |
|
$ |
200 |
|
|
$ |
(643 |
) |
|
$ |
(443 |
) |
Realized gain (loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) |
|
|
(71 |
) |
|
|
(110 |
) |
|
|
(181 |
) |
Purchases |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuances |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Settlements |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
287 |
|
|
|
280 |
|
Transfers
into Level 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010 Balance |
|
$ |
122 |
|
|
$ |
(466 |
) |
|
$ |
(344 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Changes in the fair value of NUG contracts are generally subject to
regulatory accounting and do not materially impact earnings. |
37
FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.
The following tables summarize assets and liabilities recorded on FES Consolidated Balance Sheets
at fair value as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
562 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
562 |
|
Derivative assets commodity contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
283 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
283 |
|
Derivative assets FTRs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
Equity securities(3) |
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96 |
|
Foreign government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
160 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
160 |
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
316 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
316 |
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
Other(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
96 |
|
|
$ |
1,370 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
1,468 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative liabilities commodity contracts |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(327 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(327 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(327 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(327 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets (liabilities)(1) |
|
$ |
96 |
|
|
$ |
1,043 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
1,141 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
528 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
528 |
|
Derivative assets commodity contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
241 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
241 |
|
Foreign government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
147 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
147 |
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
308 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
308 |
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
Other(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,378 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,378 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative liabilities commodity contracts |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(348 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(348 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(348 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(348 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets (liabilities)(1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,030 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,030 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes $7 million as of December 31, 2010 of receivables, payables, deferred
taxes and accrued income associated with the financial instruments reflected within the
fair value table. |
|
(2) |
|
Primarily consists of cash and cash equivalents. |
|
(3) |
|
NDT funds hold equity portfolios the performance of which is benchmarked against
the S&P 500 Index or Russell 3000 Index. |
Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements
The following table provides a reconciliation of changes in the fair value of FTRs held by FES and
classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy during the period ending June 30, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative Asset |
|
|
Derivative Liability |
|
|
Net |
|
|
|
FTRs |
|
|
FTRs |
|
|
FTRs |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
January 1, 2011 Balance |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Realized gain (loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
Purchases |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Issuances |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Settlements |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
Transfers in (out) of Level 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 Balance |
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38
Ohio Edison Company
The following tables summarize assets and liabilities recorded on OEs Consolidated Balance Sheets
at fair value as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
131 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
131 |
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets(1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
133 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
133 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
124 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
124 |
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets(1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
126 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
126 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes $2 million and $1 million as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010,
respectively, of receivables, payables, deferred taxes and accrued income associated with
the financial instruments reflected within the fair value table. |
The Toledo Edison Company
The following tables summarize assets and liabilities recorded on TEs Consolidated Balance Sheets
at fair value as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
16 |
|
Equity securities(3) |
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26 |
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33 |
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
Other(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets(1) |
|
$ |
26 |
|
|
$ |
53 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
79 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33 |
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
Other(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets(1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
76 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes $(1) million and $2 million as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010,
respectively of receivables, payables, deferred taxes and accrued income associated with
the financial instruments reflected within the fair value table. |
|
(2) |
|
Primarily consists of cash and cash equivalents. |
|
(3) |
|
NDT funds hold equity portfolios the performance of which is benchmarked against
the S&P 500 Index or Russell 3000 Index. |
39
Jersey Central Power & Light Company
The following tables summarize assets and liabilities recorded on JCP&Ls Consolidated Balance
Sheets at fair value as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
81 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
81 |
|
Derivative assets NUG contracts(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
Equity securities(2) |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
|
Foreign government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54 |
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
215 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
215 |
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
21 |
|
|
$ |
377 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
403 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative liabilities NUG contracts(1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(240 |
) |
|
$ |
(240 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(240 |
) |
|
$ |
(240 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets (liabilities)(3) |
|
$ |
21 |
|
|
$ |
377 |
|
|
$ |
(235 |
) |
|
$ |
163 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
23 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
23 |
|
Derivative assets commodity contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Derivative assets NUG contracts(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
Equity securities(2) |
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96 |
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33 |
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
236 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
236 |
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
96 |
|
|
$ |
298 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative liabilities NUG contracts(1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(233 |
) |
|
$ |
(233 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(233 |
) |
|
$ |
(233 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets (liabilities)(3) |
|
$ |
96 |
|
|
$ |
298 |
|
|
$ |
(227 |
) |
|
$ |
167 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
NUG contracts are subject to regulatory accounting and do not impact earnings. |
|
(2) |
|
NDT funds hold equity portfolios the performance of which is benchmarked against
the S&P 500 Index or Russell 3000 Index. |
|
(3) |
|
Excludes $5 million and $(3) million as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010,
respectively, of receivables, payables, deferred taxes and accrued income associated with
the financial instruments reflected within the fair value table. |
40
Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements
The following table provides a reconciliation of changes in the fair value of NUG contracts held by
JCP&L and classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy during the periods ending June 30, 2011
and December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative Asset |
|
|
Derivative Liability |
|
|
Net |
|
|
|
NUG Contracts(1) |
|
|
NUG Contracts(1) |
|
|
NUG Contracts(1) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
January 1, 2011 Balance |
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
(233 |
) |
|
$ |
(227 |
) |
Realized gain (loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(71 |
) |
|
|
(72 |
) |
Purchases |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuances |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Settlements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
64 |
|
Transfers in (out) of Level 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 Balance |
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
(240 |
) |
|
$ |
(235 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2010 Balance |
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
(399 |
) |
|
$ |
(391 |
) |
Realized gain (loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
Purchases |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuances |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Settlements |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
130 |
|
|
|
129 |
|
Transfers in (out) of Level 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010 Balance |
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
(233 |
) |
|
$ |
(227 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Changes in the fair value of NUG contracts are subject to regulatory
accounting and do not impact earnings. |
41
Metropolitan Edison Company
The following tables summarize assets and liabilities recorded on Met-Eds Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
138 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
138 |
|
Derivative assets NUG contracts(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
66 |
|
Equity securities(2) |
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33 |
|
Foreign government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
87 |
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
33 |
|
|
$ |
269 |
|
|
$ |
66 |
|
|
$ |
368 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative liabilities NUG contracts(1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(122 |
) |
|
$ |
(122 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(122 |
) |
|
$ |
(122 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets (liabilities)(3) |
|
$ |
33 |
|
|
$ |
269 |
|
|
$ |
(56 |
) |
|
$ |
246 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
32 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
32 |
|
Derivative assets commodity contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
Derivative assets NUG contracts(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
112 |
|
|
|
112 |
|
Equity securities(2) |
|
|
160 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
160 |
|
Foreign government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
88 |
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
160 |
|
|
$ |
142 |
|
|
$ |
112 |
|
|
$ |
414 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative liabilities NUG contracts(1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(116 |
) |
|
$ |
(116 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(116 |
) |
|
$ |
(116 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets (liabilities)(3) |
|
$ |
160 |
|
|
$ |
142 |
|
|
$ |
(4 |
) |
|
$ |
298 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
NUG contracts are subject to regulatory accounting and do not impact earnings. |
|
(2) |
|
NDT funds hold equity portfolios the performance of which is benchmarked against
the S&P 500 Index or Russell 3000 Index. |
|
(3) |
|
Excludes $(1) million and $(9) million as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010,
respectively, of receivables, payables, deferred taxes and accrued income associated with
the financial instruments reflected within the fair value table. |
42
Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements
The following table provides a reconciliation of changes in the fair value of NUG contracts held by
Met-Ed and classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy during the periods ending June 30,
2011 and December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative Asset |
|
|
Derivative Liability |
|
|
Net |
|
|
|
NUG Contracts(1) |
|
|
NUG Contracts(1) |
|
|
NUG Contracts(1) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
January 1, 2011 Balance |
|
$ |
112 |
|
|
$ |
(116 |
) |
|
$ |
(4 |
) |
Realized gain (loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) |
|
|
(42 |
) |
|
|
(36 |
) |
|
|
(78 |
) |
Purchases |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuances |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Settlements |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
Transfers in (out) of Level 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 Balance |
|
$ |
66 |
|
|
$ |
(122 |
) |
|
$ |
(56 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2010 Balance |
|
$ |
176 |
|
|
$ |
(143 |
) |
|
$ |
33 |
|
Realized gain (loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) |
|
|
(59 |
) |
|
|
(38 |
) |
|
|
(97 |
) |
Purchases |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuances |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Settlements |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
Transfers in (out) of Level 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010 Balance |
|
$ |
112 |
|
|
$ |
(116 |
) |
|
$ |
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Changes in the fair value of NUG contracts are subject to regulatory
accounting and do not impact earnings. |
43
Pennsylvania Electric Company
The following tables summarize assets and liabilities recorded on Penelecs Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
69 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
69 |
|
Derivative assets NUG contracts(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
Equity securities(2) |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
Foreign government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52 |
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
81 |
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
20 |
|
|
$ |
267 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
291 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative liabilities NUG contracts(1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(160 |
) |
|
$ |
(160 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(160 |
) |
|
$ |
(160 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets (liabilities)(3) |
|
$ |
20 |
|
|
$ |
267 |
|
|
$ |
(156 |
) |
|
$ |
131 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
Level 1 |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
Level 3 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
Derivative assets commodity contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Derivative assets NUG contracts(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
Equity securities(2) |
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
81 |
|
U.S. government debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
U.S. state debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
133 |
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
81 |
|
|
$ |
157 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
242 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative liabilities NUG contracts(1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(117 |
) |
|
$ |
(117 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(117 |
) |
|
$ |
(117 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets (liabilities)(3) |
|
$ |
81 |
|
|
$ |
157 |
|
|
$ |
(113 |
) |
|
$ |
125 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
NUG contracts are subject to regulatory accounting and do not impact earnings. |
|
(2) |
|
NDT funds hold equity portfolios the performance of which is benchmarked against
the S&P 500 Index or Russell 3000 Index. |
|
(3) |
|
Excludes $1 million and $(3) million as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010,
respectively, of receivables, payables and accrued income associated with the financial
instruments reflected within the fair value table. |
44
Rollforward of Level 3 Measurements
The following table provides a reconciliation of changes in the fair value of NUG and commodity
contracts held by Penelec and classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy during the periods
ended June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative Asset |
|
|
Derivative Liability |
|
|
Net |
|
|
|
NUG Contracts(1) |
|
|
NUG Contracts(1) |
|
|
NUG Contracts(1) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
January 1, 2011 Balance |
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
(117 |
) |
|
$ |
(113 |
) |
Realized gain (loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(88 |
) |
|
|
(88 |
) |
Purchases |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuances |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Settlements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
Transfers in (out) of Level 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 Balance |
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
(160 |
) |
|
$ |
(156 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2010 Balance |
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
$ |
(101 |
) |
|
$ |
(85 |
) |
Realized gain (loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
(108 |
) |
|
|
(119 |
) |
Purchases |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuances |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Settlements |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
91 |
|
Transfers in (out) of Level 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010 Balance |
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
(117 |
) |
|
$ |
(113 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Changes in the fair value of NUG contracts are subject to regulatory
accounting and do not impact earnings. |
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, FirstEnergys Risk Policy Committee, comprised 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 practice. FirstEnergy also uses a variety of derivative instruments for
risk management purposes including forward contracts, options, futures contracts and swaps. In
addition to derivatives, FirstEnergy also enters into master netting agreements with certain third
parties.
FirstEnergy accounts for derivative instruments on its Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value
unless they meet the normal purchases and normal sales criteria. Derivatives that meet those
criteria are accounted for under the accrual method of accounting, and their effects are included
in earnings at the time of contract performance. Changes in the fair value of derivative
instruments that qualify and are designated as cash flow hedge instruments are recorded in AOCL.
Changes in the fair value of derivative instruments that are not designated as cash flow hedge
instruments are recorded in net income on a mark-to-market basis. FirstEnergy has contractual
derivative agreements through December 2018.
Cash Flow Hedges
FirstEnergy has used cash flow hedges for risk management purposes to manage the volatility related
to exposures associated with fluctuating interest rates and commodity prices. The effective portion
of gains and losses on the derivative contract are reported as a component of AOCL with subsequent
reclassification to earnings in the period during which the hedged forecasted transaction affects
earnings.
As of December 31, 2010, commodity derivative contracts designated in cash flow hedging
relationships were $104 million of assets and $101 million of liabilities. In February 2011,
FirstEnergy elected to dedesignate all outstanding cash flow hedge relationships. Total net
unamortized gains included in AOCL associated with dedesignated cash flow hedges totaled $8 million
as of June 30, 2011. Since the forecasted transactions remain probable of occurring, these amounts
will be amortized into earnings over the life of the hedging instruments. Reclassifications from
AOCL into other operating expenses totaled $14 million and $19 million during the three months and
six months ended June 30, 2011, respectively. Approximately $3 million is expected to be amortized
to expense during the next twelve months.
FirstEnergy has used forward starting swap agreements to hedge a portion of the consolidated
interest rate risk associated with anticipated issuances of fixed-rate, long-term debt securities
of its subsidiaries. These derivatives were treated as cash flow hedges, protecting against the
risk of changes in future interest payments resulting from changes in benchmark U.S. Treasury rates
between the date of hedge inception and the date of the debt issuance. As of June 30, 2011, no
forward starting swap agreements were outstanding. Total unamortized losses included in AOCL
associated with prior interest rate cash flow hedges totaled $84 million ($55 million net of tax)
as of June 30, 2011. Based on current estimates, approximately $10 million will be amortized to
interest expense during the next twelve months.
Reclassifications from AOCL into interest expense totaled $3 million during the three months ended
June 30, 2011 and 2010 and $6 million during the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010.
45
Fair Value Hedges
FirstEnergy has used fixed-for-floating interest rate swap agreements to hedge a portion of the
consolidated interest rate risk associated with the debt portfolio of its subsidiaries. These
derivative instruments were treated as fair value hedges of fixed-rate, long-term debt issues,
protecting against the risk of changes in the fair value of fixed-rate debt instruments due to
lower interest rates. As of June 30, 2011, no fixed-for-floating interest rate swap agreements
were outstanding.
Unamortized gains included in long-term debt associated with prior fixed-for-floating interest rate
swap agreements totaled $113 million ($73 million net of tax) as of June 30, 2011. Based on
current estimates, approximately $22 million will be amortized to interest expense during the next
twelve months. Reclassifications from long-term debt into interest expense totaled approximately $6
million and $2 million during the three months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively and $11
million and $3 million during the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
Commodity Derivatives
FirstEnergy uses both physically and financially settled derivatives to manage its exposure to
volatility in commodity prices. Commodity derivatives are used for risk management purposes to
hedge exposures when it makes economic sense to do so, including circumstances where the hedging
relationship does not qualify for hedge accounting.
Electricity forwards are used to balance expected sales with expected generation and purchased
power. Natural gas futures are entered into based on expected consumption of natural gas; primarily
natural gas is used in FirstEnergys peaking units. Heating oil futures are entered into based on
expected consumption of oil and the financial risk in FirstEnergys coal transportation contracts.
Interest rate swaps include two interest rate swap agreements that expire during 2011 with an
aggregate notional value of $200 million that were entered into during 2003 to substantially offset
two existing interest rate swaps with the same counterparty. The 2003 agreements effectively locked
in a net liability and substantially eliminated future income volatility from the interest rate
swap positions but do not qualify for cash flow hedge accounting. Derivative instruments are not
used in quantities greater than forecasted needs.
As of June 30, 2011, FirstEnergys net liability position under commodity derivative contracts was
$45 million, which primarily related to FES positions. Under these commodity derivative contracts,
FES posted $81 million and Allegheny posted $2 million in collateral. Certain commodity derivative
contracts include credit risk related contingent features that would require FES to post $49
million of additional collateral if the credit rating for its debt were to fall below investment
grade.
Based on derivative contracts held as of June 30, 2011, an adverse 10% change in commodity prices
would decrease net income by approximately $31 million ($20 million net of tax) during the next
twelve months.
FTRs
FirstEnergy holds FTRs that generally represent an economic hedge of future congestion charges that
will be incurred in connection with FirstEnergys load obligations. FirstEnergy acquires the
majority of its FTRs in an annual auction through a self-scheduling process involving the use of
ARRs allocated to members of an RTO that have load serving obligations and through the direct
allocation of FTRs from the PJM RTO. The PJM RTO has a rule that allows directly allocated FTRs to
be granted to LSEs in zones that have newly entered PJM. For the first two planning years, PJM
permits the LSEs to request a direct allocation of FTRs in these new zones at no cost as opposed to
receiving ARRs. The directly allocated FTRs differ from traditional FTRs in that the ownership of
all or part of the FTRs may shift to another LSE if customers choose to shop with the other LSE.
The future obligations for the FTRs acquired at auction are reflected on the Consolidated Balance
Sheets and have not been designated as cash flow hedge instruments. FirstEnergy initially records
these FTRs at the auction price less the obligation due to the RTO, and subsequently adjusts the
carrying value of remaining FTRs to their estimated fair value at the end of each accounting period
prior to settlement. Changes in the fair value of FTRs held by FirstEnergys unregulated
subsidiaries are included in other operating expenses as unrealized gains or losses. Unrealized
gains or losses on FTRs held by FirstEnergys regulated subsidiaries are recorded as regulatory
assets or liabilities. Directly allocated FTRs are accounted for under the accrual method of
accounting, and their effects are included in earnings at the time of contract performance.
46
The following tables summarize the fair value of derivative instruments in FirstEnergys
Consolidated Balance Sheets:
Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments as of June 30, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative Assets |
|
|
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power Contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Assets |
|
$ |
210 |
|
|
$ |
96 |
|
Noncurrent Assets |
|
|
102 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
FTRs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Assets |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
Noncurrent Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NUGs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Assets |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
Noncurrent Assets |
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
119 |
|
Interest Rate Swaps |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Assets |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Noncurrent Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
Noncurrent Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Derivatives |
|
$ |
404 |
|
|
$ |
268 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power Contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Liabilities |
|
$ |
274 |
|
|
$ |
209 |
|
Noncurrent Liabilities |
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
FTRs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Liabilities |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Noncurrent Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NUGs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Liabilities |
|
|
317 |
|
|
|
229 |
|
Noncurrent Liabilities |
|
|
205 |
|
|
|
238 |
|
Interest Rate Swaps |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Liabilities |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
Noncurrent Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noncurrent
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Derivatives |
|
$ |
896 |
|
|
$ |
714 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table summarizes the volumes associated with FirstEnergys outstanding derivative
transactions as of June 30, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases |
|
|
Sales |
|
|
Net |
|
|
Units |
|
|
(In thousands) |
Power Contracts |
|
|
45,573 |
|
|
|
(59,549 |
) |
|
|
(13,976 |
) |
|
MWH |
FTRs |
|
|
53,656 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53,656 |
|
|
MWH |
Interest Rate Swaps |
|
|
200,000 |
|
|
|
(200,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
notional dollars |
NUGs |
|
|
26,903 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26,903 |
|
|
MWH |
47
The effect of derivative instruments on the Consolidated Statements of Income during the three
months and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
|
|
|
Power |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contracts |
|
|
FTRs |
|
|
Rate Swaps |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Derivatives in a Hedging Relationship |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain (Loss) Recognized in AOCL (Effective Portion) |
|
$ |
14 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
14 |
|
Effective Gain (Loss) Reclassified to: (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase Power Expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain (Loss) Recognized in AOCL (Effective Portion) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
3 |
|
Effective Gain (Loss) Reclassified to:(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase Power Expense |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
Revenues |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
Fuel Expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives Not in a Hedging Relationship |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized Gain (Loss) Recognized in: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase Power Expense |
|
$ |
33 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
33 |
|
Revenues |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
Other Operating Expense |
|
|
(34 |
) |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized Gain (Loss) Reclassified to: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase Power Expense |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
Revenues |
|
|
(39 |
) |
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(21 |
) |
Other Operating Expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(59 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(59 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized Gain (Loss) Recognized in: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase Power Expense |
|
$ |
66 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
66 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized Gain (Loss) Reclassified to: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase Power Expense |
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives Not in a Hedging |
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
|
Relationship with Regulatory Offset(2) |
|
NUGs |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized Gain (Loss) to Derivative Instrument: |
|
$ |
(147 |
) |
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
(145 |
) |
Unrealized Gain (Loss) to Regulatory Assets: |
|
|
147 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
145 |
|
|
Realized Gain (Loss) to Derivative Instrument: |
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62 |
|
Realized Gain (Loss) to Regulatory Assets: |
|
|
(62 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(62 |
) |
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized Gain (Loss) to Derivative Instrument: |
|
$ |
(35 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(35 |
) |
Unrealized Gain (Loss) to Regulatory Assets: |
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
Realized Gain (Loss) to Derivative Instrument: |
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
68 |
|
Realized Gain (Loss) to Regulatory Assets: |
|
|
(68 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(68 |
) |
48
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended June 30, |
|
|
|
Power |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contracts |
|
|
FTRs |
|
|
Rate Swaps |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Derivatives in a Hedging Relationship |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain (Loss) Recognized in AOCL (Effective Portion) |
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
Effective Gain (Loss) Reclassified to: (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase Power Expense |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
|
Revenues |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain (Loss) Recognized in AOCL (Effective Portion) |
|
$ |
(2 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
Effective Gain (Loss) Reclassified to:(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase Power Expense |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
Revenues |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
Fuel Expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives Not in a Hedging Relationship |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized Gain (Loss) Recognized in: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase Power Expense |
|
$ |
61 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
61 |
|
Revenues |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
Other Operating Expense |
|
|
(54 |
) |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(40 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized Gain (Loss) Reclassified to: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase Power Expense |
|
|
(36 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(36 |
) |
Revenues |
|
|
(29 |
) |
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
Other Operating Expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(87 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(87 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized Gain (Loss) Recognized in: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase Power Expense |
|
$ |
39 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized Gain (Loss) Reclassified to: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase Power Expense |
|
|
(49 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(49 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives Not in a Hedging |
|
Six Months Ended June 30, |
|
Relationship with Regulatory Offset(2) |
|
NUGs |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized Gain (Loss) to Derivative Instrument: |
|
$ |
(236 |
) |
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
(234 |
) |
Unrealized Gain (Loss) to Regulatory Assets: |
|
|
236 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
234 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized Gain (Loss) to Derivative Instrument: |
|
|
134 |
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
124 |
|
Realized Gain (Loss) to Regulatory Assets: |
|
|
(134 |
) |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
(124 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized Gain (Loss) to Derivative Instrument: |
|
$ |
(259 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(259 |
) |
Unrealized Gain (Loss) to Regulatory Assets: |
|
|
259 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
259 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized Gain (Loss) to Derivative Instrument: |
|
|
146 |
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
137 |
|
Realized Gain (Loss) to Regulatory Assets: |
|
|
(146 |
) |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
(137 |
) |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The ineffective portion was immaterial. |
|
(2) |
|
Changes in the fair value of certain contracts are deferred for future recovery
from (or refund to) customers. |
49
The following table provides a reconciliation of changes in the fair value of certain
contracts that are deferred for future recovery from (or refund to) customers during the three
months and six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended June 30, |
|
Derivatives Not in a Hedging Relationship with Regulatory Offset(1) |
|
NUGs |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Outstanding net asset (liability) as of April 1, 2011 |
|
$ |
(362 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(362 |
) |
Additions/Change in value of existing contracts |
|
|
(147 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
(145 |
) |
Settled contracts |
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding net asset (liability) as of June 30, 2011 |
|
$ |
(447 |
) |
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
(445 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding net asset (liability) as of April 1, 2010 |
|
$ |
(590 |
) |
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
(580 |
) |
Additions/Change in value of existing contracts |
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(35 |
) |
Settled contracts |
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding net asset (liability) as of June 30, 2010 |
|
$ |
(557 |
) |
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
(547 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended June 30, |
|
Derivatives Not in a Hedging Relationship with Regulatory Offset(1) |
|
NUGs |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Outstanding net asset (liability) as of January 1, 2011 |
|
$ |
(345 |
) |
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
(335 |
) |
Additions/Change in value of existing contracts |
|
|
(236 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
(234 |
) |
Settled contracts |
|
|
134 |
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding net asset (liability) as of June 30, 2011 |
|
$ |
(447 |
) |
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
(445 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding net asset (liability) as of January 1, 2010 |
|
$ |
(444 |
) |
|
$ |
19 |
|
|
$ |
(425 |
) |
Additions/Change in value of existing contracts |
|
|
(259 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(259 |
) |
Settled contracts |
|
|
146 |
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
137 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding net asset (liability) as of June 30, 2010 |
|
$ |
(557 |
) |
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
(547 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Changes in the fair value of certain contracts are deferred for future
recovery from (or refund to) customers. |
6. PENSION AND OTHER POSTRETIREMENT BENEFITS
FirstEnergy provides noncontributory qualified defined benefit pension plans that cover
substantially all of its employees and non-qualified pension plans that cover certain employees.
The plans provide defined benefits based on years of service and compensation levels.
FirstEnergy provides a portion of non-contributory pre-retirement basic life insurance for
employees who are eligible to retire. Health care benefits, which include certain employee
contributions, deductibles and co-payments, are also available upon retirement to certain
employees, their dependents and, under certain circumstances, their survivors. FirstEnergy also has
obligations to former or inactive employees after employment, but before retirement, for
disability-related benefits.
FirstEnergys funding policy is based on actuarial computations using the projected unit credit
method. During the three months and six months ended June 30, 2011, FirstEnergy made pre-tax
contributions to its qualified pension plans of $105 million and $262 million, respectively.
FirstEnergy intends to make additional contributions of $116 million and $2 million to its
qualified pension plans and postretirement benefit plans, respectively, in the last two quarters of
2011.
50
As result of the merger with Allegheny, FirstEnergy assumed certain pension and OPEB plans.
FirstEnergy measured the funded status of the Allegheny pension plans and postretirement benefit
plans other than pensions as of the merger closing date using discount rates of 5.50% and 5.25%,
respectively. The fair values of plan assets for Alleghenys pension plans and postretirement
benefit plans other than pensions at the date of the merger were $954 million and $75 million,
respectively, and the actuarially determined benefit obligations for such plans as of that date
were $1,341 million and $272 million, respectively. The expected returns on plan assets used to
calculate net periodic costs for periods in 2011 subsequent to the date of the merger are 8.25% for
Alleghenys qualified pension plan and 5.00% for Alleghenys postretirement benefit plans other
than pensions.
The components of the consolidated net periodic cost for pension and OPEB benefits (including
amounts capitalized) were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
Pension Benefit Cost (Credit) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Service cost |
|
$ |
34 |
|
|
$ |
25 |
|
|
$ |
62 |
|
|
$ |
49 |
|
Interest cost |
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
181 |
|
|
|
157 |
|
Expected return on plan assets |
|
|
(115 |
) |
|
|
(90 |
) |
|
|
(216 |
) |
|
|
(181 |
) |
Amortization of prior service cost |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
Recognized net actuarial loss |
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
94 |
|
Curtailments(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Special termination benefits(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic cost |
|
$ |
68 |
|
|
$ |
64 |
|
|
$ |
138 |
|
|
$ |
125 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents costs (credits) incurred related to change in control provision
payments to certain executives who were terminated or were expected to be
terminated as a result of the merger. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
Other Postretirement Benefit Cost (Credit) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Service cost |
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
Interest cost |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
Expected return on plan assets |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
(18 |
) |
Amortization of prior service cost |
|
|
(52 |
) |
|
|
(48 |
) |
|
|
(100 |
) |
|
|
(96 |
) |
Recognized net actuarial loss |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic cost (credit) |
|
$ |
(33 |
) |
|
$ |
(28 |
) |
|
$ |
(62 |
) |
|
$ |
(57 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and OPEB obligations are allocated to FirstEnergys subsidiaries employing the plan
participants. The net periodic pension costs and net periodic OPEB (including amounts capitalized)
recognized by FirstEnergys subsidiaries were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
Pension Benefit Cost |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
FES |
|
$ |
22 |
|
|
$ |
22 |
|
|
$ |
43 |
|
|
$ |
44 |
|
OE |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
CEI |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
TE |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
Met-Ed |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
Penelec |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
Other FirstEnergy Subsidiaries |
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
68 |
|
|
$ |
64 |
|
|
$ |
138 |
|
|
$ |
125 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
Other Postretirement Benefit Credit |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
FES |
|
$ |
(8 |
) |
|
$ |
(7 |
) |
|
$ |
(14 |
) |
|
$ |
(13 |
) |
OE |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
CEI |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
TE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
JCP&L |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
Met-Ed |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
Penelec |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
Other FirstEnergy Subsidiaries |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(33 |
) |
|
$ |
(28 |
) |
|
$ |
(62 |
) |
|
$ |
(57 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7. VARIABLE INTEREST ENTITIES
FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries perform qualitative analyses to determine whether a variable
interest gives FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries a controlling financial interest in a VIE. This
analysis identifies the primary beneficiary of a VIE as the enterprise that has both the power to
direct the activities of a VIE that most significantly impact the entitys economic performance and
the obligation to absorb losses of the entity that could potentially be significant to the VIE or
the right to receive benefits from the entity that could potentially be significant to the VIE.
VIEs included in FirstEnergys consolidated financial statements are: FEVs joint venture in the
Signal Peak mining and coal transportation operations; the PNBV and Shippingport bond trusts that
were created to refinance debt originally issued in connection with sale and leaseback
transactions; and wholly owned limited liability companies of JCP&L created to sell transition
bonds to securitize the recovery of JCP&Ls bondable stranded costs associated with the previously
divested Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, of which $295 million was outstanding as of June
30, 2011.
FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries reflect the portion of VIEs not owned by them in the caption
noncontrolling interest within the consolidated financial statements. The change in noncontrolling
interest within the Consolidated Balance Sheets is primarily the result of net losses of the noncontrolling
interests ($15 million) and distributions to owners ($4 million) during the six months ended June
30, 2011.
In order to evaluate contracts for consolidation treatment and entities for which FirstEnergy has
an interest, FirstEnergy aggregated variable interests into the following categories based on
similar risk characteristics and significance.
PATH-WV
PATH, LLC was formed to construct, through its operating companies, the PATH Project, which is a
high-voltage transmission line that was proposed to extend from West Virginia through Virginia and
into Maryland, including modifications to an existing substation in Putnam County, West Virginia,
and the construction of new substations in Hardy County, West Virginia and Frederick County,
Maryland as directed by PJM. PATH, LLC is a series limited liability company that is comprised of
multiple series, each of which has separate rights, powers and duties regarding specified property
and the series profits and losses associated with such property. A subsidiary of AE owns 100% of
the Allegheny Series and 50% of the West Virginia Series (PATH-WV), which is a joint venture with a
subsidiary of AEP. FirstEnergy is not the primary beneficiary of PATH-WV, as it does not
have control over the significant activities affecting the economics of the portion of the PATH
Project to be constructed by PATH-WV.
Because of the nature of PATH-WVs operations and its FERC approved rate mechanism, FirstEnergys
maximum exposure to loss, through AE, consists of its equity investment in PATH-WV, which was $27
million at June 30, 2011.
Power Purchase Agreements
FirstEnergy evaluated its power purchase agreements and determined that certain NUG entities may be
VIEs to the extent that they own a plant that sells substantially all of its output to the
Utilities if the contract price for power is correlated with the plants variable costs of
production. FirstEnergy, through its subsidiaries JCP&L, Met-Ed, Penelec, PE, WP and MP, maintains
23 long-term power purchase agreements with NUG entities that were entered into pursuant to PURPA.
FirstEnergy was not involved in the creation of, and has no equity or debt invested in, these
entities.
FirstEnergy has determined that for all but four of these NUG entities, its subsidiaries do not
have variable interests in the entities or the entities do not meet the criteria to be considered a
VIE. JCP&L, PE and WP may hold variable interests in the remaining four entities; however,
FirstEnergy applied the scope exception that exempts enterprises unable to obtain the necessary
information to evaluate entities.
52
Because JCP&L, PE and WP have no equity or debt interests in the NUG entities, their maximum
exposure to loss relates primarily to the above-market costs incurred for power. FirstEnergy
expects any above-market costs incurred by its subsidiaries to be recovered from customers, except
as described further below. Purchased power costs related to the four contracts that may contain a
variable interest that were held by FirstEnergy subsidiaries during the three months ended June 30,
2011, were $55 million, $47 million and $21 million for JCP&L, PE and WP, respectively and $120
million, $58 million and $26 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011, respectively.
Purchased power costs related to the two contracts that may contain a variable interest that were
held by JCP&L during the three months and six months ended June 30, 2010 were $53 million and $117
million, respectively.
In 1998 the PPUC issued an order approving a transition plan for WP that disallowed certain costs,
including an estimated amount for an adverse power purchase commitment related to the NUG entity
that WP may hold a variable interest, for which WP has taken the scope exception. As of June 30,
2011, WPs reserve for this adverse purchase power commitment
was $59 million, including a current
liability of $11 million, and is being amortized over the life of the commitment.
Loss Contingencies
FirstEnergy has variable interests in certain sale and 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 and leaseback
agreements upon the occurrence of certain contingent events. The maximum exposure under these
provisions represents the net amount of casualty value payments due upon the occurrence of
specified casualty events. Net discounted lease payments would not be payable if the casualty loss
payments were made. The following table discloses each companys net exposure to loss based upon
the casualty value provisions mentioned above as of June 30, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maximum |
|
|
Discounted Lease |
|
|
Net |
|
|
|
Exposure |
|
|
Payments, net(1) |
|
|
Exposure |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
FES |
|
$ |
1,348 |
|
|
$ |
1,156 |
|
|
$ |
192 |
|
OE |
|
|
635 |
|
|
|
445 |
|
|
|
190 |
|
CEI(2) |
|
|
624 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
555 |
|
TE(2) |
|
|
624 |
|
|
|
303 |
|
|
|
321 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The net present value of FirstEnergys consolidated
sale and leaseback operating lease commitments is $1.6
billion. |
|
(2) |
|
CEI and TE are jointly and severally liable for the
maximum loss amounts under certain sale-leaseback
agreements. |
8. INCOME TAXES
FirstEnergy accounts for uncertainty in income taxes recognized in its financial statements.
Accounting guidance prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement attribute for financial
statement recognition and measurement of tax positions taken or expected to be taken on a companys
tax return. As a result of the merger with Allegheny in the first quarter of 2011, FirstEnergys
unrecognized tax benefits increased by $97 million. During the second quarter of 2011, FirstEnergy
reached a settlement with the IRS on a research and development claim and recognized approximately
$30 million of income tax benefits, including $5 million that favorably affected FirstEnergys
effective tax rate for the second quarter and first six months of 2011. There were no other
material changes to FirstEnergys unrecognized income tax benefits during the first six months of
2011. After reaching a tentative agreement with the IRS on a tax item at appeals related to the
capitalization of certain costs for tax years 2005-2008, as well as reaching a settlement on an
unrelated
state tax matter in the second quarter of 2010, FirstEnergy recognized approximately $70 million of
net income tax benefits, including $13 million that favorably affected FirstEnergys effective tax
rate for the second quarter of 2010. The remaining portion of the income tax benefit recognized in
the first six months of 2010 increased FirstEnergys accumulated deferred income taxes for the
settled temporary tax item.
As of June 30, 2011, it is reasonably possible that approximately $46 million of unrecognized
income tax benefits may be resolved within the next twelve months, of which approximately $4
million, if recognized, would affect FirstEnergys effective tax rate. The potential decrease in
the amount of unrecognized income tax benefits is primarily associated with issues related to the
capitalization of certain costs and various state tax items.
FirstEnergy recognizes interest expense or income related to uncertain tax positions. That amount
is computed by applying the applicable statutory interest rate to the difference between the tax
position recognized and the amount previously taken or expected to be taken on the tax return.
FirstEnergy includes net interest and penalties in the provision for income taxes. The interest
associated with the settlement of the claim noted above favorably affected FirstEnergys effective
tax rate by $6 million in the first half of 2011. During the first six months of 2011, there were
no material changes to the amount of accrued interest, except for a $6 million increase in accrued
interest as a result of the merger with Allegheny. The reversal of accrued interest associated
with the recognized income tax benefits noted above favorably affected FirstEnergys effective tax
rate by $11 million in the first six months of 2010. The net amount of interest accrued as of June
30, 2011 was $10 million, compared with $3 million as of December 31, 2010.
53
As a result of the non-deductible portion of merger transaction costs, FirstEnergys effective tax
rate was unfavorably impacted by $28 million in the first six months of 2011.
As a result of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education
Affordability Reconciliation Act signed into law in March 2010, beginning in 2013 the tax deduction
available to FirstEnergy will be reduced to the extent that drug costs are reimbursed under the
Medicare Part D retiree subsidy program. As retiree healthcare liabilities and related tax impacts
under prior law were already reflected in FirstEnergys consolidated financial statements, the
change resulted in a charge to FirstEnergys earnings in the first quarter of 2010 of approximately
$13 million and a reduction in accumulated deferred tax assets associated with these subsidies.
That charge reflected the anticipated increase in income taxes that will occur as a result of the
change in tax law.
Allegheny is currently under audit by the IRS for tax years 2007 and 2008. The 2009 federal return
was filed and is subject to review. State tax returns for tax years 2006 through 2009 remain
subject to review in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland and Virginia for certain subsidiaries of
AE. FirstEnergy has tax returns that are under review at the audit or appeals level by the IRS
(2008-2010) and state tax authorities. Tax returns for all state jurisdictions are open from
2006-2009. The IRS began auditing the year 2008 in February 2008 and the audit was completed in
July 2010 with one item under appeal. The 2009 tax year audit began in February 2009 and the 2010
tax year audit began in February 2010. Management believes that adequate reserves have been
recognized and final settlement of these audits is not expected to have a material adverse effect
on FirstEnergys financial condition or results of operations.
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 June 30, 2011, outstanding guarantees and
other assurances aggregated approximately $3.8 billion, consisting of parental guarantees ($0.8
billion), subsidiaries guarantees ($2.6 billion), and surety bonds and LOCs ($0.4 billion).
FirstEnergy guarantees energy and energy-related payments of its subsidiaries involved in energy
commodity activities principally to facilitate or hedge normal physical transactions involving
electricity, gas, emission allowances and coal. FirstEnergy also provides guarantees to various
providers of credit support for the financing or refinancing by subsidiaries of costs related to
the acquisition of property, plant and equipment. These agreements legally obligate FirstEnergy to
fulfill the obligations of those subsidiaries directly involved in energy and energy-related
transactions or financing where the law might otherwise limit the counterparties claims. If
demands of a counterparty were to exceed the ability of a subsidiary to satisfy existing
obligations, FirstEnergys guarantee enables the counterpartys legal claim to be satisfied by
other FirstEnergy assets. FirstEnergy believes the likelihood is remote that such parental
guarantees of $0.2 billion (included in the $0.8 billion discussed above) as of June 30, 2011 would
increase amounts otherwise payable by FirstEnergy to meet its obligations incurred in connection
with financings and ongoing energy and energy-related activities.
While these types of guarantees are normally parental commitments for the future payment of
subsidiary obligations, subsequent to the occurrence of a credit rating downgrade or material
adverse event, the immediate posting of cash collateral, provision of an LOC or accelerated
payments may be required of the subsidiary. As of June 30, 2011, FirstEnergys
maximum exposure under these collateral provisions was
$625 million, consisting of $522 million due
to a below investment grade
credit rating (of which $265 million is due to an acceleration of payment or funding obligation)
and $103 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 $666 million.
Most of FirstEnergys surety bonds are backed by various indemnities common within the insurance
industry. Surety bonds and related guarantees of $136 million provide additional assurance to
outside parties that contractual and statutory obligations will be met in a number of areas
including construction contracts, environmental commitments and various retail transactions.
In addition to guarantees and surety bonds, contracts entered into by the Competitive Energy
Services segment, including power contracts with affiliates awarded through competitive bidding
processes, typically contain margining provisions that require the posting of cash or LOCs in
amounts determined by future power price movements. Based on FES and AE Supplys power portfolios
as of June 30, 2011 and forward prices as of that date, FES and AE Supply have posted collateral of
$138 million and $2 million, respectively. Under a hypothetical adverse change in forward prices
(95% confidence level change in forward prices over a one-year time horizon), FES would be required
to post an additional $17 million of collateral. Depending on the volume of forward contracts and
future price movements, higher amounts for margining could be required to be posted.
54
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 would have claims against each of FES, FGCO and NGC, regardless
of whether their primary obligor is FES, FGCO or NGC.
Signal Peak and Global Rail are borrowers under a $350 million syndicated two-year senior secured
term loan facility due in October 2012. FirstEnergy, together with WMB Loan Ventures LLC and WMB
Loan Ventures II LLC, the entities that share ownership in the borrowers with FEV, have provided a
guaranty of the borrowers obligations under the facility. In addition, FEV and the other entities
that directly own the equity interest in the borrowers have pledged those interests to the lenders
under the term loan facility as collateral for the facility.
(B) ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS
Various federal, state and local authorities regulate FirstEnergy with regard to air and water
quality and other environmental matters. Compliance with environmental regulations could have a
material adverse effect on FirstEnergys earnings and competitive position to the extent that
FirstEnergy competes with companies that are not subject to such regulations and, therefore, do not
bear the risk of costs associated with compliance, or failure to comply, with such regulations.
CAA Compliance
FirstEnergy is required to meet federally-approved SO2 and NOx emissions regulations
under the CAA. FirstEnergy complies with SO2 and NOx reduction requirements under the
CAA and SIP(s) by burning lower-sulfur fuel, combustion controls and post-combustion controls,
generating more electricity from lower-emitting plants and/or using emission allowances. Violations
can result in the shutdown of the generating unit involved and/or civil or criminal penalties.
In July 2008, three complaints were filed against FGCO in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on coal-fired Bruce Mansfield Plant air emissions.
Two of these complaints also seek to enjoin the Bruce Mansfield Plant from operating except in a
safe, responsible, prudent and proper manner, one being a complaint filed on behalf of twenty-one
individuals and the other being a class action complaint seeking certification as a class action
with the eight named plaintiffs as the class representatives. FGCO believes the claims are without
merit and intends to defend itself against the allegations made in these three complaints.
The states of New Jersey and Connecticut filed CAA citizen suits in 2007 alleging NSR violations at
the Portland Generation Station against GenOn Energy, Inc. (formerly RRI Energy, Inc. and the
current owner and operator), Sithe Energy (the purchaser of the Portland Station from Met-Ed in
1999) and Met-Ed. Specifically, these suits allege that modifications at Portland Units 1 and 2
occurred between 1980 and 2005 without preconstruction NSR permitting in violation of the CAAs PSD
program, and seek injunctive relief, penalties, attorney fees and mitigation of the harm caused by
excess emissions. In September 2009, the Court granted Met-Eds motion to dismiss New Jerseys and
Connecticuts claims for injunctive relief against Met-Ed, but denied Met-Eds motion to dismiss
the claims for civil penalties. The parties dispute the scope of Met-Eds indemnity obligation to
and from Sithe Energy, and Met-Ed is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
In January 2009, the EPA issued a NOV to GenOn Energy, Inc. alleging NSR violations at the Portland
coal-fired plant based on modifications dating back to 1986. On March 31, 2011, the EPA proposed
emissions limits and compliance schedules to reduce SO2 air emissions by approximately 81% at the
Portland Plant based on an interstate pollution transport petition submitted by New Jersey under
Section 126 of the CAA. The NOV also alleged NSR violations at the Keystone and Shawville
coal-fired plants based on modifications dating back to 1984. Met-Ed, JCP&L, as the former
owner of 16.67% of Keystone, and Penelec, as former owner and operator of Shawville, are unable to
predict the outcome of this matter.
In June 2008, the EPA issued a Notice and Finding of Violation to Mission Energy Westside, Inc.
(Mission) alleging that modifications at the coal-fired Homer City Plant occurred from 1988 to
the present without preconstruction NSR permitting in violation of the CAAs PSD program. In May
2010, the EPA issued a second NOV to Mission, Penelec, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation
and others that have had an ownership interest in Homer City containing in all material respects
allegations identical to those included in the June 2008 NOV. In January 2011, the DOJ filed a
complaint against Penelec in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
seeking injunctive relief against Penelec based on alleged modifications at Homer City between
1991 to 1994 without preconstruction NSR permitting in violation of the CAAs PSD and Title V
permitting programs. The complaint was also filed against the former co-owner, New York State
Electric and Gas Corporation, and various current owners of Homer City, including EME Homer City
Generation L.P. and affiliated companies, including Edison International. In January 2011, another
complaint was filed against Penelec and the other entities described above in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on Homer Citys air emissions
as well as certification as a class action and to enjoin Homer City from operating except in a
safe, responsible, prudent and proper manner. Penelec believes the claims are without merit and
intends to defend itself against the allegations made in the complaint, but, at this time, is
unable to predict the outcome of this matter. In addition, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the
States of New Jersey and New York intervened and have filed separate complaints regarding Homer
City seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties. Mission is seeking indemnification from
Penelec, the co-owner and operator of Homer City prior to its sale in 1999. On April 21, 2011,
Penelec and all other defendants filed Motions to Dismiss all of the federal claims and the various
state claims. Responsive and Reply briefs were filed on May 26, 2011 and June 17, 2011,
respectively. The scope of Penelecs indemnity obligation to and from Mission is under dispute and
Penelec is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
55
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 coal-fired 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 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 Eastlake Plant. In June 2011, EPA issued
another Finding of Violation and NOV alleging violations of the CAA and Ohio regulations,
specifically opacity limitations and requirements to continuously operate opacity monitoring
systems at the Eastlake, Lakeshore, Bay Shore and Ashtabula coal-fired plants. Also, in June 2011,
FirstEnergy received an information request pursuant to section 114(a) of the CAA for certain
operating maintenance and planning information, among other information regarding these plants.
FGCO intends to comply with the CAA, including the EPAs information requests but, at this time, is
unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
In August 2000, AE received an information request pursuant to section 114(a) of the CAA letter
from the EPA requesting that it provide information and documentation relevant to the operation and
maintenance of the following ten coal-fired plants, which collectively include 22 electric
generation units Albright, Armstrong, Fort Martin, Harrison, Hatfields Ferry, Mitchell, Pleasants,
Rivesville, R. Paul Smith and Willow Island to determine compliance with the CAA and related
requirements, including potential application of the NSR standards under the CAA, which can require
the installation of additional air emission control equipment when the major modification of an
existing facility results in an increase in emissions. AE has provided responsive information to
this and a subsequent request but is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
In May 2004, AE, AE Supply, MP and WP received a Notice of Intent to Sue Pursuant to CAA §7604 from
the Attorneys General of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut and from the PA DEP, alleging that
Allegheny performed major modifications in violation of the PSD provisions of the CAA at the
following West Virginia coal-fired plants: Albright Unit 3; Fort Martin Units 1 and 2; Harrison
Units 1, 2 and 3; Pleasants Units 1 and 2 and Willow Island Unit 2. The Notice also alleged PSD
violations at the Armstrong, Hatfields Ferry and Mitchell coal-fired plants in Pennsylvania and
identifies PA DEP as the lead agency regarding those facilities. In September 2004, AE, AE Supply,
MP and WP received a separate Notice of Intent to Sue from the Maryland Attorney General that
essentially mirrored the previous Notice.
In June 2005, the PA DEP and the Attorneys General of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and
Maryland filed suit against AE, AE Supply, MP, PE and WP in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging, among other things, that Allegheny performed major
modifications in violation of the CAA and the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act at the
Hatfields Ferry, Armstrong and Mitchell Plants in Pennsylvania. On January 17, 2006, the PA DEP
and the Attorneys General filed an amended complaint. A non-jury trial on liability only was held
in September 2010. Plaintiffs filed their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in
December 2010, Allegheny made its related filings in February 2011 and plaintiffs filed their
responses in April 2011. The parties are awaiting a decision from the District Court, but there is
no deadline for that decision.
In September 2007, Allegheny also received a NOV from the EPA alleging NSR and PSD violations under
the CAA, as well as Pennsylvania and West Virginia state laws at the Hatfields Ferry and Armstrong
Plants in Pennsylvania and the Fort Martin and Willow Island coal-fired plants in West Virginia.
FirstEnergy intends to vigorously defend against the CAA matters described above but cannot predict
their outcomes.
State Air Quality Compliance
In early 2006, Maryland passed the Healthy Air Act, which imposes state-wide emission caps on
SO2 and NOX, requires mercury emission reductions and mandates that Maryland
join the RGGI and participate in that coalitions regional efforts to reduce CO2
emissions. On April 20, 2007, Maryland became the 10th state to join the RGGI. The Healthy Air Act
provides a conditional exemption for the R. Paul Smith coal-fired plant for NOX,
SO2 and mercury, based on a PJM declaration that the plant is vital to reliability in
the Baltimore/Washington DC metropolitan area, which PJM determined in 2006. Pursuant to the
legislation, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) passed alternate NOX and
SO2 limits for R. Paul Smith, which became effective in April 2009. However, R. Paul
Smith is still required to meet the Healthy Air Act mercury reductions of 80% beginning in 2010.
The statutory exemption does not extend to R. Paul Smiths CO2 emissions. Maryland
issued final regulations to implement RGGI requirements in February 2008. Ten RGGI auctions have
been held through the end of calendar year 2010. RGGI allowances are also readily available in the
allowance markets, affording another mechanism by which to secure necessary allowances. On March
14, 2011, MDE requested PJM perform an analysis to determine if termination of operation at R. Paul
Smith would adversely impact the reliability of electrical service in the PJM region under current
system conditions. FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
56
In January 2010, the WVDEP issued a NOV for opacity emissions at Alleghenys Pleasants coal-fired
plant. FirstEnergy is discussing with WVDEP steps to resolve the NOV including installing a
reagent injection system to reduce opacity.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
The EPAs CAIR requires reductions of NOx and SO2 emissions in two phases (2009/2010 and
2015), ultimately capping SO2 emissions in affected states to 2.5 million tons annually and NOx
emissions to 1.3 million tons annually. In 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated CAIR in its entirety and directed the EPA to redo its analysis from the
ground up. In December 2008, the Court reconsidered its prior ruling and allowed CAIR to remain in
effect to temporarily preserve its environmental values until the EPA replaces CAIR with a new
rule consistent with the Courts opinion. The Court ruled in a different case that a cap-and-trade
program similar to CAIR, called the NOx SIP Call, cannot be used to satisfy certain CAA
requirements (known as reasonably available control technology) for areas in non-attainment under
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In July 2011, the EPA finalized the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR) to replace CAIR, which remains in effect until CSAPR becomes effective (60 days after
publication in the Federal Register). CSAPR requires reductions of NOx and SO2 emissions in two
phases (2012 and 2014), ultimately capping SO2 emissions in affected states to 2.4 million tons
annually and NOx emissions to 1.2 million tons annually. CSAPR allows trading of NOx and
SO2 emission allowances between power plants located in the same state and interstate
trading of NOx and SO2 emission allowances with some restrictions. FGCOs future cost of
compliance may be substantial and changes to FirstEnergys operations may result. Management is
currently assessing the impact of CSAPR, other environmental proposals and other factors on
FirstEnergys competitive fossil generating facilities, including but not limited to, the impact on
value of our emissions allowances (currently reflected at $38 million on our Consolidated Balance
Sheet as of June 30, 2011) and the operations of its coal-fired plants.
Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions
On March 16, 2011, the EPA released its MACT proposal to establish emission standards for mercury,
hydrochloric acid and various metals for electric generating units. Depending on the action taken
by the EPA and how any future regulations are ultimately implemented, FirstEnergys future cost of
compliance with MACT regulations may be substantial and changes to FirstEnergys operations may
result.
Climate Change
There are a number of initiatives to reduce GHG emissions under consideration at the federal, state
and international level. At the federal level, members of Congress have introduced several bills
seeking to reduce emissions of GHG in the United States, and the House of Representatives passed
one such bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, in June 2009. The Senate
continues to consider a number of measures to regulate GHG emissions. President Obama has announced
his Administrations New Energy for America Plan that includes, among other provisions, proposals
to ensure that 10% of electricity used in the United States comes from renewable sources by 2012,
to increase to 25% by 2025, to implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce GHG
emissions by 80% by 2050. Certain states, primarily the northeastern states participating in the
RGGI and western states, led by California, have coordinated efforts to develop regional strategies
to control emissions of certain GHGs.
In September 2009, the EPA finalized a national GHG emissions collection and reporting rule that
required FirstEnergy to measure GHG emissions commencing in 2010 and will require it to submit
reports commencing in 2011. In December 2009, the EPA released its final Endangerment and Cause or
Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act. The EPAs finding concludes that
concentrations of several key GHGs increase the threat of climate change and may be regulated as
air pollutants under the CAA. In April 2010, the EPA finalized new GHG standards for model years
2012 to 2016 passenger cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles and clarified
that GHG regulation under the CAA would not be triggered for electric generating plants and other
stationary sources until January
2, 2011, at the earliest. In May 2010, the EPA finalized new thresholds for GHG emissions that
define when permits under the CAAs NSR program would be required. The EPA established an emissions
applicability threshold of 75,000 tons per year (tpy) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2) effective
January 2, 2011 for existing facilities under the CAAs PSD program. Until July 1, 2011, this
emissions applicability threshold will only apply if PSD is triggered by non-CO2
pollutants.
At the international level, the Kyoto Protocol, signed by the U.S. in 1998 but never submitted for
ratification by the U.S. Senate, was intended to address global warming by reducing the amount of
man-made GHG, including CO2, emitted by developed countries by 2012. A December 2009
U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen did not reach a consensus on a successor treaty to the
Kyoto Protocol, but did take note of the Copenhagen Accord, a non-binding political agreement that
recognized the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below two degrees
Celsius; includes a commitment by developed countries to provide funds, approaching $30 billion
over the next three years with a goal of increasing to $100 billion by 2020; and establishes the
Copenhagen Green Climate Fund to support mitigation, adaptation, and other climate-related
activities in developing countries. To the extent that they have become a party to the Copenhagen
Accord, developed economies, such as the European Union, Japan, Russia and the United States, would
commit to quantified economy-wide emissions targets from 2020, while developing countries,
including Brazil, China and India, would agree to take mitigation actions, subject to their
domestic measurement, reporting and verification.
57
In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded lower court decisions that had dismissed complaints alleging
damage from GHG emissions on jurisdictional grounds. However, a subsequent ruling from the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reinstated the lower court dismissal of a complaint
alleging damage from GHG emissions. These cases involve common law tort claims, including
public and private nuisance, alleging that GHG emissions contribute to global warming and result
in property damages. The U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision
of the Second Circuit. On June 20, 2011, the U. S. Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit.
The Court remanded to the Second Circuit the issue of whether the CAA preempted state
common law nuisance actions. The Courts ruling also failed to answer the question of the extent
to which actions for damages may remain viable. While FirstEnergy is not a party to this litigation,
in June 2011, FirstEnergy received notice of a complaint alleging that the GHG emissions of 87
companies, including FirstEnergy, render them liable for damages to certain residents of
Mississippi stemming from Hurricane Katrina. On July 27, 2011, the plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed FirstEnergy from this complaint.
FirstEnergy cannot currently estimate the financial impact of climate change policies, although
potential legislative or regulatory programs restricting CO2 emissions, or litigation
alleging damages from GHG emissions, could require significant capital and other expenditures or
result in changes to its operations. The CO2 emissions per KWH of electricity generated
by FirstEnergy is lower than many of its regional competitors due to its diversified generation
sources, which include low or non-CO2 emitting gas-fired and nuclear generators.
Clean Water Act
Various water quality regulations, the majority of which are the result of the federal Clean Water
Act and its amendments, apply to FirstEnergys plants. In addition, the states in which FirstEnergy
operates have water quality standards applicable to FirstEnergys operations.
In 2004, 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). In
2007, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit invalidated portions of the Section 316(b)
performance standards and the EPA has taken the position that until further rulemaking occurs,
permitting authorities should continue the existing practice of applying their best professional
judgment to minimize impacts on fish and shellfish from cooling water intake structures. In April
2009, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed one significant aspect of the Second Circuits opinion and
decided that Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act authorizes the EPA to compare costs with
benefits in determining the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact
at cooling water intake structures. On March 28, 2011, the EPA released a new proposed regulation
under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act generally requiring fish impingement to be reduced to a
12% annual average and studies to be conducted at the majority of our existing generating
facilities to assist permitting authorities to determine whether and what site-specific controls,
if any, would be required to reduce entrainment of aquatic life. On July 19, 2011, the EPA extended
the public comment period for the new proposed Section 316(b) regulation by 30 days but stated its
schedule for issuing a final rule remains July 27, 2012. FirstEnergy is studying various
control options and their costs and effectiveness, including pilot testing of reverse louvers in a
portion of the Bay Shore power plants water intake channel to divert fish away from the plants
water intake system. In November 2010, the Ohio EPA issued a permit for the coal-fired Bay Shore
Plant requiring installation of reverse louvers in its entire water intake channel by December 31,
2014. Depending on the results of such studies and the EPAs further rulemaking and any final
action taken by the states exercising best professional judgment, the future costs of compliance
with these standards may require material capital expenditures.
In April 2011, the U.S. Attorneys Office in Cleveland, Ohio advised FGCO that it is no longer
considering prosecution under the Clean Water Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for three
petroleum spills at the Edgewater, Lakeshore and Bay Shore plants which occurred on November 1,
2005, January 26, 2007 and February 27, 2007. This matter has been referred back to EPA for civil
enforcement and FGCO is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
In May 2011, the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, and the
Sierra Club filed a CWA citizen suit alleging violations of arsenic limits in the NPDES water
discharge permit for the fly ash disposal site at the Albright coal-fired plant seeking unspecified
civil penalties and injunctive relief. MP is currently seeking relief from the arsenic limits
through WVDEP agency review. In June 2011, the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, the West
Virginia Rivers Coalition, and the Sierra Club served another 60-Day Notice of Intent required
prior to filing a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act for alleged failure to obtain a permit to
construct the fly ash impoundments at the Albright Station.
FirstEnergy intends to vigorously defend against the CWA matters described above but cannot predict
their outcomes.
58
Monongahela River Water Quality
In late 2008, the PA DEP imposed water quality criteria for certain effluents, including TDS and
sulfate concentrations in the Monongahela River, on new and modified sources, including the
scrubber project at the Hatfields Ferry coal-fired plant. These criteria are reflected in the
current PA DEP water discharge permit for that project. AE Supply appealed the PA DEPs permitting
decision, which would require it to incur significant costs or negatively affect its ability to
operate the scrubbers as designed. Preliminary studies indicate an initial capital investment in
excess of $150 million in order to install technology to meet the TDS and sulfate limits in the
permit. The permit has been independently appealed by Environmental Integrity Project and Citizens
Coal Council, which seeks to impose more stringent technology-based effluent limitations. Those
same parties have intervened in the appeal filed by AE Supply, and both appeals have been
consolidated for discovery purposes. An order has been entered that stays the permit limits that AE
Supply has challenged while the appeal is pending. The hearing is scheduled to begin in September
2011, however the Court stayed all prehearing deadlines on July 15, 2011 to allow the parties
additional time to work out a settlement. AE Supply intends to vigorously pursue these issues, but
cannot predict the outcome of these appeals.
In a parallel rulemaking, the PA DEP recommended, and in August 2010, the Pennsylvania
Environmental Quality Board issued, a final rule imposing end-of-pipe TDS effluent limitations.
FirstEnergy could incur significant costs for additional control equipment to meet the requirements
of this rule, although its provisions do not apply to electric generating units until the end of
2018, and then only if the EPA has not promulgated TDS effluent limitation guidelines applicable to
such units.
In December 2010, PA DEP submitted its Clean Water Act 303(d) list to the EPA with a recommended
sulfate impairment designation for an approximately 68 mile stretch of the Monongahela River north
of the West Virginia border. In May 2011, the EPA agreed with PA DEPs recommended sulfate
impairment designation. PA DEPs goal is to submit a final water quality standards regulation,
incorporating the sulfate impairment designation for EPA approval by May, 2013. PA DEP will then
need to develop a TMDL limit for the river, a process that will take approximately five years.
Based on the stringency of the TMDL, FirstEnergy may incur significant costs to reduce sulfate
discharges into the Monongahela River from its Hatfields Ferry and Mitchell facilities in
Pennsylvania and its Fort Martin facility in West Virginia.
In October 2009, the WVDEP issued the water discharge permit for the Fort Martin generation
facility. Similar to the Hatfields Ferry water discharge permit issued for the scrubber project,
the Fort Martin permit imposes effluent limitations for TDS and sulfate concentrations. The permit
also imposes temperature limitations and other effluent limits for heavy metals that are not
contained in the Hatfields Ferry water permit. Concurrent with the issuance of the Fort Martin
permit, WVDEP also issued an administrative order that sets deadlines for MP to meet certain of the
effluent limits that are effective immediately under the terms of the permit. MP appealed the Fort
Martin permit and the administrative order. The appeal included a request to stay certain of the
conditions of the permit and order while the appeal is pending, which was granted pending a final
decision on appeal and subject to WVDEP moving to dissolve the stay. The appeals have been
consolidated. MP moved to dismiss certain of the permit conditions for the failure of the WVDEP to
submit those conditions for public review and comment during the permitting process. An agreed-upon
order that suspends further action on this appeal, pending WVDEPs release for public review and
comment on those conditions, was entered on August 11, 2010. The stay remains in effect during that
process. The current terms of the Fort Martin permit would require MP to incur significant costs or
negatively affect operations at Fort Martin. Preliminary information indicates an initial capital
investment in excess of the capital investment that may be needed at Hatfields Ferry in order to
install technology to meet the TDS and sulfate limits in the Fort Martin permit, which technology
may also meet certain of the other effluent limits in the permit. Additional technology may be
needed to meet certain other limits in the permit. MP intends to vigorously pursue these issues but
cannot predict the outcome of these appeals.
Regulation of Waste Disposal
Federal and state hazardous waste regulations have been promulgated as a result of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, and the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
Certain fossil-fuel combustion residuals, such as coal ash, were exempted from hazardous waste
disposal requirements pending the EPAs evaluation
of the need for future regulation. In February 2009, the EPA requested comments from the states on
options for regulating coal combustion residuals, including whether they should be regulated as
hazardous or non-hazardous waste.
In December 2009, in an advanced notice of public rulemaking, the EPA asserted that the large
volumes of coal combustion residuals produced by electric utilities pose significant financial risk
to the industry. In May 2010, the EPA proposed two options for additional regulation of coal
combustion residuals, including the option of regulation as a special waste under the EPAs
hazardous waste management program which could have a significant impact on the management,
beneficial use and disposal of coal combustion residuals. FirstEnergys future cost of compliance
with any coal combustion residuals regulations that may be promulgated could be substantial and
would depend, in part, on the regulatory action taken by the EPA and implementation by the EPA or
the states.
The Little Blue Run (LBR) Coal Combustion By-products (CCB) impoundment is expected to run out of
disposal capacity for disposal of CCBs from the Bruce Mansfield Plant between 2016 and 2018. In
July 2011, BMP submitted a Phase I permit application to PA DEP for construction of a new dry CCB
disposal facility adjacent to LBR. BMP anticipates submitting zoning applications for approval to
allow construction of a new dry CCB disposal facility prior to commencing construction.
59
The Utility Registrants have been named as potentially responsible parties at waste disposal sites,
which may require cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980. Allegations of disposal of hazardous substances at historical sites and the
liability involved are often unsubstantiated and subject to dispute; however, federal law provides
that all potentially responsible parties for a particular site may be liable on a joint and several
basis. Environmental liabilities that are considered probable have been recognized on the
consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2011, based on estimates of the total costs of cleanup,
the Utility Registrants proportionate responsibility for such costs and the financial ability of
other unaffiliated entities to pay. Total liabilities of approximately $133 million (JCP&L $69
million, TE $1 million, CEI $1 million, FGCO $1 million and FirstEnergy $61 million) have
been accrued through June 30, 2011. Included in the total are accrued liabilities of approximately
$63 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. On July 11, 2011, FirstEnergy was found to be a potentially responsible party under CERCLA indirectly liable for a portion of past and future clean-up costs at certain legacy MGP sites, estimated to total approximately $59 million. FirstEnergy recognized additional expense of $29 million during
the second quarter of 2011; $30 million had previously been reserved prior to 2011.
(C) OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Power Outages and Related Litigation
In July 1999, the Mid-Atlantic States experienced a severe heat wave, which resulted in power
outages throughout the service territories of many electric utilities, including JCP&L. Two class
action lawsuits (subsequently consolidated into a single proceeding) were filed in New Jersey
Superior Court in July 1999 against JCP&L, GPU and other GPU companies, seeking compensatory and
punitive damages due to the outages. After various motions, rulings and appeals, the Plaintiffs
claims for consumer fraud, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, strict product liability
and punitive damages were dismissed, leaving only the negligence and breach of contract causes of
actions. On July 29, 2010, the Appellate Division upheld the trial courts decision decertifying
the class. Plaintiffs have filed, and JCP&L has opposed, a motion for leave to appeal to the New
Jersey Supreme Court. In November 2010, the Supreme Court issued an order denying Plaintiffs
motion. The Courts order effectively ends the class action attempt, and leaves only nine (9)
plaintiffs to pursue their respective individual claims. The remaining individual plaintiffs have
yet to take any affirmative steps to pursue their individual claims.
Nuclear Plant Matters
Under NRC regulations, FirstEnergy must ensure that adequate funds will be available to
decommission its nuclear facilities. As of June 30, 2011, FirstEnergy had approximately $2 billion
invested in external trusts to be used for the decommissioning and environmental remediation of
Davis-Besse, Beaver Valley, Perry and TMI-2. As required by the NRC, FirstEnergy annually
recalculates and adjusts the amount of its parental guarantee, as appropriate. The values of
FirstEnergys NDT fluctuate based on market conditions. If the value of the trusts decline by a
material amount, FirstEnergys obligation to fund the trusts may increase. Disruptions in the
capital markets and their effects on particular businesses and the economy could also affect the
values of the NDT. The NRC issued guidance anticipating an increase in low-level radioactive waste
disposal costs associated with the decommissioning of nuclear facilities. On March 28, 2011, FENOC
submitted its biennial report on nuclear decommissioning funding to the NRC. This submittal
identified a total shortfall in nuclear decommissioning funding for Beaver Valley Unit 1 and Perry
of approximately $92.5 million. On June 24, 2011, FENOC submitted a $95 million parental guarantee
to the NRC for its approval.
In August 2010, FENOC submitted an application to the NRC for renewal of the Davis-Besse Nuclear
Power Station operating license for an additional twenty years, until 2037. By an order dated April
26, 2011, a NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) granted a hearing on the Davis-Besse
license renewal application to a group of petitioners. By this order, the ASLB also admitted two
contentions challenging whether FENOCs Environmental Report adequately evaluated (1) a combination
of renewable energy sources as alternatives to the renewal of Davis-Besses operating license, and
(2) severe accident mitigation alternatives at Davis-Besse. On May 6, 2011, FENOC filed an appeal
with the NRC Commissioners from the order granting a hearing on the Davis-Besse license renewal
application.
On April 14, 2011, a group of environmental organizations petitioned the NRC Commissioners to
suspend certain pending nuclear licensing proceedings, including the Davis-Besse license renewal
proceeding, to ensure that any safety and environmental implications of the accident at the
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station in Japan are considered. By May 2, 2011, the NRC Staff,
FENOC and much of the nuclear industry filed responses opposing the petition. On May 6, 2011,
petitioners filed a supplemental reply.
In January 2004, subsidiaries of FirstEnergy filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims
seeking damages in connection with costs incurred at the Beaver Valley, Davis-Besse and Perry
Nuclear facilities as a result of the DOE failure to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel on January
31, 1998. DOE was required to so commence accepting spent nuclear fuel by the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act (42 USC 10101 et seq) and the contracts entered into by the DOE and the owners and
operators of these facilities pursuant to the Act. On January 18, 2011, the parties, FirstEnergy
and DOJ, filed a joint status report that established a schedule for the litigation of these
claims. FirstEnergy filed damages schedules and disclosures with the DOJ on February 11, 2011,
seeking approximately $57 million in damages for delay costs incurred through September 30, 2010.
The damage claim is subject to review and audit by DOE.
60
ICG Litigation
On December 28, 2006, AE Supply and MP filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania against International Coal Group, Inc. (ICG), Anker West Virginia Mining
Company, Inc. (Anker WV), and Anker Coal Group, Inc. (Anker Coal). Anker WV entered into a long
term Coal Sales Agreement with AE Supply and MP for the supply of coal to the Harrison generating
facility. Prior to the time of trial, ICG was dismissed as a defendant by the Court, which issue
can be the subject of a future appeal. As a result of defendants past and continued failure to
supply the contracted coal, AE Supply and MP have incurred and will continue to incur significant
additional costs for purchasing replacement coal. A non-jury trial was held from January 10, 2011
through February 1, 2011. At trial, AE Supply and MP presented evidence that they have incurred in
excess of $80 million in damages for replacement coal purchased through the end of 2010 and will
incur additional damages in excess of $150 million for future shortfalls. Defendants primarily
claim that their performance is excused under a force majeure clause in the coal sales agreement
and presented evidence at trial that they will continue to not provide the contracted yearly
tonnage amounts. On May 2, 2011, the court entered a verdict in favor of AE Supply and MP for $104
million ($90 million in future damages and $14 million for replacement coal / interest).
Post-trial filings occurred in May 2011, with Oral Argument on June 28, 2011. The parties expect
a ruling sometime in the third quarter, at which time the judgment will be final. The parties have 30 days
to appeal the final judgment. AE Supply and MP intend to vigorously pursue this matter through
appeal if necessary but cannot predict its outcome.
Other Legal Matters
In February 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in Geauga County Court of Common Pleas against
FirstEnergy, CEI and OE seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, as well as
compensatory, incidental and consequential damages, on behalf of a class of customers related to
the reduction of a discount that had previously been in place for residential customers with
electric heating, electric water heating, or load management systems. The reduction in the discount
was approved by the PUCO. In March 2010, the named-defendant companies filed a motion to dismiss
the case due to the lack of jurisdiction of the court of common pleas. The court granted the motion
to dismiss on September 7, 2010. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals of
Ohio, which has not yet rendered an opinion.
There are various lawsuits, claims (including claims for asbestos exposure) and proceedings related
to FirstEnergys normal business operations pending against FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries. The
other potentially material items not otherwise discussed above are described below.
FirstEnergy accrues legal liabilities only when it concludes that it is probable that it has an
obligation for such costs and can reasonably estimate the amount of such costs. If it were
ultimately determined that FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries have legal liability or are otherwise
made subject to liability based on the above matters, it could have a material adverse effect on
FirstEnergys or its subsidiaries financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
10. REGULATORY MATTERS
(A) RELIABILITY INITIATIVES
Federally-enforceable mandatory reliability standards apply to the bulk electric system and impose
certain operating, record-keeping and reporting requirements on the Utilities, FES, FGCO, FENOC,
ATSI and TrAIL. The NERC is the ERO charged with establishing and enforcing these reliability
standards, although it has delegated day-to-day implementation and enforcement of these reliability
standards to eight regional entities, including ReliabilityFirst Corporation. All of FirstEnergys
facilities are located within the ReliabilityFirst region. FirstEnergy actively participates in the
NERC and ReliabilityFirst stakeholder processes, and otherwise monitors and manages its companies
in response to the ongoing development, implementation and enforcement of the reliability standards
implemented and enforced by the ReliabilityFirst Corporation.
FirstEnergy believes that it generally is in compliance with all currently-effective and
enforceable reliability standards. Nevertheless, in the course of operating its extensive electric
utility systems and facilities, FirstEnergy occasionally learns
of isolated facts or circumstances that could be interpreted as excursions from the reliability
standards. If and when such items are found, FirstEnergy develops information about the item and
develops a remedial response to the specific circumstances, including in appropriate cases
self-reporting an item to ReliabilityFirst. Moreover, it is clear that the NERC, ReliabilityFirst
and FERC will continue to refine existing reliability standards as well as to develop and adopt new
reliability standards. The financial impact of complying with future 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 future 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.
61
On August 23, 2010, FirstEnergy self-reported to ReliabilityFirst a vegetation encroachment event
on a Met-Ed 230 kV line. This event did not result in a fault, outage, operation of protective
equipment, or any other meaningful electric effect on any FirstEnergy transmission facilities or
systems. On August 25, 2010, ReliabilityFirst issued a Notice of Enforcement to investigate the
incident. FirstEnergy submitted a data response to ReliabilityFirst on September 27, 2010. In
March 2011, ReliabilityFirst submitted its proposed findings and settlement, although a final
determination has not yet been made by FERC.
Allegheny has been subject to routine audits with respect to its compliance with applicable
reliability standards and has settled certain related issues. In addition, ReliabilityFirst is
currently conducting certain investigations with regard to certain matters of compliance by
Allegheny.
(B) MARYLAND
By statute enacted in 2007, the obligation of Maryland utilities to provide standard offer service
(SOS) to residential and small commercial customers, in exchange for recovery of their costs plus a
reasonable profit, was extended indefinitely. The legislation also established a five-year cycle
(to begin in 2008) for the MDPSC to report to the legislature on the status of SOS. PE now
conducts rolling auctions to procure the power supply necessary to serve its customer load pursuant
to a plan approved by the MDPSC. However, the terms on which PE will provide SOS to residential
customers after the settlement beyond 2012 will depend on developments with respect to SOS in
Maryland between now and then, including but not limited to possible MDPSC decisions in the
proceedings discussed below.
The MDPSC opened a new docket in August 2007 to consider matters relating to possible managed
portfolio approaches to SOS and other matters. Phase II of the case addressed utility purchases
or construction of generation, bidding for procurement of demand response resources and possible
alternatives if the TrAIL and PATH projects were delayed or defeated. It is unclear when the MDPSC
will issue its findings in this and other SOS-related pending proceedings discussed below.
In September 2009, the MDPSC opened a new proceeding to receive and consider proposals for
construction of new generation resources in Maryland. In December 2009, Governor Martin OMalley
filed a letter in this proceeding in which he characterized the electricity market in Maryland as a
failure and urged the MDPSC to use its existing authority to order the construction of new
generation in Maryland, vary the means used by utilities to procure generation and include more
renewables in the generation mix. In August 2010, the MDPSC opened another new proceeding to
solicit comments on the PJM RPM process. Public hearings on the comments were held in October 2010.
In December 2010, the MDPSC issued an order soliciting comments on a model request for proposal for
solicitation of long-term energy commitments by Maryland electric utilities. PE and numerous other
parties filed comments, and at this time no further proceedings have been set by the MDPSC in this
matter.
In September 2007, the MDPSC issued an order that required the Maryland utilities to file detailed
plans for how they will meet the EmPOWER Maryland proposal that electric consumption be reduced
by 10% and electricity demand be reduced by 15%, in each case by 2015.
The Maryland legislature in 2008 adopted a statute codifying the EmPOWER Maryland goals. In 2008,
PE filed its comprehensive plans for attempting to achieve those goals, asking the MDPSC to approve
programs for residential, commercial, industrial, and governmental customers, as well as a customer
education program. The MDPSC ultimately approved the programs in August 2009 after certain
modifications had been made as required by the MDPSC, and approved cost recovery for the programs
in October 2009. Expenditures were estimated to be approximately $101 million and would be
recovered over the following six years. Meanwhile, extensive meetings with the MDPSC Staff and
other stakeholders to discuss details of PEs plans for additional and improved programs for the
period 2012-2014 began in April 2011 and those programs are to be filed by September 1, 2011.
In March 2009, the MDPSC issued an order suspending until further notice the right of all electric
and gas utilities in the state to terminate service to residential customers for non-payment of
bills. The MDPSC subsequently issued an order making various rule changes relating to
terminations, payment plans, and customer deposits that make it more difficult for Maryland
utilities to collect deposits or to terminate service for non-payment. The MDPSC is continuing to
conduct hearings and collect data on payment plan and related issues and has adopted a set of
proposed regulations that expand the summer and winter severe weather termination moratoria when
temperatures are very high or very low, from one day, as provided by statute, to three days on each
occurrence.
62
On March 24, 2011, the MDPSC held an initial hearing to discuss possible new regulations relating
to service interruptions, storm response, call center metrics, and related reliability standards.
The proposed rules included provisions for civil penalties for non-compliance. Numerous parties
filed comments on the proposed rules and participated in the hearing, with many noting issues of
cost and practicality relating to implementation. The Maryland legislature passed a bill on April
11, 2011, which requires the MDPSC to promulgate rules by July 1, 2012 that address service
interruptions, downed wire response, customer communication, vegetation management, equipment
inspection, and annual reporting. In crafting the regulations, the legislation directs the MDPSC
to consider cost-effectiveness, and provides that the MDPSC may adopt different standards for
different utilities based on such factors as system design and existing infrastructure, geography,
and customer density. Beginning in July 2013, the MDPSC is to assess each utilitys compliance with
the standards, and may assess penalties of up to $25,000 per day per violation. The MDPSC has
ordered that a working group of utilities, regulators, and other interested stakeholders meet to
address the topics of the proposed rules, with proposed rules to be filed by September 15, 2011.
Separately, on April 7, 2011, the MDPSC initiated a rulemaking with respect to issues related to
contact voltage. On June 3, 2011, the MDPSCs Staff issued a report and draft regulations.
Comments on the draft regulations were submitted on June 17, 2011, and a hearing was held July 7,
2011. Final regulations related to contact voltage have not yet been adopted.
(C) NEW JERSEY
In March 2009 and again in February 2010, JCP&L filed annual SBC Petitions with the NJBPU that
included a requested zero level of recovery of TMI-2 decommissioning costs based on an updated
TMI-2 decommissioning cost analysis dated January 2009 estimated at $736 million (in 2003 dollars).
In its order of June 15, 2011, the NJBPU adopted a Stipulation reached among JCP&L, the NJBPU Staff
and the Division of Rate Counsel which resolved both Petitions, resulting in a net reduction in
recovery of $0.8 million annually for all components of the SBC (including, as requested, a zero
level of recovery of TMI-2 decommissioning costs).
(D) OHIO
The Ohio Companies operate under an ESP, which expires on May 31, 2014. The material terms of the
ESP include: generation supplied through a CBP commencing June 1, 2011 (initial auctions held on
October 20, 2010 and January 25, 2011); a load cap of no less than 80%, which also applies to
tranches assigned post-auction; a 6% generation discount to certain low income customers provided
by the Ohio Companies through a bilateral wholesale contract with FES (FES is one of the wholesale
suppliers to the Ohio Companies); no increase in base distribution rates through May 31, 2014; and
a new distribution rider, Delivery Capital Recovery Rider (Rider DCR), to recover a return of, and
on, capital investments in the delivery system. The Ohio Companies also agreed not to recover from
retail customers certain costs related to transmission cost allocations by PJM as a result of
ATSIs integration into PJM for the longer of the five-year period from June 1, 2011 through May
31, 2015 or when the amount of costs avoided by customers for certain types of products totals $360
million dependent on the outcome of certain PJM proceedings, agreed to establish a $12 million fund
to assist low income customers over the term of the ESP and agreed to additional matters related to
energy efficiency and alternative energy requirements.
Under the provisions of SB221, the Ohio Companies are required to implement energy efficiency
programs that will achieve a total annual energy savings equivalent to approximately 166,000 MWH in
2009, 290,000 MWH in 2010, 410,000 MWH in 2011, 470,000 MWH in 2012 and 530,000 MWH in 2013, with
additional savings required through 2025. Utilities were also required to reduce peak demand in
2009 by 1%, with an additional 0.75% reduction each year thereafter through 2018.
In December 2009, the Ohio Companies filed the required three year portfolio plan seeking approval
for the programs they intend to implement to meet the energy efficiency and peak demand reduction
requirements for the 2010-2012 period. The Ohio Companies expect that all costs associated with
compliance will be recoverable from customers. The PUCO issued an Opinion and Order generally
approving the Ohio Companies 3-year plan, and the Companies are in the process of implementing
those programs included in the Plan. OE fell short of its statutory 2010 energy efficiency and
peak demand reduction benchmarks and therefore, on January 11, 2011, it requested that its 2010
energy efficiency and peak demand reduction benchmarks be amended to actual levels achieved in
2010. The PUCO granted this request on May 19, 2011 for OE, finding that the motion was moot for
CEI and TE. Moreover, because the PUCO indicated, when approving the 2009 benchmark request, that
it would modify the Companies 2010 (and 2011 and 2012) energy efficiency benchmarks when
addressing the portfolio plan, the Ohio Companies were not certain of their 2010 energy efficiency
obligations. Therefore, CEI and TE (each of which achieved its 2010 energy efficiency and peak
demand reduction statutory benchmarks) also requested an amendment if and only to the degree one
was deemed necessary to bring them into compliance with their yet-to-be-defined modified
benchmarks. On June 2, 2011, the Companies filed an application for rehearing to clarify the
decision related to CEI and TE. Failure to comply with the benchmarks or to obtain such an
amendment may subject the companies to an assessment by the PUCO of a penalty. In addition to
approving the programs included in the plan, with only minor modifications, the PUCO authorized the
Companies to recover all costs related to the original CFL program that the Ohio Companies had
previously suspended at the request of the PUCO. Applications for Rehearing were filed on April
22, 2011, regarding portions of the PUCOs decision, including the method for calculating savings
and certain changes made by the PUCO to specific programs. On May 4, 2011, the PUCO granted
applications for rehearing for the purpose of further consideration; however, no substantive ruling
has been issued.
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 and 0.50% of the KWH they served in 2010. In August and October 2009, the Ohio Companies
conducted RFPs to secure RECs. The RECs acquired through these two RFPs were used to help meet the
renewable energy requirements established under SB221 for 2009, 2010 and 2011. In March 2010, the
PUCO found that there was an insufficient quantity of solar energy resources reasonably available
in the market and 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
63
requirements be increased to include the shortfall for the 2009 solar REC
benchmark. FES also applied for a force majeure determination from the PUCO regarding a portion of
their compliance with the 2009 solar energy resource benchmark. On February 23, 2011, the PUCO
granted FES force majeure request for 2009 and increased its 2010 benchmark by the amount of SRECs
that FES was short of in its 2009 benchmark. On April 15, 2011, the Ohio Companies filed an
application seeking an amendment to each of their 2010 alternative energy requirements for solar
RECs generated in Ohio on the basis that an insufficient quantity of solar resources are available
in the market but reflecting solar RECs that they have obtained and providing additional
information regarding efforts to secure solar RECs. Other parties to the proceeding filed comments
asserting that the force majeure determination should not be granted,
and others requesting the PUCO
to review the costs the Ohio companies have incurred to comply with the renewable energy
requirements. The PUCO has not yet acted on that application.
In February 2010, OE and CEI filed an application with the PUCO to establish a new credit for
all-electric customers. In March 2010, the PUCO ordered that rates for the affected customers be
set at a level that will provide bill impacts commensurate with charges in place on December 31,
2008 and authorized the Ohio Companies to defer incurred costs equivalent to the difference between
what the affected customers would have paid under previously existing rates and what they pay with
the new credit in place. Tariffs implementing this new credit went into effect in March 2010. In
April 2010, the PUCO issued a Second Entry on Rehearing that expanded the group of customers to
which the new credit would apply and authorized deferral for the associated additional amounts. The
PUCO also stated that it expected that the new credit would remain in place through at least the
2011 winter season and charged its staff to work with parties to seek a long term solution to the
issue. Tariffs implementing this newly expanded credit went into effect in May 2010 and the
proceeding remains open. The hearing on the matter was held in February 2011. The PUCO modified and
approved the companies application on May 25, 2011, ruling that the new credit be phased out over
an eight-year period and granting authority for the companies to recover deferred costs and
associated carrying charges. OCC filed applications for rehearing on June 24, 2011 and the Ohio
Companies filed their responses on July 5, 2011. The PUCO has not yet acted on the applications
for rehearing.
(E) PENNSYLVANIA
The PPUC entered an Order on March 3, 2010 that denied the recovery of marginal transmission losses
through the TSC rider for the period of June 1, 2007 through March 31, 2008, directed Met-Ed and
Penelec to submit a new tariff or tariff supplement reflecting the removal of marginal transmission
losses from the TSC, and instructed Met-Ed and Penelec to work with the various intervening parties
to file a recommendation to the PPUC regarding the establishment of a separate account for all
marginal transmission losses collected from ratepayers plus interest to be used to mitigate future
generation rate increases beginning January 1, 2011. In March 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a
Petition with the PPUC requesting that it stay the portion of the March 3, 2010 Order requiring the
filing of tariff supplements to end collection of costs for marginal transmission losses. The PPUC
granted the requested stay until December 31, 2010. Pursuant to the PPUCs order, Met-Ed and
Penelec filed plans to establish separate accounts for marginal transmission loss revenues and
related interest and carrying charges. Pursuant to the plan approved by the PPUC, Met-Ed and
Penelec began to refund those amounts to customers in January 2011, and the refunds will continue
over a 29 month period until the full amounts previously recovered for marginal transmission loses
are refunded. In April 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a Petition for Review with the Commonwealth
Court of Pennsylvania appealing the PPUCs March 3, 2010 Order. On June 14, 2011, the Commonwealth
Court issued an opinion and order affirming the PPUCs Order to the extent that it holds that line
loss costs are not transmission costs and, therefore, the approximately $254 million in marginal
transmission losses and associated carrying charges for the period prior to January 1, 2011, are
not recoverable under Met-Eds and Penelecs TSC riders. Met-Ed and Penelec filed a Petition for
Allowance of Appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and also a complaint seeking relief in
federal district court. Although the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this
time, Met-Ed and Penelec believe that they should ultimately prevail through the judicial process
and therefore expect to fully recover the approximately $254 million ($189 million for Met-Ed and
$65 million for Penelec) in marginal transmission losses for the period prior to January 1, 2011.
In May 2008, May 2009 and May 2010, the PPUC approved Met-Eds and Penelecs annual updates to
their TSC rider for the annual periods between June 1, 2008 to December 31, 2010, including
marginal transmission losses as approved by the PPUC, although the recovery of marginal losses will
be subject to the outcome of the proceeding related to the
2008 TSC filing as described above. The PPUCs approval in May 2010 authorized an increase to the
TSC for Met-Eds customers to provide for full recovery by December 31, 2010.
In February 2010, Penn filed a Petition for Approval of its Default Service Plan for the period
June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2013. In July 2010, the parties to the proceeding filed a Joint
Petition for Settlement of all issues. Although the PPUCs Order approving the Joint Petition held
that the provisions relating to the recovery of MISO exit fees and one-time PJM integration costs
(resulting from Penns June 1, 2011 exit from MISO and integration into PJM) were approved, it made
such provisions subject to the approval of cost recovery by FERC. Therefore, Penn may not put these
provisions into effect until FERC has approved the recovery and allocation of MISO exit fees and
PJM integration costs.
Pennsylvania adopted Act 129 in 2008 to address issues such as: energy efficiency and peak load
reduction; generation procurement; time-of-use rates; smart meters; and alternative energy. Among
other things, Act 129 required utilities to file with the PPUC an energy efficiency and peak load
reduction plan, or EE&C Plan, by July 1, 2009, setting forth the utilities plans to reduce energy
consumption by a minimum of 1% and 3% by May 31, 2011 and May 31, 2013, respectively, and to reduce
peak demand by a minimum of 4.5% by May 31, 2013. Act 129 also required utilities to file with the
PPUC a Smart Meter Implementation Plan (SMIP).
64
The PPUC entered an Order in February 2010 giving final approval to all aspects of the EE&C Plans
of Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn and the tariff rider with rates effective March 1, 2010. On February
18, 2011, the companies filed a petition to approve their First Amended EE&C Plans. On June 28,
2011, a hearing on the petition was held before an administrative law judge.
WP filed its original EE&C Plan in June 2009, which the PPUC approved, in large part, by Opinion
and Order entered in October 2009. In November 2009, the Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA) filed
an appeal with the Commonwealth Court of the PPUCs October Order. The OCA contends that the
PPUCs Order failed to include WPs costs for smart meter implementation in the EE&C Plan, and that
inclusion of such costs would cause the EE&C Plan to exceed the statutory cap for EE&C
expenditures. The OCA also contends that WPs EE&C plan does not meet the Total Resource Cost
Test. The appeal remains pending but has been stayed by the Commonwealth Court pending possible
settlement of WPs SMIP. In September 2010, WP filed an amended EE&C Plan that is less reliant on
smart meter deployment, which the PPUC approved in January 2011.
Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn jointly filed a SMIP with the PPUC in August 2009. This plan proposed a
24-month assessment period in which Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn will assess their needs, select the
necessary technology, secure vendors, train personnel, install and test support equipment, and
establish a cost effective and strategic deployment schedule, which currently is expected to be
completed in fifteen years. Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn estimate assessment period costs of
approximately $29.5 million, which the Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn, in their plan, proposed to recover
through an automatic adjustment clause. The ALJs Initial Decision approved the SMIP as modified by
the ALJ, including: ensuring that the smart meters to be deployed include the capabilities listed
in the PPUCs Implementation Order; denying the recovery of interest through the automatic
adjustment clause; providing for the recovery of reasonable and prudent costs net of resulting
savings from installation and use of smart meters; and requiring that administrative start-up costs
be expensed and the costs incurred for research and development in the assessment period be
capitalized. The PPUC entered its Order in June 2010, consistent with the Chairmans Motion.
Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn filed a Petition for Reconsideration of a single portion of the PPUCs
Order regarding the future ability to include smart meter costs in base rates, which the PPUC
granted in part by deleting language from its original order that would have precluded Met-Ed,
Penelec and Penn from seeking to include smart meter costs in base rates at a later time. The
costs to implement the SMIP could be material. However, assuming these costs satisfy a just and
reasonable standard, they are expected to be recovered in a rider (Smart Meter Technologies Charge
Rider) which was approved when the PPUC approved the SMIP.
In August 2009, WP filed its original SMIP, which provided for extensive deployment of smart meter
infrastructure with replacement of all of WPs approximately 725,000 meters by the end of 2014. In
December 2009, WP filed a motion to reopen the evidentiary record to submit an alternative smart
meter plan proposing, among other things, a less-rapid deployment of smart meters. In an Initial
Decision dated April 29, 2010, an ALJ determined that WPs alternative smart meter deployment plan,
complied with the requirements of Act 129 and recommended approval of the alternative plan,
including WPs proposed cost recovery mechanism.
In light of the significant expenditures that would be associated with its smart meter deployment
plans and related infrastructure upgrades, as well as its evaluation of recent PPUC decisions
approving less-rapid deployment proposals by other utilities, WP re-evaluated its Act 129
compliance strategy, including both its plans with respect to smart meter deployment and certain
smart meter dependent aspects of the EE&C Plan. In October 2010, WP and Pennsylvanias OCA filed a
Joint Petition for Settlement addressing WPs smart meter implementation plan with the PPUC. Under
the terms of the proposed settlement, WP proposed to decelerate its previously contemplated smart
meter deployment schedule and to target the installation of approximately 25,000 smart meters in
support of its EE&C Plan, based on customer requests, by mid-2012. The proposed settlement also
contemplates that WP take advantage of the 30-month grace period authorized by the PPUC to continue
WPs efforts to re-evaluate full-scale smart meter deployment plans. WP currently anticipates
filing its plan for full-scale deployment of smart meters in June 2012. Under the terms of the
proposed settlement, WP would be permitted to recover certain previously incurred and anticipated
smart-meter related expenditures through a levelized customer surcharge, with certain expenditures
amortized over a ten-year period.
Additionally, WP would be permitted to seek recovery of certain other costs as part of its revised
SMIP that it currently intends to file in June 2012, or in a future base distribution rate case.
In December 2010, the PPUC directed that the SMIP proceeding be referred to the ALJ for further
proceedings to ensure that the impact of the proposed merger with FirstEnergy is considered and
that the Joint Petition for Settlement has adequate support in the record. On March 9, 2011, WP
submitted an Amended Joint Petition for Settlement which restates the Joint Petition for Settlement
filed in October 2010, adds the PPUCs Office of Trial Staff as a signatory party, and confirms the
support or non-opposition of all parties to the settlement. One party retained the ability to
challenge the recovery of amounts spent on WPs original smart meter implementation plan. The
proposed settlement also obligates OCA to withdraw its November 2009 appeal of the PPUCs Order in
WPs EE&C plan proceeding. A Joint Stipulation with the OSBA was also filed on March 9, 2011. On
May 3, 2011, the ALJ issued an Initial Decision recommending that the PPUC approve the Amended
Joint Petition for Full Settlement. The PPUC approved the Initial Decision by order entered June
30, 2011.
65
By Tentative Order entered in September 2009, the PPUC provided for an additional 30-day comment
period on whether the 1998 Restructuring Settlement, which addressed how Met-Ed and Penelec were
going to implement direct access to a competitive market for the generation of electricity, allows
Met-Ed and Penelec to apply over-collection of NUG costs for select and isolated months to reduce
non-NUG stranded costs when a cumulative NUG stranded cost balance exists. In response to the
Tentative Order, various parties filed comments objecting to the above accounting method utilized
by Met-Ed and Penelec. Met-Ed and Penelec are awaiting further action by the PPUC.
In the PPUC Order approving the FirstEnergy and Allegheny merger, the PPUC announced that a
separate statewide investigation into Pennsylvanias retail electricity market will be conducted
with the goal of making recommendations for improvements to ensure that a properly functioning and
workable competitive retail electricity market exists in the state. On April 29, 2011, the PPUC
entered an Order initiating the investigation and requesting comments from interested parties on
eleven directed questions. Met-Ed, Penelec, Penn Power and West Penn submitted joint comments on
June 3, 2011. FES also submitted comments on June 3, 2011. On June 8, 2011, the PPUC conducted an
en banc hearing on these issues at which both the Pennsylvania Companies and FES participated and
offered testimony.
(F) VIRGINIA
In September 2010, PATH-VA filed an application with the VSCC for authorization to construct the
Virginia portions of the PATH Project. On February 28, 2011, PATH-VA filed a motion to withdraw the
application. On May 24, 2011, the VSCC granted PATH-VAs motion to withdraw its application for
authorization to construct the Virginia portions of the PATH Project. See Transmission Expansion
in the Federal Regulation and Rate Matters section for further discussion of this matter.
(G) WEST VIRGINIA
In August 2009, MP and PE filed with the WVPSC a request to increase retail rates, which was
amended through subsequent filings. MP and PE ultimately requested an annual increase in retail
rates of approximately $95 million. In April 2010, MP and PE filed with the WVPSC a Joint
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement reached with the other parties in the proceeding that
provided for:
|
|
|
a $40 million annualized base rate increase effective June 29, 2010; |
|
|
|
a deferral of February 2010 storm restoration expenses in West Virginia over a
maximum five-year period; |
|
|
|
an additional $20 million annualized base rate increase effective in January 2011; |
|
|
|
a decrease of $20 million in ENEC rates effective January 2011, which amount is
deferred for later recovery in 2012; and |
|
|
|
a moratorium on filing for further increases in base rates before December 1, 2011,
except under specified circumstances. |
The WVPSC approved the Joint Petition and Agreement of Settlement in June 2010.
In 2009, the West Virginia Legislature enacted the Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Act
(Portfolio Act), which generally requires that a specified minimum percentage of electricity sold
to retail customers in West Virginia by electric utilities each year be derived from alternative
and renewable energy resources according to a predetermined schedule of increasing percentage
targets, including ten percent by 2015, fifteen percent by 2020, and twenty-five percent by 2025.
In November 2010, the WVPSC issued Rules Governing Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio
Standard (RPS Rules), which became effective on January 4, 2011. Under the RPS Rules, on or before
January 1, 2011, each electric utility subject to the provisions of this rule was required to
prepare an alternative and renewable energy portfolio standard compliance plan and file an
application with the WVPSC seeking approval of such plan. MP and PE filed their combined compliance
plan in December 2010. A hearing was held at the WVPSC on June 13, 2011. An order is expected by
late September 2011.
Additionally, in January 2011, MP and PE filed an application with the WVPSC seeking to certify
three facilities as Qualified Energy Resource Facilities. If the application is approved, the
three facilities would then be capable of generating renewable credits which would assist the
companies in meeting their combined requirements under the Portfolio Act. Further, in February
2011, MP and PE filed a petition with the WVPSC seeking an Order declaring that MP is entitled to
all alternative and renewable energy resource credits associated with the electric energy, or
energy and capacity, that MP is required to purchase pursuant to electric energy purchase
agreements between MP and three non-utility electric generating facilities in WV. The City of New
Martinsville and Morgantown Energy Associates, each the owner of one of the contracted resources,
has participated in the case in opposition to the Petition.
66
(H) FERC MATTERS
Rates for Transmission Service Between MISO and PJM
In November 2004, FERC issued an order eliminating the through and out rate for transmission
service between the MISO and PJM regions. FERC also ordered MISO, PJM and the transmission owners
within MISO and PJM to submit compliance filings containing a rate mechanism to recover lost
transmission revenues created by elimination of this charge (referred to as SECA) during a 16-month
transition period. In 2005, FERC set the SECA for hearing. The presiding ALJ issued an initial
decision in August 2006, rejecting the compliance filings made by MISO, PJM and the transmission
owners, and directing new compliance filings. This decision was subject to review and approval by
FERC. In May 2010, FERC issued an order denying pending rehearing requests and an Order on Initial
Decision which reversed the presiding ALJs rulings in many respects. Most notably, these orders
affirmed the right of transmission owners to collect SECA charges with adjustments that modestly
reduce the level of such charges, and changes to the entities deemed responsible for payment of the
SECA charges. The Ohio Companies were identified as load serving entities responsible for payment
of additional SECA charges for a portion of the SECA period (Green Mountain/Quest issue).
FirstEnergy executed settlements with AEP, Dayton and the Exelon parties to fix FirstEnergys
liability for SECA charges originally billed to Green Mountain and Quest for load that returned to
regulated service during the SECA period. The AEP, Dayton and Exelon, settlements were approved by
FERC in November 2010, and the relevant payments made. The subsidiaries of Allegheny entered into
nine settlements to fix their liability for SECA charges with various parties. All of the
settlements were approved by FERC and the relevant payments have been made for eight of the
settlements. Payments due under the remaining settlement will be made as a part of the refund
obligations of the Utilities that are under review by FERC as part of a compliance filing.
Potential refund obligations of FirstEnergy and the Allegheny subsidiaries are not expected to be
material. Rehearings remain pending in this proceeding.
PJM Transmission Rate
In April 2007, FERC issued an order (Opinion 494) finding that the PJM transmission owners
existing license plate or zonal rate design was just and reasonable and ordered that the current
license plate rates for existing transmission facilities be retained. On the issue of rates for new
transmission facilities, FERC directed that costs for new transmission facilities that are rated at
500 kV or higher are to be collected from all transmission zones throughout the PJM footprint by
means of a postage-stamp rate based on the amount of load served in a transmission zone. Costs for
new transmission facilities that are rated at less than 500 kV, however, are to be allocated on a
load flow methodology (DFAX), which is generally referred to as a beneficiary pays approach to
allocating the cost of high voltage transmission facilities.
FERCs Opinion 494 order was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which
issued a decision in August 2009. The court affirmed FERCs ratemaking treatment for existing
transmission facilities, but found that FERC had not supported its decision to allocate costs for
new 500+ kV facilities on a load ratio share basis and, based on this finding, remanded the rate
design issue back to FERC.
In an order dated January 21, 2010, FERC set the matter for a paper hearing" meaning that FERC
called for parties to submit written comments pursuant to the schedule described in the order. FERC
identified nine separate issues for comments and directed PJM to file the first round of comments
on February 22, 2010, with other parties submitting responsive comments and then reply comments on
later dates. PJM filed certain studies with FERC on April 13, 2010, in response to the FERC order.
PJMs filing demonstrated that allocation of the cost of high voltage transmission facilities on a
beneficiary pays basis results in certain eastern utilities in PJM bearing the majority of the
costs. Numerous parties filed responsive comments or studies on May 28, 2010 and reply comments on
June 28, 2010. FirstEnergy and a number of other utilities, industrial customers and state
commissions supported the use of the beneficiary pays approach for cost allocation for high voltage
transmission facilities. Certain eastern utilities and their state commissions supported continued
socialization of these costs on a load ratio share basis. This matter is awaiting action by FERC.
RTO Realignment
On
June 1, 2011, ATSI and the ATSI zone entered into PJM. The move was performed as planned with no
known operational or reliability issues for ATSI or for the wholesale transmission customers in the
ATSI zone.
On February 1, 2011, ATSI in conjunction with PJM filed its proposal with FERC for moving its
transmission rate into PJMs tariffs. On April 1, 2011, the MISO Transmission Owners (including
ATSI) filed proposed tariff language that describes the mechanics of collecting and administering
MTEP costs from ATSI-zone ratepayers. From March 20, 2011
through April 1, 2011, FirstEnergy, PJM and the MISO submitted numerous filings for the purpose of
effecting movement of the ATSI zone to PJM on June 1, 2011. These filings include amendments to
the MISOs tariffs (to remove the ATSI zone), submission of load and generation interconnection
agreements to reflect the move into PJM, and submission of changes to PJMs tariffs to support the
move into PJM.
On May 31, 2011, FERC issued orders that address the proposed ATSI transmission rate, and certain
parts of the MISO tariffs that reflect the mechanics of transmission cost allocation and
collection. In its May 31, 2011 orders, FERC approved ATSIs proposal to move the ATSI formula
rate into the PJM tariff without significant change. Speaking to ATSIs proposed treatment of the
MISOs exit fees and charges for transmission costs that were allocated to the ATSI zone, FERC
required ATSI to present a cost-benefit study that demonstrates that the benefits of the move for
transmission customers exceed the costs of any such move, which FERC had not previously required.
Accordingly, FERC ruled that these costs must be removed from ATSIs proposed transmission rates
until such time as ATSI files and FERC approves the cost-benefit study. On June 30, 2011, ATSI
submitted the compliance filing that removed the MISO exit fees and transmission cost allocation
charges from ATSIs proposed transmission rates. Also on June 30, 2011, ATSI requested rehearing
of FERCs decision to require a cost-benefit study analysis as part of FERCs evaluation of ATSIs
proposed transmission rates. The compliance filing, and ATSIs request for rehearing, are
currently pending before FERC.
67
From late April 2011 through June 2011, FERC issued other orders that address ATSIs move into PJM.
These orders approve ATSIs proposed interconnection agreements for large wholesale transmission
customers and generators, and revisions to the PJM and MISO tariffs that reflect ATSIs move into
PJM. In addition, FERC approved an Exit Fee Agreement that memorializes the agreement between
ATSI and MISO with regard to ATSIs obligation to pay certain administrative charges to the MISO
upon exit. Finally, ATSI and the MISO were able to negotiate an agreement of ATSIs responsibility
for certain charges associated with long term firm transmission rights that, according to the
MISO, were payable by the ATSI zone upon its departure from the MISO. ATSI did not and does not
agree that these costs should be charged to ATSI but, in order to settle the case and all claims
associated with the case, ATSI agreed to a one-time payment of $1.8 million to the MISO. This
settlement agreement has been submitted for FERCs review and approval. The final outcome of those
proceedings that address the remaining open issues related to ATSIs move into PJM and their
impact, if any, on FirstEnergy cannot be predicted at this time.
MISO Multi-Value Project Rule Proposal
In July 2010, MISO and certain MISO transmission owners jointly filed with FERC their proposed cost
allocation methodology for certain new transmission projects. The new transmission
projectsdescribed as MVPs are a class of transmission projects that are approved via MISOs
formal transmission planning process (the MTEP). The filing parties proposed to allocate the costs
of MVPs by means of a usage-based charge that will be applied to all loads within the MISO
footprint, and to energy transactions that call for power to be wheeled through the MISO as well
as to energy transactions that source in the MISO but sink outside of MISO. The filing parties
expect that the MVP proposal will fund the costs of large transmission projects designed to bring
wind generation from the upper Midwest to load centers in the east. The filing parties requested an
effective date for the proposal of July 16, 2011. On August 19, 2010, MISOs Board approved the
first MVP project the Michigan Thumb Project. Under MISOs proposal, the costs of MVP projects
approved by MISOs Board prior to the June 1, 2011 effective date of FirstEnergys integration into
PJM would continue to be allocated to FirstEnergy. MISO estimated that approximately $15 million in
annual revenue requirements would be allocated to the ATSI zone associated with the Michigan Thumb
Project upon its completion.
In September 2010, FirstEnergy filed a protest to the MVP proposal arguing that MISOs proposal to
allocate costs of MVPs 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 that had been made to date in the
ATSI integration into PJM, it would be unjust and unreasonable to allocate any MVP costs to the
ATSI zone, or to ATSI. Numerous other parties filed pleadings on MISOs MVP proposal.
In December 2010, FERC issued an order approving the MVP proposal without significant change.
FERCs order was not clear, however, as to whether the MVP costs would be payable by ATSI or load
in the ATSI zone. FERC stated that the MISOs tariffs obligate ATSI to pay all charges that
attached prior to ATSIs exit but ruled that the question of the amount of costs that are to be
allocated to ATSI or to load in the ATSI zone were beyond the scope of FERCs order and would be
addressed in future proceedings.
On January 18, 2011, FirstEnergy filed for rehearing of FERCs order. In its rehearing request,
FirstEnergy argued that because the MVP rate is usage-based, costs could not be applied to ATSI,
which is a stand-alone transmission company that does not use the transmission system. FirstEnergy
also renewed its arguments regarding cost causation and the impropriety of allocating costs to the
ATSI zone or to ATSI.
As noted above, on February 1, 2011, ATSI filed proposed transmission rates related to its move
into PJM. The proposed rates included line items that were intended to recover all MVP costs (if
any) that might be charged to ATSI or to the ATSI zone. In its May 31, 2011 order on ATSIs
proposed transmission rates FERC ruled that ATSI must submit a cost-benefit study before ATSI can
recover the MVP costs. FERC further directed that ATSI remove the line-items from ATSIs formula
rate that would recover the MVP costs until such time as ATSI submits and FERC approves the cost-
benefit study. ATSI requested a rehearing of these parts of FERCs order and, pending this
further legal process, has removed the MVP line items from its transmission rates.
FirstEnergy cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings at this time.
California Claims Matters
In October 2006, several California governmental and utility parties presented AE Supply with a
settlement proposal to resolve alleged overcharges for power sales by AE Supply to the California
Energy Resource Scheduling division of the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) during
2001. The settlement proposal claims that CDWR is owed approximately $190 million for these alleged
overcharges. This proposal was made in the context of mediation efforts by FERC and the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in pending proceedings to resolve all outstanding
refund and other claims, including claims of alleged price manipulation in the California energy
markets during 2000 and 2001. The Ninth Circuit has since remanded one of those proceedings to
FERC, which arises out of claims previously filed with FERC by the California Attorney General on
behalf of certain California parties against various sellers in the California wholesale power
market, including AE Supply (the Lockyer case). AE Supply and several other sellers filed motions
to dismiss the Lockyer case. In March 2010, the judge assigned to the case entered an opinion that
granted the motions to dismiss filed by AE Supply and other sellers and dismissed the claims of the
California Parties. On May 4, 2011, FERC affirmed the judges ruling.
68
In June 2009, the California Attorney General, on behalf of certain California parties, filed a
second complaint with FERC against various sellers, including AE Supply (the Brown case), again
seeking refunds for trades in the California energy markets during 2000 and 2001. The above-noted
trades with CDWR are the basis for including AE Supply in this new complaint. AE Supply filed a
motion to dismiss the Brown complaint that was granted by FERC on May 24, 2011. On June 23, 2011,
the California Attorney General requested rehearing of the May 24, 2011 order. FirstEnergy cannot
predict the outcome of this matter.
Transmission Expansion
TrAIL Project. TrAIL is a 500 kV transmission line extending from southwest Pennsylvania through
West Virginia and into northern Virginia. Effective May 19, 2011, all segments of TrAIL were
energized and in service.
PATH Project. The PATH Project is comprised of a 765 kV transmission line that was proposed to
extend from West Virginia through Virginia and into Maryland, modifications to an existing
substation in Putnam County, West Virginia, and the construction of new substations in Hardy
County, West Virginia and Frederick County, Maryland.
PJM initially authorized construction of the PATH Project in June 2007. In December 2010, PJM
advised that its 2011 Load Forecast Report included load projections that are different from
previous forecasts and that may have an impact on the proposed in-service date for the PATH
Project. As part of its 2011 RTEP, and in response to a January 19, 2011 directive by a Virginia
Hearing Examiner, PJM conducted a series of analyses using the most current economic forecasts and
demand response commitments, as well as potential new generation resources. Preliminary analysis
revealed the expected reliability violations that necessitated the PATH Project had moved several
years into the future. Based on those results, PJM announced on February 28, 2011 that its Board
of Managers had decided to hold the PATH Project in abeyance in its 2011 RTEP and directed
FirstEnergy and AEP, as the sponsoring transmission owners, to suspend current development efforts
on the project, subject to those activities necessary to maintain the project in its current state,
while PJM conducts more rigorous analysis of the need for the project as part of its continuing
RTEP process. PJM stated that its action did not constitute a directive to FirstEnergy and AEP to
cancel or abandon the PATH Project. PJM further stated that it will complete a more rigorous
analysis of the PATH Project and other transmission requirements and its Board will review this
comprehensive analysis as part of its consideration of the 2011 RTEP. On February 28, 2011,
affiliates of FirstEnergy and AEP filed motions or notices to withdraw applications for
authorization to construct the project that were pending before state commissions in West Virginia,
Virginia and Maryland. Withdrawal was deemed effective upon filing the notice with the MDPSC. The
WVPSC and VSCC have granted the motions to withdraw.
PATH, LLC submitted a filing to FERC to implement a formula rate tariff effective March 1, 2008.
In a November 19, 2010 order addressing various matters relating to the formula rate, FERC set the
projects base return on equity for hearing and reaffirmed its prior authorization of a return on
CWIP, recovery of start-up costs and recovery of abandonment costs. In the order, FERC also
granted a 1.5% return on equity incentive adder and a 0.50% return on equity adder for RTO
participation. These adders will be applied to the base return on equity determined as a result of
the hearing. PATH, LLC is currently engaged in settlement discussions with the staff of FERC and
intervenors regarding resolution of the base return on equity.
Seneca Pumped Storage Project Relicensing
The Seneca (Kinzua) Pumped Storage Project is a 451 MW hydroelectric project located in Warren
County, Pennsylvania owned and operated by FGCO. FGCO holds the current FERC license that
authorizes ownership and operation of the project. The current FERC license will expire on
November 30, 2015. FERCs regulations call for a five-year relicensing process. On November 24,
2010, and acting pursuant to applicable FERC regulations and rules, FGCO
initiated the relicensing process by filing its notice of intent to relicense and pre-application
document (PAD) in the license docket.
On November 30, 2010, the Seneca Nation of Indians filed its notice of intent to relicense and PAD
documents necessary for them to submit a competing application. Section 15 of the FPA contemplates
that third parties may file a competing application to assume ownership and operation of a
hydroelectric facility upon (i) relicensure and (ii) payment of net book value of the plant to the
original owner/operator. Nonetheless, FGCO believes it is entitled to a statutory incumbent
preference under Section 15.
The Seneca Nation and certain other intervenors have asked FERC to redefine the project boundary
of the hydroelectric plant to include the dam and reservoir facilities operated by the U.S. Army
Corps. of Engineers. On May 16, 2011, FirstEnergy filed a Petition for Declaratory Order with FERC
seeking an order to exclude the dam and reservoir facilities from the project. The Seneca Nation,
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the U.S. Department of Interior
each submitted responses to FirstEnergys petition, including motions to dismiss FirstEnergys
petition. The project boundary issue is pending before FERC.
69
The next steps in the relicensing process are for FirstEnergy and the Seneca Nation to define and
perform certain environmental and operational studies to support their respective applications.
These steps are expected to run through approximately November of 2013. FirstEnergy cannot predict
the outcome of these proceedings at this time.
11. STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION PLANS
FirstEnergy has four types of stock-based compensation programs LTIP, EDCP, ESOP and DCPD, as
described below.
Alleghenys stock-based awards were converted into FirstEnergy stock-based awards as of the date of
the merger. These awards, referred to below as converted Allegheny awards, were adjusted in terms
of the number of awards and, where applicable, the exercise price thereof, to reflect the mergers
common stock exchange ratio of 0.667 of a share of FirstEnergy common stock for each share of
Allegheny common stock.
(A) LTIP
FirstEnergys LTIP includes four forms of stock-based compensation awards stock options,
performance shares, restricted stock and restricted stock units.
Under FirstEnergys LTIP, total awards cannot exceed 29.1 million shares of common stock or their
equivalent. Only stock options, restricted stock and restricted stock units have currently been
designated to be settled in common stock, with vesting periods ranging from two months to ten
years. Performance share awards are currently designated to be paid in cash rather than common
stock and therefore do not count against the limit on stock-based awards. There were 5.6 million
shares available for future awards as of June 30, 2011.
Restricted Stock and Restricted Stock Units
Restricted common stock (restricted stock) and restricted stock unit (stock unit) activity was as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months |
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted stock and stock units outstanding as of
January 1, 2011 |
|
|
1,878,022 |
|
Granted |
|
|
891,881 |
|
Converted Allegheny restricted stock |
|
|
645,197 |
|
Exercised |
|
|
(428,686 |
) |
Forfeited |
|
|
(71,775 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Restricted stock and stock units outstanding as of
June 30, 2011 |
|
|
2,914,639 |
|
|
|
|
|
The 891,881 shares of restricted common stock granted during the six months ended June 30, 2011
had a grant-date fair value of $33.2 million and a weighted-average vesting period of 2.74 years.
Restricted stock units include awards that will be settled in a specific number of shares of common
stock after the service condition has been met. Restricted stock units also include
performance-based awards that will be settled after the service condition has been met in a
specified number of shares of common stock based on FirstEnergys performance compared to annual
target performance metrics.
Compensation expense recognized during the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010 for restricted
stock and restricted stock units, net of amounts capitalized, was approximately $27 million and $20
million, respectively.
70
Stock Options
Stock option activity for the six months ended June 30, 2011 was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
Number of |
|
|
Exercise |
|
Stock Option Activities |
|
Shares |
|
|
Price |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock options outstanding as of January 1, 2011
(all exercisable) |
|
|
2,889,066 |
|
|
$ |
35.18 |
|
Options granted |
|
|
662,122 |
|
|
|
37.75 |
|
Converted Allegheny options |
|
|
1,805,811 |
|
|
|
41.75 |
|
Options exercised |
|
|
(691,304 |
) |
|
|
31.38 |
|
Options forfeited/expired |
|
|
(78,978 |
) |
|
|
71.71 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock options outstanding as of June 30, 2011 |
|
|
4,586,717 |
|
|
$ |
38.09 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,924,595 options exercisable) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compensation expense recognized for stock options during the six months ended June 30, 2011 was
$0.3 million. No expense was recognized during the six months ended June 30, 2010. Options granted
during the six months ended June 30, 2011 had a grant-date fair value of $3.3 million and an
expected weighted-average vesting period of 3.79 years.
Options outstanding by exercise price as of June 30, 2011 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted |
|
|
Remaining |
|
|
|
Shares Under |
|
|
Average |
|
|
Contractual |
|
Exercise Prices |
|
Options |
|
|
Exercise Price |
|
|
Life in Years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$20.02 $30.74 |
|
|
1,045,122 |
|
|
$ |
26.54 |
|
|
|
2.02 |
|
$30.89 $40.93 |
|
|
3,160,440 |
|
|
|
37.30 |
|
|
|
4.17 |
|
$42.72 $51.82 |
|
|
3,883 |
|
|
|
51.02 |
|
|
|
0.70 |
|
$53.06 $62.97 |
|
|
54,559 |
|
|
|
56.15 |
|
|
|
3.02 |
|
$64.52 $71.82 |
|
|
9,042 |
|
|
|
67.50 |
|
|
|
5.24 |
|
$73.39 $80.47 |
|
|
311,003 |
|
|
|
80.17 |
|
|
|
3.81 |
|
$81.19 $89.59 |
|
|
2,668 |
|
|
|
85.39 |
|
|
|
6.09 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
4,586,717 |
|
|
$ |
38.08 |
|
|
|
3.64 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Performance Shares
Performance shares will be settled in cash and are accounted for as liability awards. Compensation
expense (income) recognized for performance shares during the six months ended June 30, 2011 and
2010, net of amounts capitalized, totaled $2 million and $(6) million, respectively. No performance
shares under the FirstEnergy LTIP were settled during the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010.
(B) ESOP
During 2011, shares of FirstEnergy common stock were purchased on the open market and contributed
to participants accounts. Total ESOP-related compensation expense for the six months ended June
30, 2011 and 2010, net of amounts capitalized and dividends on common stock, were $19 million and
$10 million, respectively.
(C) EDCP
There was no material compensation expense recognized on EDCP stock units during the six months
ended June 30, 2011 and 2010.
(D) DCPD
DCPD expenses recognized during the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010 were approximately $2
million in each period. The net liability recognized for DCPD of approximately $6 million as of
June 30, 2011 is included in the caption Retirement benefits on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Of the 1.7 million stock units authorized under the EDCP and DCPD, 1,076,779 stock units were
available for future awards as of June 30, 2011.
71
12. NEW ACCOUNTING STANDARDS AND INTERPRETATIONS
In May 2011, the FASB amended authoritative accounting guidance regarding fair value measurement.
The amendment prohibits the application of block discounts for all fair value measurements, permits
the fair value of certain financial instruments to be measured on the basis of the net risk
exposure and allows the application of premiums or discounts to the extent consistent with the
applicable unit of account. The amendment clarifies that the highest-and-best use and
valuation-premise concepts are not relevant to financial instruments. Expanded disclosures are
required under the amendment, including quantitative information about significant unobservable
inputs used for Level 3 measurements, a qualitative discussion about the sensitivity of recurring
Level 3 measurements to changes in unobservable inputs disclosed, a discussion of the Level 3
valuation processes, any transfers between Levels 1 and 2 and the classification of items whose
fair value is not recorded but is disclosed in the notes. The amendment is effective for
FirstEnergy in the first quarter of 2012. FirstEnergy does not expect this amendment to have a
material effect on its financial statements.
In June 2011, the FASB issued new accounting guidance that revises the manner in which entities
presents comprehensive income in their financial statements. The new guidance requires entities to
report components of comprehensive income in either a continuous statement of comprehensive income
or two separate but consecutive statements. The new guidance does not change the items that must
be reported in other comprehensive income and does not affect the calculation or reporting of
earnings per share. The amendment is effective for FirstEnergy in the first quarter of 2012. This
amendment will not have a material effect on FirstEnergys financial statements.
13. SEGMENT INFORMATION
With the completion of the Allegheny merger in the first quarter of 2011, FirstEnergy reorganized
its management structure, which resulted in changes to its operating segments to be consistent with
the manner in which management views the business. The new structure supports the combined
companys primary operations distribution, transmission, generation and the marketing and sale
of its products. The external segment reporting is consistent with the internal financial reporting
used by FirstEnergys chief executive officer (its chief operating decision maker) to regularly
assess the performance of the business and allocate resources. FirstEnergy now has three
reportable operating segments Regulated Distribution, Regulated Independent Transmission and
Competitive Energy Services.
Prior to the change in composition of business segments, FirstEnergys business was comprised of
two reportable operating segments. The Energy Delivery Services segment was comprised of
FirstEnergys then eight existing utility operating companies that transmit and distribute
electricity to customers and purchase power to serve their POLR and default service requirements.
The Competitive Energy Services segment was comprised of FES, which supplies electric power to
end-use customers through retail and wholesale arrangements. The Other/Corporate segment
consisted of corporate items and other businesses that were below the quantifiable threshold for
separate disclosure. Disclosures for FirstEnergys operating segments for 2010 have been
reclassified to conform to the current presentation.
The changes in FirstEnergys reportable segments during 2011 consisted primarily of the following:
|
|
|
Energy Delivery Services was renamed Regulated Distribution and the
operations of MP, PE and WP, which were acquired as part of the merger with Allegheny,
and certain regulatory asset recovery mechanisms formerly included in the Other
segment, were placed into this segment. |
|
|
|
A new Regulated Independent Transmission segment was created consisting of
ATSI, and the operations of TrAIL Company and FirstEnergys interest in PATH; TrAIL and
PATH were acquired as part of the merger with Allegheny. The transmission assets and
operations of JCP&L, Met-Ed, Penelec, MP, PE and WP remain within the Regulated
Distribution segment. |
|
|
|
AE Supply, an operator of generation facilities that was acquired as part of
the merger with Allegheny, was placed into the Competitive Energy Services segment. |
The Regulated Distribution segment distributes electricity through FirstEnergys ten utility
operating companies, serving approximately 6 million customers within 67,000 square miles of Ohio,
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey and New York, and purchases power for its POLR,
SOS and default service requirements in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland. This segment
also includes the transmission operations of JCP&L, Met-Ed, Penelec, WP, MP and PE and the
regulated electric generation facilities in West Virginia and New Jersey which MP and JCP&L,
respectively, own or contractually control.
The Regulated Distribution segments revenues are primarily derived from the delivery of
electricity within FirstEnergys service areas, cost recovery of regulatory assets and the sale of
electric generation service to retail customers who have not selected an alternative supplier
(POLR, SOS or default service) in its Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania franchise areas.
Its results reflect the commodity costs of securing electric generation from FES and AE Supply and
from non-affiliated power suppliers and the deferral and amortization of certain fuel costs.
72
The Regulated Independent Transmission segment transmits electricity through transmission lines and
its revenues are primarily derived from the formula rate recovery of costs and a return on
investment for capital expenditures in connection with TrAIL, PATH and other projects and revenues
from providing transmission services to electric energy providers, power marketers and receiving
transmission-related revenues from operation of a portion of the FirstEnergy transmission system.
Its results reflect the net PJM and MISO transmission expenses related to the delivery of the
respective generation loads. On June 1, 2011, the ATSI transmission assets previously dedicated to
MISO were integrated into the PJM market. All of FirstEnergys assets now reside in one RTO.
The Competitive Energy Services segment, through FES, supplies electric power to end-use customers
through retail and wholesale arrangements, including associated company power sales to meet a
portion of the POLR and default service requirements of FirstEnergys Ohio and Pennsylvania utility
subsidiaries and competitive retail sales to customers primarily in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois,
Maryland, Michigan and New Jersey. FES purchases the entire output of the 18 generating facilities
which it owns and operates through its FGCO subsidiary (fossil and hydroelectric generating
facilities) and owns, through its NGC subsidiary, FirstEnergys nuclear generating facilities.
FENOC, a separate subsidiary of FirstEnergy, operates and maintains NGCs nuclear generating
facilities as well as the output relating to leasehold interests of OE and TE in certain of those
facilities that are subject to sale and leaseback arrangements with non-affiliates, pursuant to
full output, cost-of-service PSAs.
The Competitive Energy Services segment also includes Alleghenys unregulated electric generation
operations, including AE Supply and AE Supplys interest in AGC. AE Supply owns, operates and
controls the electric generation capacity of its 18 facilities. AGC owns and sells generation
capacity to AE Supply and MP, which own approximately 59% and 41% of AGC, respectively. AGCs sole
asset is a 40% undivided interest in the Bath County, Virginia pumped-storage hydroelectric
generation facility and its connecting transmission facilities. All of AGCs revenues are derived
from sales of its 1,109 MW share of generation capacity from the Bath County generation facility to
AE Supply and MP.
This business segment controls approximately 20,000 MWs of capacity and also purchases electricity
to meet sales obligations. The segments net income is primarily derived from affiliated and
non-affiliated electric generation sales less the related costs of electricity generation,
including purchased power and net transmission (including congestion) and ancillary costs charged
by PJM and MISO (prior to June 1, 2011) to deliver energy to the segments customers.
The Other/Corporate segment contains corporate items and other businesses that are below the
quantifiable threshold for separate disclosure as a reportable segment.
Financial information for each of FirstEnergys reportable segments is presented in the table
below, which includes financial results for Allegheny beginning February 25, 2011. FES and the
Utilities do not have separate reportable operating segments.
73
Segment Financial Information
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Competitive |
|
|
Regulated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Independent |
|
|
Other/ |
|
|
Reconciling |
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
Distribution |
|
|
Services |
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
Corporate |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External revenues |
|
$ |
2,485 |
|
|
$ |
1,495 |
|
|
$ |
105 |
|
|
$ |
(30 |
) |
|
$ |
(7 |
) |
|
$ |
4,048 |
|
Internal revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
318 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(306 |
) |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
2,485 |
|
|
|
1,813 |
|
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
(313 |
) |
|
|
4,060 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
240 |
|
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
372 |
|
Investment income (loss), net |
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
31 |
|
Net interest charges |
|
|
145 |
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
245 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
108 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
101 |
|
Net income (loss) |
|
|
184 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
(51 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
171 |
|
Total assets |
|
|
26,932 |
|
|
|
17,146 |
|
|
|
2,339 |
|
|
|
1,179 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47,596 |
|
Total goodwill |
|
|
5,551 |
|
|
|
905 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,456 |
|
Property additions |
|
|
302 |
|
|
|
197 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
569 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External revenues |
|
$ |
2,314 |
|
|
$ |
795 |
|
|
$ |
59 |
|
|
$ |
(21 |
) |
|
$ |
(8 |
) |
|
$ |
3,139 |
|
Internal revenues |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
539 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(558 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
2,333 |
|
|
|
1,334 |
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
(566 |
) |
|
|
3,139 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
264 |
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
351 |
|
Investment income (loss), net |
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
31 |
|
Net interest charges |
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
167 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
134 |
|
Net income (loss) |
|
|
132 |
|
|
|
121 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
256 |
|
Total assets |
|
|
21,457 |
|
|
|
11,102 |
|
|
|
993 |
|
|
|
914 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34,466 |
|
Total goodwill |
|
|
5,551 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,575 |
|
Property additions |
|
|
157 |
|
|
|
290 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
489 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External revenues |
|
$ |
4,753 |
|
|
$ |
2,736 |
|
|
$ |
172 |
|
|
$ |
(53 |
) |
|
$ |
(16 |
) |
|
$ |
7,592 |
|
Internal revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
661 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(617 |
) |
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
4,753 |
|
|
|
3,397 |
|
|
|
172 |
|
|
|
(53 |
) |
|
|
(633 |
) |
|
|
7,636 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
485 |
|
|
|
195 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
724 |
|
Investment income (loss), net |
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
52 |
|
Net interest charges |
|
|
276 |
|
|
|
122 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
458 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
164 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
(50 |
) |
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
179 |
|
Net income (loss) |
|
|
280 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
(86 |
) |
|
|
(39 |
) |
|
|
216 |
|
Total assets |
|
|
26,932 |
|
|
|
17,146 |
|
|
|
2,339 |
|
|
|
1,179 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47,596 |
|
Total goodwill |
|
|
5,551 |
|
|
|
905 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,456 |
|
Property additions |
|
|
479 |
|
|
|
411 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,018 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External revenues |
|
$ |
4,798 |
|
|
$ |
1,514 |
|
|
$ |
116 |
|
|
$ |
(43 |
) |
|
$ |
(14 |
) |
|
$ |
6,371 |
|
Internal revenues |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
1,213 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,165 |
) |
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
|
|
4,817 |
|
|
|
2,727 |
|
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
(43 |
) |
|
|
(1,179 |
) |
|
|
6,438 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
577 |
|
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
756 |
|
Investment income (loss), net |
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
47 |
|
Net interest charges |
|
|
248 |
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
339 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
143 |
|
|
|
117 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
245 |
|
Net income (loss) |
|
|
235 |
|
|
|
190 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
(39 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
405 |
|
Total assets |
|
|
21,457 |
|
|
|
11,102 |
|
|
|
993 |
|
|
|
914 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34,466 |
|
Total goodwill |
|
|
5,551 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,575 |
|
Property additions |
|
|
309 |
|
|
|
619 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
997 |
|
Reconciling adjustments primarily consist of elimination of intersegment transactions.
14. IMPAIRMENT OF LONG-LIVED ASSETS
FirstEnergy reviews long-lived assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances
indicate that the carrying value of such assets may not be recoverable. The recoverability of a
long-lived asset is measured by comparing its carrying value to the sum of undiscounted future cash
flows expected to result from the use and eventual disposition of the asset. If the carrying value
is greater than the undiscounted cash flows, impairment exists and a loss is recognized for the
amount by which the carrying value of the long-lived asset exceeds its estimated fair value. The
following events described in the sections below occurred during for the first six months of 2011
that indicated the carrying value of certain assets may not be recoverable.
74
Fremont Energy Center
On March 11, 2011, FirstEnergy and American Municipal Power, Inc., entered into an agreement for
the sale of Fremont Energy Center, which includes two natural gas combined-cycle combustion
turbines and a steam turbine capable of producing 544 MW of load-following capacity and 163 MW of
peaking capacity. The execution of this agreement triggered a need to evaluate the recoverability
of the carrying value of the assets associated with the Fremont Energy Center. The estimated fair
value of the Fremont Energy Center was based on the purchase price outlined in the sale agreement
with American Municipal Power, Inc. The result of this evaluation indicated that the carrying cost
of the Fremont Energy Center was not fully recoverable. As a result of the recoverability
evaluation, FirstEnergy recorded an impairment charge of $11 million to operating income during the
quarter ended March 31, 2011. On July 28, 2011, FirstEnergy closed the sale of Fremont Energy
Center to American Municipal Power, Inc.
Peaking Facilities
During the first six months of 2011, FirstEnergy assessed the carrying values of certain peaking
facilities that will more likely than not be sold or disposed of before the end of their useful
lives. The estimated fair values were based on estimated sales prices quoted in an active market.
The result of this evaluation indicated that the carrying costs of the peaking facilities were not
fully recoverable. FirstEnergy recorded impairment charges of $7 million and $21 million during the
three months and six months ended June 30, 2011, respectively, as a result of the recoverability
evaluation.
15. ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATIONS
FirstEnergy has recognized applicable legal obligations for AROs and their associated cost for
nuclear power plant decommissioning, reclamation of sludge disposal ponds and closure of coal ash
disposal sites. In addition, FirstEnergy has recognized conditional asset retirement obligations
(primarily for asbestos remediation).
The ARO liabilities for FES, OE and TE primarily relate to the decommissioning of the Beaver
Valley, Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear generating facilities (OE for its leasehold interest in
Beaver Valley Unit 2 and Perry and TE for its leasehold interest in Beaver Valley Unit 2). The ARO
liabilities for JCP&L, Met-Ed and Penelec primarily relate to the decommissioning of the TMI-2
nuclear generating facility. FES, OE, JCP&L, Met-Ed and Penelec use an expected cash flow approach
to measure the fair value of their nuclear decommissioning ARO.
During the first quarter of 2011, studies were completed to update the estimated cost of
decommissioning the Perry nuclear generating facility. The cost studies resulted in a revision to
the estimated cash flows associated with the ARO liabilities of FES and OE and reduced the
liability for each subsidiary in the amounts of $40 million and $6 million, respectively.
During the second quarter of 2011, studies were completed to update the estimated cost of
decommissioning the Davis-Besse nuclear facility. The cost studies resulted in a revision to the
estimated cash flows associated with the ARO liabilities of FES and reduced the liability for FES
in the amount of $5 million.
The revisions to the estimated cash flows had no significant impact on accretion of the obligation
during the three months and six months ended June 30, 2011 when compared to the same periods of
2010.
16. SUPPLEMENTAL GUARANTOR INFORMATION
In 2007, FGCO completed a sale and leaseback transaction for its 93.825% undivided interest in
Bruce Mansfield Unit 1. FES has fully, unconditionally and irrevocably guaranteed all of FGCOs
obligations under each of the leases. The related lessor notes and pass through certificates are
not guaranteed by FES or FGCO, but the notes are secured by, among other things, each lessor
trusts undivided interest in Unit 1, rights and interests under the applicable lease and rights
and interests under other related agreements, including FES lease guaranty. This transaction is
classified as an operating lease under GAAP for FES and FirstEnergy and as a financing for FGCO.
The condensed consolidating statements of income for the three month and six month periods ended
June 30, 2011 and 2010, consolidating balance sheets as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 and
consolidating statements of cash flows for the three months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010 for FES
(parent and guarantor), FGCO and NGC (non-guarantor) are presented below. Investments in wholly
owned subsidiaries are accounted for by FES using the equity method. Results of operations for FGCO
and NGC are, therefore, reflected in FES investment accounts and earnings as if operating lease
treatment was achieved. The principal elimination entries eliminate investments in subsidiaries and
intercompany balances and transactions and the entries required to reflect operating lease
treatment associated with the 2007 Bruce Mansfield Unit 1 sale and leaseback transaction.
75
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended June 30, 2011 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES |
|
$ |
1,275 |
|
|
$ |
535 |
|
|
$ |
393 |
|
|
$ |
(911 |
) |
|
$ |
1,292 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
266 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
316 |
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
902 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
(911 |
) |
|
|
65 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
332 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
329 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
159 |
|
|
|
115 |
|
|
|
143 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
429 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
68 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30 |
|
Impairment of long-lived assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
1,416 |
|
|
|
434 |
|
|
|
294 |
|
|
|
(900 |
) |
|
|
1,244 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) |
|
|
(141 |
) |
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
|
Miscellaneous income (expense), including
net income from equity investees |
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(120 |
) |
|
|
4 |
|
Interest expense affiliates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
Interest expense other |
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
(52 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense) |
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
(104 |
) |
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
(42 |
) |
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
102 |
|
|
|
(115 |
) |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES (BENEFITS) |
|
|
(62 |
) |
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
20 |
|
|
$ |
54 |
|
|
$ |
64 |
|
|
$ |
(118 |
) |
|
$ |
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
76
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2011 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES |
|
$ |
2,642 |
|
|
$ |
1,278 |
|
|
$ |
862 |
|
|
$ |
(2,098 |
) |
|
$ |
2,684 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
560 |
|
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
659 |
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
2,087 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
134 |
|
|
|
(2,098 |
) |
|
|
134 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
629 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
626 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
321 |
|
|
|
233 |
|
|
|
331 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
910 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
136 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60 |
|
Impairment charges of long-lived assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
3,073 |
|
|
|
903 |
|
|
|
645 |
|
|
|
(2,076 |
) |
|
|
2,545 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) |
|
|
(431 |
) |
|
|
375 |
|
|
|
217 |
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
139 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
Miscellaneous income, including
net income from equity investees |
|
|
356 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(350 |
) |
|
|
8 |
|
Interest expense affiliates |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
Interest expense other |
|
|
(48 |
) |
|
|
(56 |
) |
|
|
(33 |
) |
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
(105 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense) |
|
|
308 |
|
|
|
(44 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(318 |
) |
|
|
(58 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
(123 |
) |
|
|
331 |
|
|
|
213 |
|
|
|
(340 |
) |
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES (BENEFITS) |
|
|
(179 |
) |
|
|
119 |
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
56 |
|
|
$ |
212 |
|
|
$ |
133 |
|
|
$ |
(345 |
) |
|
$ |
56 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
77
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended June 30, 2010 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES |
|
$ |
1,307 |
|
|
$ |
581 |
|
|
$ |
339 |
|
|
$ |
(901 |
) |
|
$ |
1,326 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
302 |
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
343 |
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
913 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
(901 |
) |
|
|
69 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
310 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
310 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
117 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
304 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
63 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
1,318 |
|
|
|
440 |
|
|
|
243 |
|
|
|
(890 |
) |
|
|
1,111 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
141 |
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
215 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
Miscellaneous income, including
net income from equity investees |
|
|
151 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(148 |
) |
|
|
4 |
|
Interest expense affiliates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
Interest expense other |
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
(51 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense) |
|
|
129 |
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(132 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
118 |
|
|
|
132 |
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
(143 |
) |
|
|
203 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES (BENEFITS) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
134 |
|
|
$ |
84 |
|
|
$ |
62 |
|
|
$ |
(146 |
) |
|
$ |
134 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
78
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
REVENUES |
|
$ |
2,674 |
|
|
$ |
1,149 |
|
|
$ |
765 |
|
|
$ |
(1,874 |
) |
|
$ |
2,714 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
582 |
|
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
671 |
|
Purchased power from affiliates |
|
|
1,881 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
(1,874 |
) |
|
|
130 |
|
Purchased power from non-affiliates |
|
|
760 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
760 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
134 |
|
|
|
194 |
|
|
|
256 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
608 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
126 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49 |
|
Impairment of long-lived assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenses |
|
|
2,800 |
|
|
|
868 |
|
|
|
531 |
|
|
|
(1,853 |
) |
|
|
2,346 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) |
|
|
(126 |
) |
|
|
281 |
|
|
|
234 |
|
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
368 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
Miscellaneous income, including
net income from equity investees |
|
|
317 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(311 |
) |
|
|
7 |
|
Interest expense to affiliates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
Interest expense other |
|
|
(48 |
) |
|
|
(54 |
) |
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
(101 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense) |
|
|
273 |
|
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
(279 |
) |
|
|
(41 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
147 |
|
|
|
260 |
|
|
|
220 |
|
|
|
(300 |
) |
|
|
327 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME TAXES (BENEFITS) |
|
|
(67 |
) |
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
113 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME |
|
$ |
214 |
|
|
$ |
163 |
|
|
$ |
142 |
|
|
$ |
(305 |
) |
|
$ |
214 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
79
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of June 30, 2011 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers |
|
|
450 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
450 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
481 |
|
|
|
425 |
|
|
|
263 |
|
|
|
(679 |
) |
|
|
490 |
|
Other |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
410 |
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
490 |
|
Materials and supplies, at average cost |
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
253 |
|
|
|
192 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
499 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
221 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
221 |
|
Prepayments and other |
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,270 |
|
|
|
1,131 |
|
|
|
534 |
|
|
|
(679 |
) |
|
|
2,256 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
6,105 |
|
|
|
5,634 |
|
|
|
(385 |
) |
|
|
11,455 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
2,067 |
|
|
|
2,298 |
|
|
|
(178 |
) |
|
|
4,206 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
4,038 |
|
|
|
3,336 |
|
|
|
(207 |
) |
|
|
7,249 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
198 |
|
|
|
486 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
694 |
|
Property, plant and equipment held for sale, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
487 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
487 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
4,723 |
|
|
|
3,822 |
|
|
|
(207 |
) |
|
|
8,430 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,184 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,184 |
|
Investment in associated companies |
|
|
5,302 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,302 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,303 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
1,184 |
|
|
|
(5,302 |
) |
|
|
1,194 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income tax benefits |
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
344 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(362 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Customer intangibles |
|
|
129 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
129 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41 |
|
Unamortized sale and leaseback costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
135 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
135 |
|
Other |
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
(68 |
) |
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
345 |
|
|
|
463 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
(360 |
) |
|
|
480 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
7,010 |
|
|
$ |
6,326 |
|
|
$ |
5,572 |
|
|
$ |
(6,548 |
) |
|
$ |
12,360 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
436 |
|
|
$ |
671 |
|
|
$ |
(20 |
) |
|
$ |
1,088 |
|
Short-term borrowings- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
453 |
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
541 |
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
665 |
|
|
|
231 |
|
|
|
165 |
|
|
|
(668 |
) |
|
|
393 |
|
Other |
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
191 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
242 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
242 |
|
Other |
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
137 |
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
262 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,510 |
|
|
|
1,004 |
|
|
|
882 |
|
|
|
(678 |
) |
|
|
2,718 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity |
|
|
3,858 |
|
|
|
2,728 |
|
|
|
2,556 |
|
|
|
(5,285 |
) |
|
|
3,857 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
1,483 |
|
|
|
2,050 |
|
|
|
706 |
|
|
|
(1,239 |
) |
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,341 |
|
|
|
4,778 |
|
|
|
3,262 |
|
|
|
(6,524 |
) |
|
|
6,857 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred gain on sale and leaseback transaction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
942 |
|
|
|
942 |
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
504 |
|
|
|
(288 |
) |
|
|
216 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
847 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
875 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
245 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
295 |
|
Lease market valuation liability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
194 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
194 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
85 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
85 |
|
Other |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
178 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
159 |
|
|
|
544 |
|
|
|
1,428 |
|
|
|
654 |
|
|
|
2,785 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
7,010 |
|
|
$ |
6,326 |
|
|
$ |
5,572 |
|
|
$ |
(6,548 |
) |
|
$ |
12,360 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2010 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
Receivables- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers |
|
|
366 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
366 |
|
Associated companies |
|
|
333 |
|
|
|
357 |
|
|
|
126 |
|
|
|
(338 |
) |
|
|
478 |
|
Other |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
90 |
|
Notes receivable from associated companies |
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
189 |
|
|
|
174 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
397 |
|
Materials and supplies, at average cost |
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
276 |
|
|
|
228 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
545 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
182 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
182 |
|
Prepayments and other |
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,025 |
|
|
|
897 |
|
|
|
542 |
|
|
|
(338 |
) |
|
|
2,126 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In service |
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
6,198 |
|
|
|
5,412 |
|
|
|
(385 |
) |
|
|
11,321 |
|
Less Accumulated provision for depreciation |
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
2,020 |
|
|
|
2,162 |
|
|
|
(175 |
) |
|
|
4,024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
4,178 |
|
|
|
3,250 |
|
|
|
(210 |
) |
|
|
7,297 |
|
Construction work in progress |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
520 |
|
|
|
534 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,063 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
4,698 |
|
|
|
3,784 |
|
|
|
(210 |
) |
|
|
8,360 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INVESTMENTS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear plant decommissioning trusts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,146 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,146 |
|
Investment in associated companies |
|
|
4,942 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,942 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,942 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
1,146 |
|
|
|
(4,942 |
) |
|
|
1,158 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED CHARGES AND OTHER ASSETS: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deferred income tax benefits |
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
412 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(455 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Customer intangibles |
|
|
134 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
134 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24 |
|
Property taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41 |
|
Unamortized sale and leaseback costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
73 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
98 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
98 |
|
Other |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
(58 |
) |
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
320 |
|
|
|
509 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
(450 |
) |
|
|
418 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6,375 |
|
|
$ |
6,116 |
|
|
$ |
5,511 |
|
|
$ |
(5,940 |
) |
|
$ |
12,062 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITALIZATION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently payable long-term debt |
|
$ |
101 |
|
|
$ |
419 |
|
|
$ |
632 |
|
|
$ |
(20 |
) |
|
$ |
1,132 |
|
Short-term borrowings- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
Accounts payable- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associated companies |
|
|
351 |
|
|
|
213 |
|
|
|
250 |
|
|
|
(347 |
) |
|
|
467 |
|
Other |
|
|
139 |
|
|
|
102 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
241 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
266 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
266 |
|
Other |
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
183 |
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
322 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
913 |
|
|
|
929 |
|
|
|
928 |
|
|
|
(330 |
) |
|
|
2,440 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITALIZATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stockholders equity |
|
|
3,788 |
|
|
|
2,515 |
|
|
|
2,414 |
|
|
|
(4,929 |
) |
|
|
3,788 |
|
Long-term debt and other long-term obligations |
|
|
1,519 |
|
|
|
2,119 |
|
|
|
793 |
|
|
|
(1,250 |
) |
|
|
3,181 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,307 |
|
|
|
4,634 |
|
|
|
3,207 |
|
|
|
(6,179 |
) |
|
|
6,969 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred gain on sale and leaseback transaction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
959 |
|
|
|
959 |
|
Accumulated deferred income taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
448 |
|
|
|
(390 |
) |
|
|
58 |
|
Asset retirement obligations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
865 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
892 |
|
Retirement benefits |
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
237 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
285 |
|
Lease market valuation liability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
217 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
217 |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
81 |
|
Other |
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
155 |
|
|
|
553 |
|
|
|
1,376 |
|
|
|
569 |
|
|
|
2,653 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6,375 |
|
|
$ |
6,116 |
|
|
$ |
5,511 |
|
|
$ |
(5,940 |
) |
|
$ |
12,062 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
81
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2011 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET CASH PROVIDED FROM (USED FOR)
OPERATING ACTIVITIES |
|
$ |
(329 |
) |
|
$ |
321 |
|
|
$ |
200 |
|
|
$ |
(10 |
) |
|
$ |
182 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
140 |
|
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
247 |
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
453 |
|
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
530 |
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
(135 |
) |
|
|
(192 |
) |
|
|
(155 |
) |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
(472 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) financing activities |
|
|
309 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
(49 |
) |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
294 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(109 |
) |
|
|
(219 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(334 |
) |
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
513 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
513 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(545 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(545 |
) |
Loans to associated companies, net |
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
(221 |
) |
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(93 |
) |
Customer acquisition costs |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
(348 |
) |
|
|
(151 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(479 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
82
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 |
|
FES |
|
|
FGCO |
|
|
NGC |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
NET CASH PROVIDED FROM (USED FOR)
OPERATING ACTIVITIES |
|
$ |
(223 |
) |
|
$ |
163 |
|
|
$ |
287 |
|
|
$ |
(9 |
) |
|
$ |
218 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Financing- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
76 |
|
Redemptions and Repayments- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(261 |
) |
|
|
(43 |
) |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
(295 |
) |
Other |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used for financing activities |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(185 |
) |
|
|
(43 |
) |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
(220 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property additions |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(333 |
) |
|
|
(229 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(566 |
) |
Proceeds from asset sales |
|
|
|
|
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
116 |
|
Sales of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
957 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
957 |
|
Purchases of investment securities held in trusts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(979 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(979 |
) |
Loans to associated companies, net |
|
|
332 |
|
|
|
241 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
631 |
|
Customer acquisition costs |
|
|
(105 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(105 |
) |
Leasehold improvement payments to associated companies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(51 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(51 |
) |
Other |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided from (used for) investing activities |
|
|
224 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
(244 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
83
|
|
|
Item 2. |
|
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Registrant and Subsidiaries |
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Earnings
available to FirstEnergy Corp. were $181 million, or basic and diluted earnings of $0.43
per share of common stock, compared with $265 million, or basic and diluted earnings of $0.87 per
share of common stock in the second quarter of 2010. Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. in the
first six months of 2011 were $231 million or basic and diluted earnings of $0.61 per share of
common stock, compared with $420 million or basic earnings of $1.38 ($1.37 diluted) per share of
common stock in the first six months of 2010. The principal reasons for the decreases are
summarized below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
Six Months |
|
Change In Basic Earnings Per Share From Prior Year(1) |
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
Basic Earnings Per Share - 2010 |
|
$ |
0.87 |
|
|
$ |
1.38 |
|
Non-core
asset sales/impairments |
|
|
(0.01 |
) |
|
|
(0.04 |
) |
Trust
securities impairments |
|
|
0.01 |
|
|
|
0.02 |
|
Mark-to-market adjustments |
|
|
(0.10 |
) |
|
|
(0.02 |
) |
Income tax charge from healthcare legislation - 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.04 |
|
Regulatory charges - 2011 |
|
|
(0.01 |
) |
|
|
(0.05 |
) |
Regulatory charges - 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.08 |
|
Litigation resolution |
|
|
(0.06 |
) |
|
|
(0.07 |
) |
Merger related costs |
|
|
(0.02 |
) |
|
|
(0.31 |
) |
Segment operating results - (2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated Distribution |
|
|
0.02 |
|
|
|
|
|
Competitive Energy Services |
|
|
(0.15 |
) |
|
|
(0.24 |
) |
Interest expense, net of amounts capitalized |
|
|
(0.04 |
) |
|
|
(0.08 |
) |
Merger accounting commodity contracts |
|
|
(0.08 |
) |
|
|
(0.12 |
) |
Net merger accretion(3) |
|
|
0.02 |
|
|
|
0.06 |
|
Settlement of uncertain tax positions |
|
|
(0.03 |
) |
|
|
(0.05 |
) |
Other expenses |
|
|
0.01 |
|
|
|
0.01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic Earnings Per Share - 2011 |
|
$ |
0.43 |
|
|
$ |
0.61 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Amounts shown are net of income tax effect |
|
|
(2) |
|
Excludes amounts that are shown separately |
(3) |
|
Excludes merger accounting commodity contracts, regulatory charges, mark-to-market
adjustments and merger-related costs that are shown separately |
Merger
On February 25, 2011, the merger between FirstEnergy and Allegheny closed. Pursuant to the terms of
the Agreement and Plan of Merger between FirstEnergy, Element Merger Sub, Inc., a Maryland
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy (Merger Sub) and AE, Merger Sub merged
with and into AE with AE continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
FirstEnergy. As part of the merger, AE shareholders received 0.667 of a share of FirstEnergy
common stock for each AE share outstanding as of the merger completion date and all outstanding AE
equity-based employee compensation awards were converted into FirstEnergy equity-based awards on
the same basis.
In connection with the merger, FirstEnergy recorded approximately $7 million of merger transaction
costs during each of the second quarter of 2011 and 2010, and approximately $89 million and $21
million of merger transaction costs during the first six months of 2011 and 2010, respectively.
These costs are included in Other operating expenses in the Consolidated Statements of Income.
FirstEnergys consolidated financial statements include Alleghenys results of operations and
financial position effective February 25, 2011. In addition, during the three months ended June 30,
2011, $10 million of merger integration costs and $8 million of charges from merger settlements
approved by regulatory agencies were recognized. In the first six months of 2011, $85 million of
merger integration costs and $32 million of charges from merger settlements approved by regulatory
agencies were recognized. Charges resulting from merger settlements are not expected to be material
in future periods.
FirstEnergy expects to achieve the 2011 merger benefits target resulting from the merger with
Allegheny. Through June 2011, FirstEnergy has taken actions and completed savings initiatives that
will allow the company to capture merger benefits of approximately
$132 million pre-tax on an
annual basis, or 63% of the $210 million annual target. The $132
million realized from savings initiatives completed through June,
along with the impact of
initiatives still underway, will be reflected in earnings throughout 2011.
84
Operational Matters
TrAIL
On May 19, 2011, TrAILs 500-kV transmission line, spanning more than 150 miles from southwestern
Pennsylvania through West Virginia to northern Virginia, was completed and energized.
ATSI Integrated into PJM
On June 1, 2011, ATSI successfully integrated into PJM. With this transition, all of FirstEnergys
generation, transmission and distribution facilities are now in PJM.
Perry Refueling
On June 7, 2011, the Perry Plant returned to service following a scheduled shutdown for refueling
and maintenance which began on April 18, 2011. During the outage, 248 of the 748 fuel assemblies
were replaced and safety inspections were successfully conducted. Additionally, numerous
preventative maintenance activities and improvement projects were completed that we believe will
result in continued safe and reliable operations, including replacement of several control rod
blades, rewind of the generator, and routine work on more than 150 valves, pumps and motors.
New Nuclear Emergency Operations Facilities
In June 2011, FENOC broke ground for new Emergency Operations Facilities for the Beaver Valley
Power Station and Perry Nuclear Power Plant. Each of the 12,000 square-foot facilities will house
activities related to maintaining public health and safety during the unlikely event of an
emergency at the plant and allow for improved coordination between the plant, state and local
emergency management agencies. FENOC is expected to break ground for a similar facility for the
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station in August 2011.
Fremont Energy Center
On July 28, 2011, FirstEnergy closed on the previously announced sale of Fremont Energy Center to American Municipal
Power, Inc. for $510 million based on 685 MW of output. The purchase price can be incrementally increased, not to
exceed an additional $16 million, to reflect additional transmission export capacity up to 707 MW.
Financial Matters
On April 29, 2011, Met-Ed redeemed $13.69 million of pollution control revenue bonds at par value.
On May 4, 2011, AE terminated its $250 million credit facility due to other available funding
sources following completion of the merger with FirstEnergy.
On May 31, 2011, JCP&L and Met-Ed repurchased $500 million and $150 million, respectively, of their
equity from FirstEnergy to maintain an appropriate capital structure.
On June 1, 2011, FGCO repurchased $40 million of pollution control revenue bonds and is holding
those bonds for future remarketing or refinancing.
On June 17, 2011, FirstEnergy and certain of its subsidiaries entered into two 5-year revolving
credit facilities with a total borrowing capacity of $4.5 billion. These facilities consist of a $2
billion revolving credit facility for FirstEnergy and its regulated entities and a $2.5 billion
revolving credit facility for FES and AE Supply. Prior separate facilities ($2.75 billion at
FirstEnergy, $1 billion at AE Supply, $110 million at MP, $150 million at PE and $200 million at
WP) were terminated.
On July 29, 2011, FGCO and NGC provided notice
to the trustee for $158.1 million and $158.9 million, respectively, of PCRBs of their election to terminate
applicable supporting LOCs. As a result, these PCRBs are subject to mandatory purchase on September 1, 2011.
Subject to market conditions and other considerations, FGCO and NGC currently
expect to hold the bonds for future remarketing or refinancing. Also, approximately $28.5 million
and $98.9 million aggregate principal amount of FMBs previously delivered to certain of the LOC
providers by FGCO and NGC, respectively, will be cancelled in connection with the mandatory purchases.
Regulatory Matters
NYSEG Ruling
On July 11, 2011, FirstEnergy was found to be a potentially responsible party under CERCLA
indirectly liable for a portion of past and future clean-up costs at
certain legacy MGP sites in New York.
As a result, FirstEnergy recognized additional expense of $29 million during the second quarter of 2011; $30
million had previously been reserved prior to 2011.
85
Marginal transmission loss recovery
On March 3, 2010, the PPUC issued an order denying Met-Ed and Penelec the ability to recover
marginal transmission losses through the transmission service charge riders in their respective
tariffs which applies to the periods including June 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010. Subsequently, Met-Ed and
Penelec filed a Petition for Review with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth
Court) appealing the PPUCs order. On June 14, 2011, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the PPUCs
decision that marginal transmission losses are not recoverable as transmission costs. On July 13,
2011, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a federal complaint with the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and on the following day, filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal
to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Met-Ed and Penelec believe the Commonwealth Courts decision
contradicts federal law and is inconsistent with prior PPUC and court decisions and therefore
expect to fully recover the related regulatory assets ($189 million for Met-Ed and $65 million for
Penelec). In January 2011 and continuing for 29 months,
pursuant to a related PPUC order,
Met-Ed and Penelec began crediting customers for the amounts at issue pending outcome of the court
appeals.
FIRSTENERGYS BUSINESS
With the completion of the Allegheny merger in the first quarter of 2011, FirstEnergy reorganized
its management structure, which resulted in changes to its operating segments to be consistent with
the manner in which management views the business. The new structure supports the combined
companys primary operations distribution, transmission, generation and the marketing and sale
of its products. The external segment reporting is consistent with the internal financial reporting
used by FirstEnergys chief executive officer (its chief operating decision maker) to regularly
assess the performance of the business and allocate resources. FirstEnergy now has three
reportable operating segments Regulated Distribution, Regulated Independent Transmission and
Competitive Energy Services.
Prior to the change in composition of business segments, FirstEnergys business was comprised of
two reportable operating segments. The Energy Delivery Services segment included FirstEnergys
then eight existing utility operating companies that transmit and distribute electricity to
customers and purchase power to serve their POLR and default service requirements. The Competitive
Energy Services segment was comprised of FES, which supplies electric power to end-use customers
through retail and wholesale arrangements. The Other segment consisted of corporate items and
other businesses that were below the quantifiable threshold for separate disclosure. Disclosures
for FirstEnergys operating segments for 2010 have been reclassified to conform to the current
presentation.
The changes in FirstEnergys reportable segments during the first quarter of 2011 consisted
primarily of the following:
|
|
|
Energy Delivery Services was renamed Regulated Distribution and the
operations of MP, PE and WP, which were acquired as part of the merger with Allegheny,
and certain regulatory asset recovery mechanisms formerly included in the Other
segment, were placed into this segment. |
|
|
|
A new Regulated Independent Transmission segment was created consisting of
ATSI, and the operations of TrAIL Company and FirstEnergys interest in PATH; TrAIL and
PATH were acquired as part of the merger with Allegheny. The transmission assets and
operations of JCP&L, Met-Ed, Penelec, MP, PE and WP remain within the Regulated
Distribution segment. |
|
|
|
AE Supply, an operator of generation facilities that was acquired as part of
the merger with Allegheny, was placed into the Competitive Energy Services segment. |
Financial information for each of FirstEnergys reportable segments is presented in the table
below, which includes financial results for the Allegheny subsidiaries beginning February 25, 2011.
FES and the Utilities do not have separate reportable operating segments.
The Regulated Distribution segment distributes electricity through FirstEnergys ten utility
operating companies, serving approximately 6 million customers within 67,000 square miles of Ohio,
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey and New York, and purchases power for its POLR,
SOS and default service requirements in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland. This segment
also includes the transmission operations of JCP&L, Met-Ed, Penelec, WP, MP and PE and the
regulated electric generation facilities in West Virginia and New Jersey which MP and JCP&L,
respectively, own or contractually control.
The Regulated Distribution segments revenues are primarily derived from the delivery of
electricity within FirstEnergys service areas, cost recovery of regulatory assets and the sale of
electric generation service to retail customers who have not selected an alternative supplier
(POLR, SOS or default service) in its Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania franchise areas.
Its results reflect the commodity costs of securing electric generation from FES and AE Supply and
from non-affiliated power suppliers and the deferral and amortization of certain fuel costs.
86
The Regulated Independent Transmission segment transmits electricity through transmission lines.
Its revenues are primarily derived from the formula rate recovery of costs and a return on
investment for capital expenditures in
connection with TrAIL, PATH and other projects and revenues from providing transmission services to
electric energy providers, power marketers and receiving transmission-related revenues from
operation of a portion of the FirstEnergy transmission system. Its results reflect the net PJM and
MISO transmission expenses related to the delivery of the respective generation loads. On June 1,
2011, the ATSI transmission assets previously dedicated to MISO were integrated into the PJM
market. All of FirstEnergys assets now reside in one RTO.
The Competitive Energy Services segment, through FES, supplies electric power to end-use customers
through retail and wholesale arrangements, including associated company power sales to meet a
portion of the POLR and default service requirements of FirstEnergys Ohio and Pennsylvania utility
subsidiaries and competitive retail sales to customers primarily in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois,
Maryland, Michigan and New Jersey. FES purchases the entire output of the 18 generating facilities
which it owns and operates through its FGCO subsidiary (fossil and hydroelectric generating
facilities) and owns, through its NGC subsidiary, FirstEnergys nuclear generating facilities.
FENOC, a separate subsidiary of FirstEnergy, operates and maintains NGCs nuclear generating
facilities as well as the output relating to leasehold interests of OE and TE in certain of those
facilities that are subject to sale and leaseback arrangements with non-affiliates, pursuant to
full output, cost-of-service PSAs.
The Competitive Energy Services segment also includes Alleghenys unregulated electric generation
operations, including AE Supply and AE Supplys interest in AGC. AE Supply owns, operates and
controls the electric generation capacity of its 18 facilities. AGC owns and sells generation
capacity to AE Supply and MP, which own approximately 59% and 41% of AGC, respectively. AGCs sole
asset is a 40% undivided interest in the Bath County, Virginia pumped-storage hydroelectric
generation facility and its connecting transmission facilities. All of AGCs revenues are derived
from sales of its 1,109 MW share of generation capacity from the Bath County generation facility to
AE Supply and MP.
This business segment controls approximately 20,000 MWs of capacity and also purchases electricity
to meet sales obligations. The segments net income is primarily derived from affiliated and
non-affiliated electric generation sales less the related costs of electricity generation,
including purchased power and net transmission (including congestion) and ancillary costs charged
by PJM and MISO (prior to June 1, 2011) to deliver energy to the segments customers.
The Other and Reconciling Adjustments segment contains corporate items and other businesses that
are below the quantifiable threshold for separate disclosure as a reportable segment as well as
reconciling adjustments for the elimination of intersegment transactions.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
The financial results discussed below include revenues and expenses from transactions among
FirstEnergys business segments. Results from the pre-merged companies have been segregated from
the Allegheny companies for variance reporting and analysis. A reconciliation of segment financial
results is provided in Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements. Earnings available to
FirstEnergy by business segment were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
June 30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions, except per share data) |
|
Earnings (Loss) By Business Segment: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated Distribution |
|
$ |
184 |
|
|
$ |
132 |
|
|
$ |
52 |
|
|
$ |
280 |
|
|
$ |
235 |
|
|
$ |
45 |
|
Competitive Energy Services |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
121 |
|
|
|
(109 |
) |
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
190 |
|
|
|
(173 |
) |
Regulated Independent Transmission |
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
Other and reconciling adjustments* |
|
|
(46 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(47 |
) |
|
|
(110 |
) |
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
(82 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
$ |
181 |
|
|
$ |
265 |
|
|
$ |
(84 |
) |
|
$ |
231 |
|
|
$ |
420 |
|
|
$ |
(189 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic Earnings Per Share |
|
$ |
0.43 |
|
|
$ |
0.87 |
|
|
$ |
(0.44 |
) |
|
$ |
0.61 |
|
|
$ |
1.38 |
|
|
$ |
(0.77 |
) |
Diluted Earnings Per Share |
|
$ |
0.43 |
|
|
$ |
0.87 |
|
|
$ |
(0.44 |
) |
|
$ |
0.61 |
|
|
$ |
1.37 |
|
|
$ |
(0.76 |
) |
|
|
|
* |
|
Consists primarily of interest expense related to holding company debt, corporate support
services revenues and expenses, noncontrolling interests and the elimination of intersegment
transactions. |
87
Summary of Results of Operations Second Quarter 2011 Compared with Second Quarter 2010
Financial results for FirstEnergys business segments in the second quarter of 2011 and 2010 were
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Competitive |
|
|
Regulated |
|
|
Other and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Independent |
|
|
Reconciling |
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
Second Quarter 2011 Financial Results |
|
Distribution |
|
|
Services |
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric |
|
$ |
2,352 |
|
|
$ |
1,394 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
3,746 |
|
Other |
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
(37 |
) |
|
|
302 |
|
Internal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
318 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(306 |
) |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
|
2,485 |
|
|
|
1,813 |
|
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
(343 |
) |
|
|
4,060 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
562 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
635 |
|
Purchased power |
|
|
1,144 |
|
|
|
382 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(306 |
) |
|
|
1,220 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
438 |
|
|
|
640 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
1,105 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
153 |
|
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
282 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
90 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
180 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
242 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Expenses |
|
|
2,075 |
|
|
|
1,742 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
(288 |
) |
|
|
3,574 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
410 |
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
(55 |
) |
|
|
486 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income (Expense): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
31 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(148 |
) |
|
|
(79 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
(265 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Expense |
|
|
(118 |
) |
|
|
(52 |
) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
(33 |
) |
|
|
(214 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
|
292 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
(88 |
) |
|
|
272 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
108 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss) |
|
|
184 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
(56 |
) |
|
|
171 |
|
Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) available to FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
$ |
184 |
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
31 |
|
|
$ |
(46 |
) |
|
$ |
181 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
88
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Competitive |
|
|
Regulated |
|
|
Other and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Independent |
|
|
Reconciling |
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
Second Quarter 2010 Financial Results |
|
Distribution |
|
|
Services |
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric |
|
$ |
2,243 |
|
|
$ |
739 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2,982 |
|
Other |
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
(29 |
) |
|
|
157 |
|
Internal |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
539 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(558 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
|
2,333 |
|
|
|
1,334 |
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
(587 |
) |
|
|
3,139 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
350 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
350 |
|
Purchased power |
|
|
1,291 |
|
|
|
330 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(558 |
) |
|
|
1,063 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
331 |
|
|
|
340 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
673 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
190 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
158 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
161 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
138 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
176 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Expenses |
|
|
2,024 |
|
|
|
1,118 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
(565 |
) |
|
|
2,613 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
309 |
|
|
|
216 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
526 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income (Expense): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
31 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(125 |
) |
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
(207 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Expense |
|
|
(96 |
) |
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
(136 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
|
213 |
|
|
|
196 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
(37 |
) |
|
|
390 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
(29 |
) |
|
|
134 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss) |
|
|
132 |
|
|
|
121 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
256 |
|
Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
$ |
132 |
|
|
$ |
121 |
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
265 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
89
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes Between Second Quarter 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
Competitive |
|
|
Regulated |
|
|
Other and |
|
|
|
|
and Second Quarter 2010 Financial |
|
Regulated |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Independent |
|
|
Reconciling |
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
Results Increase (Decrease) |
|
Distribution |
|
|
Services |
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
Adjustment |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric |
|
$ |
109 |
|
|
$ |
655 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
764 |
|
Other |
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
145 |
|
Internal |
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
(221 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
252 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
|
152 |
|
|
|
479 |
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
244 |
|
|
|
921 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
212 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
285 |
|
Purchased power |
|
|
(147 |
) |
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
252 |
|
|
|
157 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
432 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
92 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
(71 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(71 |
) |
General taxes |
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Expenses |
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
624 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
277 |
|
|
|
961 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
(145 |
) |
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
(33 |
) |
|
|
(40 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income (Expense): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(58 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Expense |
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
(78 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
(177 |
) |
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
(51 |
) |
|
|
(118 |
) |
Income taxes |
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
(68 |
) |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(33 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
(109 |
) |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
(48 |
) |
|
|
(85 |
) |
Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
$ |
52 |
|
|
$ |
(109 |
) |
|
$ |
20 |
|
|
$ |
(47 |
) |
|
$ |
(84 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated Distribution Second Quarter 2011 Compared with Second Quarter 2010
Net income increased by $52 million in the second quarter of 2011 compared to the second quarter of
2010 primarily due to earnings from the Allegheny companies and increased operating margins from
the pre-merger companies as a result of reduced purchased power costs, partially offset by reduced
revenues.
90
Revenues
The increase in total revenues resulted from the following sources:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
Increase |
|
Revenues by Type of Service |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Pre-merger companies: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution services |
|
$ |
810 |
|
|
$ |
851 |
|
|
$ |
(41 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generation sales: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail |
|
|
747 |
|
|
|
1,097 |
|
|
|
(350 |
) |
Wholesale |
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
180 |
|
|
|
(76 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total generation sales |
|
|
851 |
|
|
|
1,277 |
|
|
|
(426 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
141 |
|
|
|
(90 |
) |
Other |
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total pre-merger companies |
|
|
1,778 |
|
|
|
2,333 |
|
|
|
(555 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allegheny companies |
|
|
707 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
707 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
2,485 |
|
|
$ |
2,333 |
|
|
$ |
152 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The decrease in distribution service revenues for the pre-merger companies reflects lower
transition revenues due to the completion of transition cost recovery for CEI in December 2010,
partially offset by increased rates associated with the recovery of deferred distribution costs.
Distribution deliveries (excluding the Allegheny companies) decreased by 1.1% in the second quarter
of 2011 from the second quarter of 2010. The change in distribution deliveries by customer class
is summarized in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Electric Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
Pre-merger companies: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
8,623 |
|
|
|
8,663 |
|
|
|
(0.5 |
)% |
Commercial |
|
|
7,926 |
|
|
|
8,121 |
|
|
|
(2.4 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
8,798 |
|
|
|
8,846 |
|
|
|
(0.5 |
)% |
Other |
|
|
126 |
|
|
|
132 |
|
|
|
(4.5 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total pre-merger companies |
|
|
25,473 |
|
|
|
25,762 |
|
|
|
(1.1 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allegheny companies |
|
|
9,527 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Electric Distribution KWH
Deliveries |
|
|
35,000 |
|
|
|
25,762 |
|
|
|
35.9 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower deliveries to residential and commercial customers reflected decreased weather-related
usage in the second quarter of 2011 as cooling degree days decreased by 17.3% from the same period
in 2010, and soft economic conditions affecting the commercial sector. In the industrial sector,
KWH deliveries decreased by 4% to automotive customers, partially offset by increased deliveries to
steel and electrical equipment customers of 11% and 15%, respectively.
The following table summarizes the price and volume factors contributing to the $426 million
decrease in generation revenues for the pre-merger companies in the second quarter of 2011 compared
to the second quarter of 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Generation Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of decrease in sales volumes |
|
$ |
(447 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(351 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Wholesale: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of decrease in sales volumes |
|
|
(8 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
(67 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(75 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
(426 |
) |
|
|
|
|
91
The decrease in retail generation sales volume was primarily due to increased customer shopping
in service territories of the pre-merger companies in the second quarter of 2011, compared with the
second quarter of 2010. Total generation
provided by alternative suppliers as a percentage of total KWH deliveries increased to 77% from 61%
for the Ohio companies and to 55% from 10% for Met-Eds and Penelecs service areas.
The decrease in wholesale generation revenues reflected lower RPM revenues for Met-Ed and Penelec
in the PJM market. Transmission revenues decreased $90 million due to the termination of Met-Eds
and Penelecs TSC rates effective January 1, 2011. Transmission costs are now a component of the
cost of generation established under Met-Eds and Penelecs generation procurement plan.
The Allegheny companies added $707 million of revenues for the second quarter of 2011, including
$155 million for distribution services, $486 million for generation sales and $66 million relating
to transmission revenues.
Expenses
Total expenses increased by $51 million due to the following:
|
|
|
Purchased power costs, excluding the Allegheny companies, were $483
million lower in the second quarter of 2011 due primarily to a decrease in volumes
required. The decrease in power purchased from FES reflected the increase in customer
shopping described above and the termination of Met-Eds and Penelecs partial
requirements PSA with FES at the end of 2010. The increase in volumes purchased from
non-affiliates under Met-Eds and Penelecs generation procurement plan effective
January 1, 2011 was offset by a decrease in RPM expenses in the PJM market. The
Allegheny companies added $336 million in purchased power costs in the second quarter
of 2011. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Purchased Power |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Pre-merger companies: |
|
|
|
|
Purchases from non-affiliates: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to decreased unit costs |
|
$ |
(161 |
) |
Change due to increased volumes |
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(73 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchases from FES: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to increased unit costs |
|
|
20 |
|
Change due to decreased volumes |
|
|
(398 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(378 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase in costs deferred |
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Total pre-merger companies |
|
|
(483 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchases by Allegheny companies |
|
|
336 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Purchased Power Costs |
|
$ |
(147 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission expenses decreased $29 million primarily due to lower PJM network
transmission expenses and congestion costs of $70 million for Met-Ed and Penelec,
partially offset by transmission expenses for the Allegheny companies of $41 million
in the second quarter of 2011. Met-Ed and Penelec defer or amortize the difference
between revenues from their transmission rider and transmission costs incurred with
no material effect on earnings. |
|
|
|
Energy Efficiency program costs, which are also recovered through rates, increased
by $43 million. |
|
|
|
The absence of a $7 million favorable JCP&L labor settlement that occurred in the
second quarter of 2010. |
|
|
|
Net amortization of regulatory assets decreased $71 million due primarily
to reduced transition cost recovery and increased deferral of energy efficiency
program costs. |
|
|
|
Fuel expenses for MP were $73 million in the second quarter of 2011. |
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses for the Allegheny companies were $95 million in the second quarter of 2011. |
|
|
|
|
Depreciation expense for the Allegheny companies was $48 million in the second quarter of 2011. |
92
|
|
|
Merger-related costs increased $4 million in the second quarter of 2011 compared
to the same period of 2010. |
|
|
|
General taxes increased $42 million primarily due to property taxes and gross
receipts taxes incurred by the Allegheny companies in the second quarter of 2011. |
Other Expense
Other expense increased $22 million in the second quarter of 2011 due to interest expense on debt
of the Allegheny companies.
Regulated Independent Transmission Second Quarter 2011 Compared with Second Quarter 2010
Net income increased by $20 million in the second quarter of 2011 compared to the second quarter of
2010 due to earnings associated with TrAIL and PATH ($22 million), partially offset by decreased
earnings for ATSI ($1 million).
Revenues
Revenues by transmission asset owner are shown in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
|
Revenues by |
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
Increase |
|
Transmission Asset Owner |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
ATSI |
|
$ |
54 |
|
|
$ |
59 |
|
|
$ |
(5 |
) |
TrAIL |
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46 |
|
PATH |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
105 |
|
|
$ |
59 |
|
|
$ |
46 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses
Total expenses increased by $9 million principally due to TrAIL and PATH operating expenses.
Other Expense
Other expense increased $6 million in the second quarter of 2011 due to additional interest expense
associated with TrAIL.
Competitive Energy Services Second Quarter 2011 Compared with Second Quarter 2010
Net income decreased by $109 million in the second quarter of 2011, compared to the second quarter
of 2010, primarily due to reduced sales margins, non-core asset impairments and the effect of
mark-to-market adjustments.
Revenues
Total revenues increased by $479 million in the second quarter of 2011 primarily due to
growth in direct and governmental aggregation sales and the inclusion of the Allegheny companies,
partially offset by a decline in POLR sales.
93
The increase in total revenues resulted from the following sources:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
Increase |
|
Revenues by Type of Service |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Direct and Governmental Aggregation |
|
$ |
925 |
|
|
$ |
586 |
|
|
$ |
339 |
|
POLR and Structured Sales |
|
|
231 |
|
|
|
615 |
|
|
|
(384 |
) |
Wholesale |
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
Transmission |
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
RECs |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
Other |
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
Allegheny Companies |
|
|
511 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
511 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
1,813 |
|
|
$ |
1,334 |
|
|
$ |
479 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allegheny Companies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Direct and Governmental Aggregation |
|
$ |
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
POLR and Structured Sales |
|
|
185 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wholesale |
|
|
267 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
511 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
Increase |
|
MWH Sales by Type of Service |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
Direct |
|
|
11,547 |
|
|
|
7,004 |
|
|
|
64.9 |
% |
Governmental Aggregation |
|
|
3,970 |
|
|
|
2,715 |
|
|
|
46.2 |
% |
POLR and Structured Sales |
|
|
3,718 |
|
|
|
11,600 |
|
|
|
(67.9 |
)% |
Wholesale |
|
|
395 |
|
|
|
1,108 |
|
|
|
(64.4 |
)% |
Allegheny Companies |
|
|
8,051 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Sales |
|
|
27,681 |
|
|
|
22,427 |
|
|
|
23.4 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allegheny Companies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Direct |
|
|
425 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
POLR |
|
|
2,169 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Structured Sales |
|
|
846 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wholesale |
|
|
4,611 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Sales |
|
|
8,051 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in direct and governmental aggregation revenues of $339 million resulted from the
acquisition of new commercial and industrial customers as well as new governmental aggregation
contracts with communities in Ohio, providing generation to approximately 1.5 million residential
and small commercial customers at the end of June 2011 compared to approximately 1.1 million at the
end of June 2010. Partially offsetting the increase, were sales to residential and small commercial
customers that were adversely affected by weather in the market served that was 17% cooler than in
2010.
The decrease in POLR revenues of $384 million was due to lower sales volumes to Met-Ed, Penelec and
the Ohio Companies, partially offset by increased sales to non-associated companies and higher unit
prices to the Pennsylvania Companies consistent with our business strategy. Participation in POLR auctions and RFPs are expected to
continue but the proportion of these sales will depend on our hedge positions for direct retail
and aggregation sales.
Wholesale revenues decreased $11 million due to reduced generation available for sale in the
wholesale market.
94
The following tables summarize the price and volume factors contributing to changes in revenues
(excluding the Allegheny companies):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Direct and Governmental Aggregation |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Direct Sales: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of increase in sales volumes |
|
$ |
267 |
|
Change in prices |
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
254 |
|
|
|
|
|
Governmental Aggregation: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of increase in sales volumes |
|
|
80 |
|
Change in prices |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
85 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Direct and Governmental Aggregation Revenues |
|
$ |
339 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in POLR and Structured Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
POLR: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of decrease in sales volumes |
|
$ |
(418 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(384 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Wholesale Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Wholesale: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of decrease in sales volumes |
|
|
(49 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Transmission revenues increased by $11 million due primarily to higher PJM congestion revenue.
The revenues derived from the sale of RECs increased $12 million in the second quarter of 2011.
Expenses
Total expenses increased by $624 million in the second quarter of 2011 due to the following:
|
|
|
Fuel costs decreased by $27 million primarily due to decreased volumes ($56
million), partially offset by higher unit prices ($29 million). Volumes decreased due
to lower generation at the fossil units. Higher unit prices reflect increased coal
transportation costs and higher nuclear fuel unit prices following the refueling
outages that occurred in 2010. |
|
|
|
Purchased power costs were unchanged as higher unit costs ($70 million) were offset
by lower volumes purchased ($70 million). The decrease in volume primarily relates to
the absence in 2011 of a 1,300 MW third party contract associated with serving Met-Ed
and Penelec. |
|
|
|
Fossil operating costs increased by $18 million due primarily to higher labor,
contractor and materials and equipment costs due to in increase in outages, both
planned and unplanned, from the previous year. |
|
|
|
Nuclear operating costs increased by $33 million due primarily to having two
refueling outages, Perry and Beaver Valley 2, occurring this year. While Davis-Besse
had a refueling outage last year, the work performed during the second quarter of 2010
was largely capital-related. |
|
|
|
Transmission expenses increased by $66 million due primarily to increases in PJM of
$91 million from higher congestion, network, and line loss expense, partially offset by
lower MISO transmission expenses of $25 million due to lower network and line loss
costs. |
|
|
|
General taxes increased by $10 million due to an increase in revenue-related taxes. |
95
|
|
|
Other expenses increased by $36 million primarily due to: a $14 million
mark-to-market adjustment; a $7 million impairment charge related to non-core assets;
and an $8 million increase in intercompany billings. The intercompany billings
increased due to merger related costs and increased intersegment billings for leasehold
costs from the Ohio Companies. |
The inclusion of the Allegheny companies operations contributed $488 million to expenses,
including a $9 million mark-to-market adjustment relating primarily to power contracts.
Other Expense
Total other expense in the second quarter of 2011 was $32 million higher than the second quarter of
2010, primarily due to a $34 million increase in net interest expense partially offset by an
increase in investment income ($2 million). The increase in interest expense was primarily due to
the inclusion of the Allegheny companies ($22 million) and lower capitalized interest ($12 million)
associated with the completion of the Sammis AQC project in 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Expense Changes |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allegheny Companies |
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
$ |
238 |
|
Purchased power |
|
|
53 |
|
Fossil |
|
|
55 |
|
Transmission |
|
|
75 |
|
Mark-to-Market |
|
|
9 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
11 |
|
Other |
|
|
15 |
|
Depreciation |
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Expense |
|
$ |
488 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other Second Quarter of 2011 Compared with Second Quarter of 2010
Financial results from other operating segments and reconciling items, including interest expense
on holding company debt and corporate support services revenues and expenses, resulted in a $47
million decrease in earnings available to FirstEnergy in the second quarter of 2011 compared to the
same period in 2010. The decrease resulted primarily from increased operating expenses resulting
from adverse litigation resolution ($29 million), decreased capitalized interest ($10 million)
resulting from completed construction projects and increased interest expense due to the 2010
termination of interest rate swap agreements ($7 million).
96
Summary of Results of Operations First Six Months of 2011 Compared with the First Six
Months of 2010
Financial results for FirstEnergys business segments in the first six months of 2011 and 2010 were
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Competitive |
|
|
Regulated |
|
|
Other and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Independent |
|
|
Reconciling |
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
First Six Months 2011 Financial Results |
|
Distribution |
|
|
Services |
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric |
|
$ |
4,527 |
|
|
$ |
2,556 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
7,083 |
|
Other |
|
|
226 |
|
|
|
180 |
|
|
|
172 |
|
|
|
(69 |
) |
|
|
509 |
|
Internal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
661 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(617 |
) |
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
|
4,753 |
|
|
|
3,397 |
|
|
|
172 |
|
|
|
(686 |
) |
|
|
7,636 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
991 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,088 |
|
Purchased power |
|
|
2,323 |
|
|
|
700 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(617 |
) |
|
|
2,406 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
824 |
|
|
|
1,288 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
2,138 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
269 |
|
|
|
195 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
502 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
216 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
222 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
356 |
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
479 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Expenses |
|
|
4,085 |
|
|
|
3,269 |
|
|
|
83 |
|
|
|
(602 |
) |
|
|
6,835 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
668 |
|
|
|
128 |
|
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
(84 |
) |
|
|
801 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income (Expense): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
52 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(280 |
) |
|
|
(144 |
) |
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
(51 |
) |
|
|
(496 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Expense |
|
|
(224 |
) |
|
|
(101 |
) |
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
(61 |
) |
|
|
(406 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
|
444 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
(145 |
) |
|
|
395 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
164 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
179 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss) |
|
|
280 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
(125 |
) |
|
|
216 |
|
Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
$ |
280 |
|
|
$ |
17 |
|
|
$ |
44 |
|
|
$ |
(110 |
) |
|
$ |
231 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Competitive |
|
|
Regulated |
|
|
Other and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Independent |
|
|
Reconciling |
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
First Six Months 2010 Financial Results |
|
Distribution |
|
|
Services |
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric |
|
$ |
4,641 |
|
|
$ |
1,408 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
6,049 |
|
Other |
|
|
157 |
|
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
|
322 |
|
Internal |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
1,213 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,165 |
) |
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
|
4,817 |
|
|
|
2,727 |
|
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
(1,222 |
) |
|
|
6,438 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
684 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
684 |
|
Purchased power |
|
|
2,686 |
|
|
|
780 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,165 |
) |
|
|
2,301 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
690 |
|
|
|
692 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
(38 |
) |
|
|
1,374 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
210 |
|
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
383 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
367 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
373 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
292 |
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
381 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Expenses |
|
|
4,245 |
|
|
|
2,368 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
(1,186 |
) |
|
|
5,496 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
572 |
|
|
|
359 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
(36 |
) |
|
|
942 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income (Expense): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
47 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(250 |
) |
|
|
(113 |
) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
(46 |
) |
|
|
(420 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Expense |
|
|
(194 |
) |
|
|
(52 |
) |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(36 |
) |
|
|
(292 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
|
378 |
|
|
|
307 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
(72 |
) |
|
|
650 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
143 |
|
|
|
117 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
(29 |
) |
|
|
245 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss) |
|
|
235 |
|
|
|
190 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
(43 |
) |
|
|
405 |
|
Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
$ |
235 |
|
|
$ |
190 |
|
|
$ |
23 |
|
|
$ |
(28 |
) |
|
$ |
420 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
97
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes Between First Six Months 2011 and |
|
|
|
|
|
Competitive |
|
|
Regulated |
|
|
Other and |
|
|
|
|
First Six Months 2010 Financial Results |
|
Regulated |
|
|
Energy |
|
|
Independent |
|
|
Reconciling |
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
Increase (Decrease) |
|
Distribution |
|
|
Services |
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electric |
|
$ |
(114 |
) |
|
$ |
1,148 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,034 |
|
Other |
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
187 |
|
Internal |
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
(552 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
548 |
|
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
|
(64 |
) |
|
|
670 |
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
536 |
|
|
|
1,198 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
307 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
404 |
|
Purchased power |
|
|
(363 |
) |
|
|
(80 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
548 |
|
|
|
105 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
134 |
|
|
|
596 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
764 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
119 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets |
|
|
(151 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(151 |
) |
General taxes |
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
98 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Expenses |
|
|
(160 |
) |
|
|
901 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
584 |
|
|
|
1,339 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
(231 |
) |
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
(48 |
) |
|
|
(141 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Income (Expense): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment income |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(76 |
) |
Capitalized interest |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
(43 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Expense |
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
(49 |
) |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
(114 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
(280 |
) |
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
(73 |
) |
|
|
(255 |
) |
Income taxes |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
(107 |
) |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
(66 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
(173 |
) |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
(82 |
) |
|
|
(189 |
) |
Loss attributable to noncontrolling interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings available to FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
$ |
45 |
|
|
$ |
(173 |
) |
|
$ |
21 |
|
|
$ |
(82 |
) |
|
$ |
(189 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated Distribution First Six Months of 2011 Compared to First Six Months of 2010
Net income increased by $45 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to the first six
months of 2010, primarily due to the absence of a $35 million regulatory asset impairment recorded
in 2010 and the earnings contribution of the Allegheny companies, partially offset by a favorable
property tax settlement recognized in 2010.
Revenues
The decrease in total revenues resulted from the following sources:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
Increase |
|
Revenues by Type of Service |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Pre-merger companies: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution services |
|
$ |
1,719 |
|
|
$ |
1,733 |
|
|
$ |
(14 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generation sales: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail |
|
|
1,620 |
|
|
|
2,272 |
|
|
|
(652 |
) |
Wholesale |
|
|
220 |
|
|
|
397 |
|
|
|
(177 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total generation sales |
|
|
1,840 |
|
|
|
2,669 |
|
|
|
(829 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
299 |
|
|
|
(211 |
) |
Other |
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total pre-merger companies |
|
|
3,770 |
|
|
|
4,817 |
|
|
|
(1,047 |
) |
Allegheny companies |
|
|
983 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
983 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
4,753 |
|
|
$ |
4,817 |
|
|
$ |
(64 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
98
The decrease in distribution service revenues for the pre-merger companies primarily reflects
lower transition revenues due to the completion of transition cost recovery for CEI in December
2010, partially offset by increased rates associated with the recovery of deferred distribution
costs. Distribution deliveries (excluding the Allegheny companies) increased approximately 360,000
KWH (0.7%), primarily driven by an increase of 443,000 KWH (2.6%) in the industrial class.
Distribution deliveries by customer class are summarized in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Electric Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
Pre-merger companies: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
19,261 |
|
|
|
19,119 |
|
|
|
0.7 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
15,855 |
|
|
|
16,074 |
|
|
|
(1.4 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
17,640 |
|
|
|
17,197 |
|
|
|
2.6 |
% |
Other |
|
|
256 |
|
|
|
262 |
|
|
|
(2.3 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total pre-merger companies |
|
|
53,012 |
|
|
|
52,652 |
|
|
|
0.7 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allegheny companies |
|
|
13,068 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Electric Distribution KWH
Deliveries |
|
|
66,080 |
|
|
|
52,652 |
|
|
|
25.5 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower distribution deliveries to commercial customers reflected soft economic conditions in
this sector and decreased weather-related usage in the first six months of 2011 as cooling degree
days were 17% below the same period in 2010. The increase in distribution deliveries to industrial
customers was primarily due to recovering economic conditions in the Utilities service territory
compared to the first six months of 2010. Industrial deliveries increased by 12% to steel
customers, 16% to electrical equipment and component manufacturing customers and 10% to
non-metallic mineral customers, partially offset by 2% lower sales to automotive customers.
The following table summarizes the price and volume factors contributing to the $829 million
decrease in generation revenues in the first six months of 2011 compared to the same period of
2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Generation Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Retail: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of decrease in sales volumes |
|
$ |
(826 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
174 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(652 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Wholesale: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of decrease in sales volumes |
|
|
(2 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
(175 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(177 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
(829 |
) |
|
|
|
|
The decrease in retail generation sales volume was due to increased customer shopping in the
Ohio Companies, Met-Eds and Penelecs service territories in the first six months of 2011
compared to the same period in 2010. Total generation provided by alternative suppliers as a
percentage of total KWH deliveries increased to 75% from 57% for the Ohio companies and to 48% from
9% for Met-Eds and Penelecs service areas. The decrease in wholesale generation revenues
reflected lower RPM revenues for Met-Ed and Penelec in the PJM market.
Transmission revenues decreased $211 million due to the termination of Met-Eds and Penelecs TSC
rates effective January 1, 2011. Transmission costs are now a component of the cost of generation
established under Met-Eds and Penelecs generation procurement plan.
The Allegheny companies added $983 million of revenues for the first six months of 2011, including
$216 million for distribution services, $676 million from generation sales and $91 million relating
to transmission revenues.
99
Expenses
Total expenses decreased by $160 million due to the following:
|
|
|
Purchased power costs, excluding the Allegheny companies, were $843
million lower in the first six months of 2011 due to a decrease in volumes required.
The decrease in power purchased from FES reflected the increase in customer shopping
described above and the termination of Met-Eds and Penelecs partial requirements
PSA with FES at the end of 2010. The increase in volumes purchased from
non-affiliates under Met-Eds and Penelecs generation procurement plan effective
January 1, 2011 was offset by a decrease in RPM expenses in the PJM market. The
Allegheny companies added $481 million in purchased power costs in the first six
months of 2011. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Purchased Power |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Pre-merger companies: |
|
|
|
|
Purchases from non-affiliates: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to decreased unit costs |
|
$ |
(356 |
) |
Change due to increased volumes |
|
|
277 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(79 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchases from FES: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to increased unit costs |
|
|
63 |
|
Change due to decreased volumes |
|
|
(809 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(746 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase in costs deferred |
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Total pre-merger companies |
|
|
(843 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchases by Allegheny companies |
|
|
481 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Purchased Power Costs |
|
$ |
(362 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission expenses decreased $124 million primarily due to lower PJM
network transmission expenses and congestion costs of $177 million for Met-Ed and
Penelec, partially offset by transmission expenses for the Allegheny companies of $53
million in the first six months of 2011. Met-Ed and Penelec defer or amortize the
difference between revenues from their transmission rider and transmission costs
incurred with no material effect on earnings. |
|
|
|
Energy efficiency program costs, which are also recovered through rates, increased
$62 million. |
|
|
|
The absence of a $7 million favorable JCP&L labor settlement that occurred in the
second quarter of 2010. |
|
|
|
A provision for excess and obsolete material of $13 million was recognized in the
first six months of 2011 due to revised inventory practices adopted in conjunction
with the Allegheny merger. |
|
|
|
Net amortization of regulatory assets decreased $150 million primarily due to
reduced net PJM transmission cost and transition cost recovery and the absence of a
$35 million regulatory asset impairment recognized in 2010 associated with the filing
of the Ohio ESP on March 23, 2010, partially offset by increased energy efficiency
cost recovery. |
|
|
|
Fuel expenses for MP were $97 million in the first six months of 2011. |
|
|
|
Operating expenses for the Allegheny companies were $131 million in the first six
months of 2011. |
|
|
|
Merger-related costs increased $46 million in the first six months of 2011
compared to the same period of 2010. |
|
|
|
Depreciation expense for the Allegheny companies was $64 million. |
|
|
|
General taxes increased by $64 million primarily due to taxes incurred by the
Allegheny companies and the absence of a favorable property tax settlement recognized
in 2010. |
Other Expense
Other expense increased by $30 million in the first six months of 2011 due to interest expense on
debt of the Allegheny companies.
Regulated Independent Transmission First Six Months 2011 Compared with First Six Months
2010
Net income increased by $21 million in the first six months of 2011 compared to the first six
months of 2010 due to earnings associated with TrAIL and PATH ($27 million), partially offset by
decreased earnings for ATSI ($6 million).
100
Revenues
Revenues by transmission asset owner are shown in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months |
|
|
|
|
Revenues by |
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
Increase |
|
Transmission Asset Owner |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
ATSI |
|
$ |
106 |
|
|
$ |
116 |
|
|
$ |
(10 |
) |
TrAIL |
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61 |
|
PATH |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
172 |
|
|
$ |
116 |
|
|
$ |
56 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses
Total expenses increased by $14 million principally due to TrAIL and PATH operating expenses.
Other Expense
Other expense increased $10 million in the first six months of 2011 due to interest expense
associated with TrAIL.
Competitive Energy Services First Six Months of 2011 Compared to First Six Months of 2010
Net income decreased by $173 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to the first six
months of 2010, primarily due to lower sales margin, an inventory reserve adjustment, non-core
asset impairments and the effect of mark-to-market adjustments.
Revenues
Total revenues increased $670 million in the first six months of 2011 primarily due to
growth in direct and governmental aggregation sales and the inclusion of the Allegheny companies,
partially offset by a decline in POLR sales.
The increase in total revenues resulted from the following sources:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
Increase |
|
Revenues by Type of Service |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Direct and Governmental Aggregation |
|
$ |
1,765 |
|
|
$ |
1,097 |
|
|
$ |
668 |
|
POLR and Structured Sales |
|
|
607 |
|
|
|
1,315 |
|
|
|
(708 |
) |
Wholesale |
|
|
156 |
|
|
|
142 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
Transmission |
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
RECs |
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
(23 |
) |
Other |
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
Allegheny Companies |
|
|
690 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
690 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
3,397 |
|
|
$ |
2,727 |
|
|
$ |
670 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allegheny Companies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Direct and Governmental Aggregation |
|
$ |
34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
POLR and Structured Sales |
|
|
254 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wholesale |
|
|
357 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
690 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
101
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
Increase |
|
MWH Sales by Type of Service |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
Direct |
|
|
21,219 |
|
|
|
12,857 |
|
|
|
65.0 |
% |
Governmental Aggregation |
|
|
8,279 |
|
|
|
5,447 |
|
|
|
52.0 |
% |
POLR and Structured Sales |
|
|
9,561 |
|
|
|
25,344 |
|
|
|
(62.3 |
)% |
Wholesale |
|
|
1,380 |
|
|
|
1,538 |
|
|
|
(10.3 |
)% |
Allegheny Companies |
|
|
10,687 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Sales |
|
|
51,126 |
|
|
|
45,186 |
|
|
|
13.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allegheny Companies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Direct |
|
|
570 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
POLR |
|
|
2,981 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Structured Sales |
|
|
1,149 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wholesale |
|
|
5,987 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Sales |
|
|
10,687 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in direct and governmental aggregation revenues of $668 million resulted from
increased revenue from the acquisition of new commercial and industrial customers as well as new
governmental aggregation contracts with communities in Ohio that provided generation to
approximately 1.5 million residential and small commercial customers at the end of June 2011
compared to approximately 1.1 million customers at the end of June 2010.
The decrease in POLR revenues of $708 million was due to lower sales volumes to Met-Ed, Penelec and
the Ohio Companies, partially offset by increased sales to non-associated companies and higher unit
prices to the Pennsylvania Companies consistent with our business strategy. Participation in POLR auctions and RFPs are expected to
continue but the proportion of these sales will depend on our hedge positions for our direct
retail and aggregation sales.
Wholesale revenues increased by $14 million due to higher wholesale prices partially offset by
decreased volumes. The lower sales volumes were the result of decreased short-term (net hourly
positions) transactions in MISO. Additional capacity revenues earned by units moved to PJM were
partially offset by losses on financially settled sales.
The following tables summarize the price and volume factors contributing to changes in revenues
(excluding the Allegheny companies):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Direct and Governmental Aggregation |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Direct Sales: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of increase in sales volumes |
|
$ |
493 |
|
Change in prices |
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
473 |
|
|
|
|
|
Governmental Aggregation: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of increase in sales volumes |
|
|
176 |
|
Change in prices |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
195 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Direct and Governmental Aggregation Revenues |
|
$ |
668 |
|
|
|
|
|
102
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in POLR Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
POLR: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of decrease in sales volumes |
|
$ |
(819 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(708 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Wholesale Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
Wholesale: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of decrease in sales volumes |
|
|
(15 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission revenues increased by $20 million due primarily to higher MISO and PJM congestion
revenue. The revenues derived from the sale of RECs declined $23 million in the first six months of
2011.
Expenses
Total expenses increased by $901 million in the first six months of 2011 due to the following:
|
|
|
Fuel costs decreased by $13 million primarily due to decreased volumes ($28
million), partially offset by higher unit prices ($15 million). Volumes decreased due
to lower generation from the fossil units. Unit prices increased primarily due to
increased coal transportation costs and higher nuclear fuel unit prices following the
refueling outages that occurred in 2010. |
|
|
|
Purchased power costs decreased by $154 million due primarily to lower volumes
purchased ($248 million) partially offset by higher unit costs ($94 million). The
decrease in volume primarily relates to the absence in 2011 of a 1,300 MW third party
contract associated with serving Met-Ed and Penelec. |
|
|
|
Fossil operating costs increased by $20 million due primarily to higher labor,
contractor and material costs resulting from an increase in planned and unplanned
outages. |
|
|
|
Nuclear operating costs increased by $48 million due primarily to having two
refueling outages, Perry and Beaver Valley 2, occurring this year. While Davis-Besse
had a refueling outage last year, the work performed during the second quarter of 2010
was largely capital-related. |
|
|
|
Transmission expenses increased by $176 million due primarily to increases in PJM of
$198 million from higher congestion, network, and line loss expense, partially offset
by lower MISO transmission expenses of $22 million. |
|
|
|
General taxes increased by $12 million due to an increase in revenue-related taxes. |
|
|
|
Other expenses increased by $93 million primarily due to: a $54 million provision
for excess and obsolete material relating to revised inventory practices adopted in
connection with the Allegheny merger; a $20 million impairment charge related to
non-core assets; and a $9 million increase in intercompany billings. The intercompany
billings increased due to merger related costs and increased intersegment billings for
leasehold costs from the Ohio Companies. |
103
The inclusion of the Allegheny companies operations contributed $719 million to expenses,
including a $43 million mark-to-market adjustment relating primarily to power contracts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Expense Changes |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Allegheny Companies |
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
$ |
320 |
|
Purchased power |
|
|
74 |
|
Fossil |
|
|
82 |
|
Transmission |
|
|
99 |
|
Mark-to-Market |
|
|
43 |
|
General taxes |
|
|
15 |
|
Other |
|
|
43 |
|
Depreciation |
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Expense |
|
$ |
719 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other Expense
Total other expense in the first six months of 2011 was $49 million higher than the first six
months of 2010, primarily due to a $56 million increase in net interest expense, partially offset
by an increase in nuclear decommissioning trust investment income ($7 million). The increase in
interest expense was primarily due to the inclusion of the Allegheny companies ($30 million) and
lower capitalized interest ($25 million) associated with the completion of the Sammis AQC project
in 2010.
Other First Six Months of 2011 Compared to First Six Months of 2010
Financial results from other operating segments and reconciling items, including interest expense
on holding company debt and corporate support services revenues and expenses, resulted in an $82
million decrease in earnings available to FirstEnergy in the first six months of 2011 compared to
the same period in 2010. The decrease resulted primarily from increased operating expenses
resulting from adverse litigation resolution ($29 million), decreased capitalized interest and
increased depreciation expense resulting from completed construction projects placed into service
($27 million), an asset impairment charge in the first quarter of 2011 ($12 million) and increased
income taxes ($9 million).
Regulatory Assets
FirstEnergy and the Utilities prepare their consolidated financial statements in accordance with
the authoritative guidance for accounting for certain types of regulation. Under this guidance,
regulatory assets represent incurred costs that have been deferred because of their probable future
recovery from customers through regulated rates. Regulatory liabilities represent amounts that are
expected to be credited to customers through future regulated rates or amounts collected from
customers for costs not yet incurred. FirstEnergy and the Utilities net their regulatory assets and
liabilities based on federal and state jurisdictions. The following table provides the balance of
net regulatory assets by company as of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 and changes during the
six months then ended:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
Increase |
|
Regulatory Assets |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
OE |
|
$ |
393 |
|
|
$ |
400 |
|
|
$ |
(7 |
) |
CEI |
|
|
320 |
|
|
|
370 |
|
|
|
(50 |
) |
TE |
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
JCP&L |
|
|
469 |
|
|
|
513 |
|
|
|
(44 |
) |
Met-Ed |
|
|
341 |
|
|
|
296 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
Penelec |
|
|
222 |
|
|
|
163 |
|
|
|
59 |
|
Other* |
|
|
348 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
336 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
2,182 |
|
|
$ |
1,826 |
|
|
$ |
356 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
2011 includes $337 million related to the Allegheny companies. |
104
The following tables provide information about the composition of net regulatory assets as of
June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 and the changes during the six months then ended:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
June 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
Increase |
|
|
Attributable |
|
Regulatory Assets by Source |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
to AE |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
Regulatory transition costs |
|
$ |
899 |
|
|
$ |
770 |
|
|
$ |
129 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
Customer receivables for future income taxes |
|
|
502 |
|
|
|
326 |
|
|
|
176 |
|
|
|
160 |
|
Loss on reacquired debt |
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
Employee postretirement benefits |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Nuclear decommissioning and spent fuel disposal costs |
|
|
(201 |
) |
|
|
(184 |
) |
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Asset removal costs |
|
|
(228 |
) |
|
|
(237 |
) |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
MISO/PJM transmission costs |
|
|
292 |
|
|
|
184 |
|
|
|
108 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
Deferred generation costs |
|
|
454 |
|
|
|
386 |
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
Distribution costs |
|
|
284 |
|
|
|
426 |
|
|
|
(142 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
2,182 |
|
|
$ |
1,826 |
|
|
$ |
356 |
|
|
$ |
337 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy had $385 million of net regulatory liabilities as of June 30, 2011, including $376
million of net regulatory liabilities acquired as part of the merger with AE that are primarily
related to customer receivables for future income taxes and asset removal costs.
Regulatory
assets that do not earn a current return totaled approximately $345 million as of June
30, 2011, of which $138 million relates to purchase accounting fair
value adjustments to corresponding liabilities that do not accrue
interest.
Regulatory
assets not earning a current return for Met-Ed and Penelec include certain regulatory
transition costs and PJM transmission costs of approximately
$144 million and $34 million, respectively. The regulatory
transition costs are expected to be
recovered by 2020.
Regulatory assets not earning a current return
for JCP&L include certain storm damage costs and pension
and postretirement benefits of approximately $34 million that are expected to be
recovered by 2014.
Regulatory
assets not earning a current return for FirstEnergys other
utility subsidiaries include certain deferred generation and other
costs of
approximately $133 million that are expected to be
recovered though 2026.
CAPITAL RESOURCES AND LIQUIDITY
As of June 30, 2011, FirstEnergy had $476 million of cash and cash equivalents available to fund
investments, operations and capital expenditures. In addition to internal sources to fund
liquidity and capital requirements for 2011 and beyond, FirstEnergy may rely on external sources of
funds. Short-term cash requirements not met by cash provided from operations are generally
satisfied through short-term borrowings. Long-term cash needs may be met through issuances of debt
and/or equity securities.
FirstEnergy expects its existing sources of liquidity to remain sufficient to meet its anticipated
obligations and those of its subsidiaries. FirstEnergys business is capital intensive, requiring
significant resources to fund operating expenses, construction expenditures, scheduled debt
maturities and interest and dividend payments. FirstEnergy expects that borrowing capacity under
credit facilities will continue to be available to manage working capital requirements along with
continued access to long-term capital markets.
A material adverse change in operations, or in the availability of external financing sources,
could impact FirstEnergys liquidity position and ability to fund its capital resource
requirements. To mitigate risk, FirstEnergys business strategy stresses financial discipline and a
strong focus on execution. Major elements include the expectation of: adequate cash from
operations, opportunities for favorable long-term earnings growth in the competitive generation
markets, operational excellence, business plan execution, well-positioned generation fleet, no
speculative trading operations, appropriate long-term commodity hedging positions, manageable
capital expenditure program, adequately funded pension plan, minimal near-term maturities of
existing long-term debt, commitment to a secure dividend and a successful merger integration.
105
As of June 30, 2011, FirstEnergys net deficit in working capital (current assets less current
liabilities) was principally due to the classification of certain variable interest rate PCRBs as
currently payable long-term debt and short-term borrowings. Currently payable long-term debt as of
June 30, 2011, included the following (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Payable Long-term Debt |
|
|
|
|
PCRBs supported by bank LOCs (1) |
|
$ |
949 |
|
AE Supply unsecured note |
|
|
503 |
|
FirstEnergy Corp. unsecured note |
|
|
250 |
|
FGCO and NGC unsecured PCRBs (1) |
|
|
136 |
|
WP unsecured note |
|
|
80 |
|
NGC collateralized lease obligation bonds |
|
|
59 |
|
Sinking fund requirements |
|
|
50 |
|
Other notes |
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,058 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Interest rate mode permits individual
debt holders to put the respective debt back
to the issuer prior to maturity. |
Credit Facility Borrowings and Liquidity
FirstEnergy had approximately $656 million and $700 million of short-term borrowings as of June 30,
2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. FirstEnergys
available liquidity as of July 29, 2011, is
summarized in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available |
|
Company |
|
Type |
|
Maturity |
|
Commitment |
|
|
Liquidity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
FirstEnergy(1) |
|
Revolving |
|
June 2016 |
|
$ |
2,000 |
|
|
$ |
1,751 |
|
FES / AE
Supply |
|
Revolving |
|
June 2016 |
|
|
2,500 |
|
|
|
2,449 |
|
TrAIL |
|
Revolving |
|
Jan. 2013 |
|
|
450 |
|
|
|
450 |
|
AGC |
|
Revolving |
|
Dec. 2013 |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal |
|
$ |
5,000 |
|
|
$ |
4,650 |
|
|
|
|
|
Cash |
|
|
|
|
|
|
586 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
5,000 |
|
|
$ |
5,236 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
FirstEnergy Corp. and regulated subsidiary borrowers. |
During March 2011, the accounts receivable financing arrangements for OE, TE, Penelec and
Met-Ed were terminated in favor of other sources of liquidity that
were deemed more economical. In
May 2011, AE terminated its $250 million credit facility. AE now participates in the unregulated
money pool (see FirstEnergy Money Pools below).
Revolving Credit Facilities
On June 17, 2011, FirstEnergy and certain of its subsidiaries entered into two new five-year
syndicated revolving credit facilities with aggregate commitments of $4.5 billion (New Facilities).
An aggregate amount of $2 billion is available to be borrowed under a syndicated revolving credit
facility (New FirstEnergy Facility), subject to separate borrowing sublimits for each borrower. The
borrowers under the New FirstEnergy Facility are FirstEnergy, CEI, Met-Ed, OE, Penn, TE, ATSI,
JCP&L, MP, Penelec, PE and WP. An additional $2.5 billion is available to be borrowed by FES and
AE Supply under a separate syndicated revolving credit facility (New FES/AESupply Facility).
The
New Facilities replaced a FirstEnergy $2.75 billion revolving
credit facility, an AE Supply $1
billion revolving credit facility, a MP $110 million revolving credit facility, a PE $150 million
revolving credit facility and a WP $200 million revolving credit facility, all of which were
terminated as of June 17, 2011. Initial borrowings under the New Facilities were used to pay off
outstanding obligations under these prior revolving credit facilities.
Commitments under each of the New Facilities will be available until June 17, 2016, unless the
lenders agree, at the request of the applicable borrowers, to up to two additional one-year
extensions. Generally, borrowings under each of the New Facilities are available to each borrower
separately and will mature on the earlier of 364 days from the date of borrowing or the commitment
termination date, as the same may be extended.
Borrowings under each of the New Facilities are subject to acceleration upon the occurrence of
events of default that each borrower considers usual and customary, including a cross-default for
other indebtedness in excess of $100 million.
Defaults by either FES or AE Supply or their respective subsidiaries under the New FES/AESupply
Facility or other indebtedness generally will not cross-default to FirstEnergy under the New
FirstEnergy Facility.
106
The following table summarizes the borrowing sub-limits for each borrower under the facilities, as
well as the limitations on short-term indebtedness applicable to each borrower under current
regulatory approvals and applicable statutory and/or charter limitations as of June 30, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Revolving |
|
|
Regulatory and |
|
|
|
Credit Facility |
|
|
Other Short-Term |
|
Borrower |
|
Sub-Limit |
|
|
Debt Limitations |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
FirstEnergy |
|
$ |
2,000 |
|
|
|
|
(a) |
FES |
|
$ |
1,500 |
|
|
|
|
(b) |
AE Supply |
|
$ |
1,000 |
|
|
|
|
(b) |
OE |
|
$ |
500 |
|
|
$ |
500 |
|
CEI |
|
$ |
500 |
|
|
$ |
500 |
|
TE |
|
$ |
500 |
|
|
$ |
500 |
|
JCP&L |
|
$ |
425 |
|
|
$ |
411 |
(c) |
Met-Ed |
|
$ |
300 |
|
|
$ |
300 |
(c) |
Penelec |
|
$ |
300 |
|
|
$ |
300 |
(c) |
West Penn |
|
$ |
200 |
|
|
$ |
200 |
(c) |
MP |
|
$ |
150 |
|
|
$ |
150 |
(c) |
PE |
|
$ |
150 |
|
|
$ |
150 |
(c) |
ATSI |
|
$ |
100 |
|
|
$ |
100 |
|
Penn |
|
$ |
50 |
|
|
$ |
33 |
(c) |
|
|
|
(a) |
|
No limitations. |
|
(b) |
|
No limitation based upon blanket financing authorization from the FERC under existing open market
tariffs. |
|
(c) |
|
Excluding amounts which may be borrowed under the regulated companies money pool. |
The
entire amount of the New FES/AE Supply Facility and $700 million of the New FirstEnergy Facility,
subject to each borrowers sub-limit, is available for 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 each of the New Facilities and against the applicable borrowers
borrowing sub-limit.
Each of the New Facilities contains financial covenants requiring each borrower to maintain a
consolidated debt to total capitalization ratio of no more than 65%, measured at the end of each
fiscal quarter. As of June 30, 2011, FirstEnergys and its subsidiaries debt to total
capitalization ratios (as defined under each of the New Facilities) were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Borrower |
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy |
|
|
56.9 |
% |
FES |
|
|
54.1 |
% |
OE |
|
|
56.2 |
% |
Penn |
|
|
34.4 |
% |
CEI |
|
|
56.3 |
% |
TE |
|
|
58.4 |
% |
JCP&L |
|
|
43.9 |
% |
Met-Ed |
|
|
53.5 |
% |
Penelec |
|
|
55.5 |
% |
ATSI |
|
|
54.9 |
% |
MP |
|
|
59.3 |
% |
PE |
|
|
60.1 |
% |
WP |
|
|
53.9 |
% |
AE Supply |
|
|
39.4 |
% |
As of
June 30, 2011, FirstEnergy could issue additional debt of approximately $7.8 billion, or
recognize a reduction in equity of approximately $4.2 billion, and remain within the limitations of
the financial covenants required by its credit
facility.
107
The New Facilities do not contain provisions that restrict the ability to borrow or accelerate
payment of outstanding advances as a result of any change in credit ratings. Pricing is defined in
pricing grids, whereby the cost of funds borrowed under the facilities are related to the credit
ratings of the company borrowing the funds.
In addition to the New Facilities, FirstEnergy also has access to an additional $500 million of
revolving credit facilities relating to the Allegheny companies (TrAIL $450 million and AGC $50
million).
Under the terms of its credit facility, outstanding debt of AGC may not exceed 65% of the sum of
its debt and equity as of the last day of each calendar quarter. Outstanding debt for TrAIL may not
exceed 70% and 65% of the sum of its debt and equity as of the last day of each calendar quarter
through June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2012, respectively. These provisions limit debt levels of
these subsidiaries and also limit the net assets of each subsidiary that may be transferred to AE.
FirstEnergy Money Pools
FirstEnergys regulated companies, excluding regulated companies acquired in the Allegheny merger,
also have the ability to borrow from each other and the holding company to meet their short-term
working capital requirements. A similar but separate arrangement exists among FirstEnergys
unregulated companies. FESC administers these two money pools and tracks surplus funds of
FirstEnergy and the respective regulated and unregulated subsidiaries, as well as proceeds
available from bank borrowings. Companies receiving a loan under the money pool agreements must
repay the principal amount of the loan, together with accrued interest, within 364 days of
borrowing the funds. The rate of interest is the same for each company receiving a loan from their
respective pool and is based on the average cost of funds available through the pool. The average
interest rate for borrowings in the first six months of 2011 was 0.43% per annum for the regulated
companies money pool and 0.46% per annum for the unregulated companies money pool. FirstEnergy
and its regulated companies acquired in the Allegheny merger have filed with the appropriate
regulatory commissions to receive approval to become part of the FirstEnergy regulated money pool.
Pollution Control Revenue Bonds
As of June 30, 2011, FirstEnergys currently payable long-term debt included approximately $949
million (FES $875 million, Met-Ed $29 million and Penelec $45 million) of variable interest
rate PCRBs, the bondholders of which are entitled to the benefit of irrevocable direct pay bank
LOCs. The interest rates on the PCRBs are reset daily or weekly. Bondholders can tender their PCRBs
for mandatory purchase prior to maturity with the purchase price payable from remarketing proceeds
or, if the PCRBs are not successfully remarketed, by drawings on the irrevocable direct pay LOCs.
The subsidiary obligor is required to reimburse the applicable LOC bank for any such drawings or,
if the LOC bank fails to honor its LOC for any reason, must itself pay the purchase price.
The LOCs for FirstEnergy variable interest rate PCRBs were issued by the following banks as of June
30, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate LOC |
|
|
|
|
Reimbursements of |
LOC Bank |
|
Amount(1) |
|
|
LOC Termination Date |
|
LOC Draws Due |
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
UBS |
|
$ |
272 |
|
|
April 2014 |
|
April 2014 |
The Bank of Nova Scotia |
|
|
178 |
|
|
Beginning June 2012 |
|
Multiple dates(2) |
CitiBank N.A. |
|
|
165 |
|
|
June 2014 |
|
June 2014 |
Wachovia Bank |
|
|
153 |
|
|
March 2014 |
|
March 2014 |
The Royal Bank of Scotland |
|
|
131 |
|
|
June 2012 |
|
6 months |
US Bank |
|
|
60 |
|
|
April 2014 |
|
6 months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
959 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes approximately $10 million of applicable interest coverage. |
|
(2) |
|
Shorter of 6 months or LOC termination date ($49 million) and shorter of one year or LOC termination date ($129 million). |
On March 17, 2011, FES completed the remarketing of $207 million variable rate PCRBs. These
PCRBs remained in a variable interest mode, supported by bank LOCs. Also, on March 1, 2011, FES
repurchased $50 million of non-LOC backed fixed rate PCRBs that were subject to purchase on demand
by the owner on that date.
On April 1, 2011, FES completed the remarketing of an additional $97 million of non-LOC backed
commercial paper rate and fixed rate PCRBs (including the $50 million repurchased on March 1) into
variable rate modes with LOC support. Also on April 1, 2011, Penelec completed the remarketing of
$25 million of non-LOC backed commercial paper rate PCRBs into a variable rate mode with LOC
support.
108
In
connection with the remarketings, approximately $207 million aggregate principal amount of FMBs
previously delivered to LOC providers were cancelled, and approximately $50 million aggregate
principal amount of FMBs delivered to secure PCRBs were cancelled on May 31, 2011.
On April 29, Met-Ed redeemed $14 million of PCRBs at par value.
On June 1, 2011, FGCO repurchased $40 million of PCRBs and, subject to market conditions and other
considerations, is holding those bonds for future remarketing or
refinancing.
On July 29, 2011, FGCO and NGC provided notice to the trustee for $158.1 million and $158.9 million,
respectively, of PCRBs of their election to terminate applicable supporting LOCs. As a result, these
PCRBs are subject to mandatory purchase on September 1, 2011. Subject to market conditions and other
considerations, FGCO and NGC currently expect to hold the bonds for future remarketing or refinancing.
Also, approximately $28.5 million and $98.9 million aggregate principal amount of FMBs previously
delivered to certain of the LOC providers by FGCO and NGC, respectively, will be cancelled in connection
with the mandatory purchases.
Long-Term Debt Capacity
As of June 30, 2011, 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 $100 million and $19 million, respectively. As a result
of its indenture provisions, TE cannot incur any additional secured debt. Met-Ed and Penelec had
the capability to issue secured debt of approximately $363 million and $365 million, respectively,
under provisions of their senior note indentures as of June 30, 2011. In addition, based upon their
respective FMB indentures, net earnings and available bondable property additions as of June 30,
2011, MP, PE and WP had the capability to issue approximately $1.0 billion of additional FMBs in
the aggregate.
Based upon FGCOs net earnings and available bondable property additions under its FMB indentures
as of June 30, 2011, FGCO had the capability to issue $2.5 billion of additional FMBs under the
terms of that indenture. Due to the sale of Fremont Energy Center on July 28, 2011, FGCOs
capability to issue additional FMBs was reduced by $510 million. Based upon NGCs net earnings
and available bondable property additions under its FMB indenture as of June 30, 2011, NGC had the
capability to issue $1.7 billion of additional FMBs as of June 30, 2011 under the terms of that
indenture.
FirstEnergys access to capital markets and costs of financing are influenced by the ratings of its
securities. On February 25, 2011, Moodys affirmed the ratings and stable outlook of FirstEnergy
and its regulated utilities, upgraded AEs senior unsecured ratings to Baa3 from Ba1 and placed the
ratings for FES under review for possible downgrade. On March 1, 2011, Fitch affirmed the ratings
and outlook of FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries. The following table displays FirstEnergys and
its subsidiaries securities ratings as of July 29, 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Secured |
|
Senior Unsecured |
Issuer |
|
S&P |
|
Moodys |
|
Fitch |
|
S&P |
|
Moodys |
|
Fitch |
FirstEnergy Corp. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BB+ |
|
Baa3 |
|
BBB |
Allegheny |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BB+ |
|
Baa3 |
|
|
FES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BBB- |
|
Baa2 |
|
BBB |
AE Supply |
|
BBB |
|
Baa2 |
|
BBB |
|
BBB- |
|
Baa3 |
|
BBB- |
AGC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BBB- |
|
Baa3 |
|
BBB+ |
ATSI |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BBB- |
|
Baa1 |
|
A- |
CEI |
|
BBB |
|
Baa1 |
|
BBB |
|
BBB- |
|
Baa3 |
|
BBB- |
JCP&L |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BBB- |
|
Baa2 |
|
BBB+ |
Met-Ed |
|
BBB |
|
A3 |
|
A- |
|
BBB- |
|
Baa2 |
|
BBB+ |
MP |
|
BBB+ |
|
Baa1 |
|
A- |
|
BBB- |
|
Baa3 |
|
BBB+ |
OE |
|
BBB |
|
A3 |
|
BBB+ |
|
BBB- |
|
Baa2 |
|
BBB |
Penelec |
|
BBB |
|
A3 |
|
BBB+ |
|
BBB- |
|
Baa2 |
|
BBB |
Penn |
|
BBB+ |
|
A3 |
|
BBB+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
PE |
|
BBB+ |
|
Baa1 |
|
A- |
|
BBB- |
|
Baa3 |
|
BBB+ |
TE |
|
BBB |
|
Baa1 |
|
BBB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
TrAIL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BBB- |
|
Baa2 |
|
A- |
WP |
|
BBB+ |
|
A3 |
|
A- |
|
BBB- |
|
Baa2 |
|
BBB+ |
Changes in Cash Position
As of June 30, 2011, FirstEnergy had $476 million of cash and cash equivalents compared to
approximately $1 billion as of December 31, 2010. As of June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010,
FirstEnergy had approximately $78 million and $13 million, respectively, of restricted cash
included in other current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
109
During the first six months of 2011, FirstEnergy received $1.4 billion from cash dividends and
equity repurchases by its subsidiaries and paid $420 million in cash dividends to common
shareholders, including $20 million paid in March by AE to its former shareholders.
Cash Flows From Operating Activities
FirstEnergys consolidated net cash from operating activities is provided primarily by its
competitive energy services, energy delivery services and regulated independent transmission
businesses (see Results of Operations above). Net cash provided from operating activities increased
by $173 million during the first six months of 2011 compared to the same period in 2010, as
summarized in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
Increase |
|
Operating Cash Flows |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Net income |
|
$ |
216 |
|
|
$ |
405 |
|
|
$ |
(189 |
) |
Non-cash charges |
|
|
1,229 |
|
|
|
789 |
|
|
|
440 |
|
Pension trust contribution |
|
|
(262 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(262 |
) |
Working capital and other |
|
|
(152 |
) |
|
|
(336 |
) |
|
|
184 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,031 |
|
|
$ |
858 |
|
|
$ |
173 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in non-cash charges and other adjustments is primarily due to increased deferred
taxes and investment tax credits driven by bonus depreciation and the 2011 pension contribution
($393 million) and increased depreciation from the acquired Allegheny Companies ($119 million),
partially offset by lower amortization of regulatory assets from reduced net PJM transmission cost
and transition cost recovery ($151 million).
The increase in cash flows from working capital and other is primarily due to decreased receivables
from higher customer collections ($355 million) and decreased materials and supplies from the
inventory valuation adjustment in the first quarter of 2011 ($41 million), partially offset by
increased prepayments and other current assets driven by higher prepaid taxes ($187 million).
Cash Flows From Financing Activities
In the first six months of 2011, cash used for financing activities was $1,039 million compared to
$484 million in the comparable period of 2010. The following table summarizes new debt financing
(net of any discounts) and redemptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months |
|
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
Debt Issuances and Redemptions |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
New Issues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pollution control notes |
|
$ |
272 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
Long-term revolving credit |
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
|
|
Unsecured Notes |
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
503 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redemptions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pollution control notes |
|
$ |
312 |
|
|
$ |
251 |
|
Long-term revolving credit |
|
|
475 |
|
|
|
|
|
Senior secured notes |
|
|
166 |
|
|
|
55 |
|
First mortgage bonds |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
Unsecured notes |
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,002 |
|
|
$ |
406 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term borrowings, net |
|
$ |
(44 |
) |
|
$ |
281 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 2011, FES paid off at maturity a $100 million term loan that was secured by FMBs. In April
2011, FirstEnergy entered into a $150 million unsecured term loan with an April 2013 maturity.
110
In 2011 FES repurchased and retired $20 million of its 6.80% unsecured senior notes and $15
million of its 6.05% unsecured senior notes. In April 2011, Met-Ed redeemed approximately $14
million of FMBs securing PCRBs.
During the remainder of 2011 FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries expect to pursue, from time to time,
continued reductions in outstanding long-term debt of up to approximately $1.0 to $1.5 billion
through redemptions, open market or privately negotiated purchases. Any such transactions will be
subject to prevailing market conditions, liquidity requirements, timing of asset sales and other
factors.
Cash Flows From Investing Activities
Cash used for investing activities in the first six months of 2011 resulted from cash used for
property additions, partially offset by the cash acquired in the Allegheny merger. The following
table summarizes investing activities for the first six months of 2011 and the comparable period of
2010 by business segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary of Cash Flows |
|
Property |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provided from (Used for) Investing Activities |
|
Additions |
|
|
Investments |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Sources (Uses) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended June 30, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated distribution |
|
$ |
(479 |
) |
|
$ |
(2 |
) |
|
$ |
(25 |
) |
|
$ |
(506 |
) |
Competitive energy services |
|
|
(411 |
) |
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
(335 |
) |
|
|
(778 |
) |
Regulated independent transmission |
|
|
(72 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(74 |
) |
Cash received in Allegheny merger |
|
|
|
|
|
|
590 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
590 |
|
Other and reconciling items |
|
|
(56 |
) |
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
310 |
|
|
|
233 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
(1,018 |
) |
|
$ |
534 |
|
|
$ |
(51 |
) |
|
$ |
(535 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated distribution |
|
$ |
(309 |
) |
|
$ |
87 |
|
|
$ |
(18 |
) |
|
$ |
(240 |
) |
Competitive energy services |
|
|
(619 |
) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(631 |
) |
Regulated independent transmission |
|
|
(29 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(31 |
) |
Other and reconciling items |
|
|
(40 |
) |
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(65 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
(997 |
) |
|
$ |
51 |
|
|
$ |
(21 |
) |
|
$ |
(967 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities during the first six months of 2011 decreased by $432
million compared to the same period of 2010. The decrease was principally due to cash acquired in
the Allegheny merger ($590 million), partially offset by a decrease in net proceeds from asset
sales and higher property additions ($137 million).
During the second half of 2011, capital requirements for property additions and capital leases are
expected to be approximately $1.2 billion, including approximately $122 million for nuclear fuel.
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.
111
As of June 30, 2011, FirstEnergys maximum exposure to potential future payments under outstanding
guarantees and other assurances approximated $3.8 billion, as summarized below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maximum |
|
Guarantees and Other Assurances |
|
Exposure |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
FirstEnergy Guarantees on Behalf of its Subsidiaries |
|
|
|
|
Energy and Energy-Related Contracts(1) |
|
$ |
223 |
|
OVEC obligations |
|
|
300 |
|
Other(2) |
|
|
301 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
824 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subsidiaries Guarantees |
|
|
|
|
Energy and Energy-Related Contracts |
|
|
155 |
|
FES guarantee of NGCs nuclear property insurance |
|
|
70 |
|
FES guarantee of FGCOs sale and leaseback obligations |
|
|
2,324 |
|
Other |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,568 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surety Bonds |
|
|
136 |
|
LOC(3) |
|
|
269 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
405 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Guarantees and Other Assurances |
|
$ |
3,797 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Issued for open-ended terms, with a 10-day termination right by FirstEnergy. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes guarantees of $95 million for nuclear decommissioning funding
assurances, $161 million supporting OEs sale and leaseback arrangement,
and $35 million for railcar leases. |
|
(3) |
|
Includes $105 million issued for various terms pursuant to LOC capacity
available under FirstEnergys revolving credit facilities, $122 million
pledged in connection with the sale and leaseback of Beaver Valley Unit 2
by OE and $39 million pledged in connection with the sale and leaseback of
Perry by OE. |
FirstEnergy guarantees energy and energy-related payments of its subsidiaries involved in
energy commodity activities principally to facilitate or hedge normal physical transactions
involving electricity, gas, emission allowances and coal. FirstEnergy also provides guarantees to
various providers of credit support for the financing or refinancing by its subsidiaries of costs
related to the acquisition of property, plant and equipment. These agreements legally obligate
FirstEnergy to fulfill the obligations of those subsidiaries directly involved in energy and
energy-related transactions or financings where the law might otherwise limit the counterparties
claims. If demands of a counterparty were to exceed the ability of a subsidiary to satisfy existing
obligations, FirstEnergys guarantee enables the counterpartys legal claim to be satisfied by
other FirstEnergy 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 an LOC or accelerated payments may be required
of the subsidiary. As of June 30, 2011, FirstEnergys maximum exposure under these
collateral provisions was $625 million, as shown below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collateral Provisions |
|
FES |
|
|
AE Supply |
|
|
Utilities |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Credit rating downgrade to below investment
grade (1) |
|
$ |
440 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
78 |
|
|
$ |
522 |
|
Material adverse event (2) |
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
473 |
|
|
$ |
61 |
|
|
$ |
91 |
|
|
$ |
625 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes $206 million and $59 million that is also considered an acceleration of payment or funding
obligation for FES and the Utilities, respectively. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes $32 million that is also considered an acceleration of payment or funding obligation for FES. |
112
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 $666 million, as shown below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collateral Provisions |
|
FES |
|
|
AE Supply |
|
|
Utilities |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Credit rating downgrade to below investment
grade (1) |
|
$ |
477 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
78 |
|
|
$ |
560 |
|
Material adverse event (2) |
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
513 |
|
|
$ |
62 |
|
|
$ |
91 |
|
|
$ |
666 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes $206 million and $59 million that is also considered an acceleration of payment or funding
obligation for FES and the Utilities, respectively. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes $32 million that is also considered an acceleration of payment or funding obligation for FES. |
Most of FirstEnergys surety bonds are backed by various indemnities common within the
insurance industry. Surety bonds and related guarantees of $136 million provide additional
assurance to outside parties that contractual and statutory obligations will be met in a number of
areas including construction contracts, environmental commitments and various retail transactions.
In addition to guarantees and surety bonds, contracts entered into by the Competitive Energy
Services segment, including power contracts with affiliates awarded through competitive bidding
processes, typically contain margining provisions that require the posting of cash or LOCs in
amounts determined by future power price movements. Based on FES and AE Supplys power portfolios
as of June 30, 2011 and forward prices as of that date, FES and AE Supply have posted collateral of
$138 million and $2 million, respectively. Under a hypothetical adverse change in forward prices
(95% confidence level change in forward prices over a one-year time horizon), FES would be required
to post an additional $17 million of collateral. Depending on the volume of forward contracts and
future price movements, higher amounts for margining could be required to be posted.
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 would have claims against each of FES, FGCO and NGC, regardless
of whether their primary obligor is FES, FGCO or NGC.
Signal Peak and Global Rail are borrowers under a $350 million syndicated two-year senior secured
term loan facility due in October 2012. FirstEnergy, together with WMB Loan Ventures LLC and WMB
Loan Ventures II LLC, the entities that share ownership in the borrowers with FEV, have provided a
guaranty of the borrowers obligations under the facility. In addition, FEV and the other entities
that directly own the equity interest in the borrowers have pledged those interests to the lenders
under the term loan facility as collateral for the facility.
OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS
FES and the Ohio Companies have obligations that are not included on their Consolidated Balance
Sheets related to sale and leaseback arrangements involving the Bruce Mansfield Plant, Perry Unit 1
and Beaver Valley Unit 2, which are satisfied through operating lease payments. The total present
value of these sale and leaseback operating lease commitments, net of trust investments, was $1.6
billion as of June 30, 2011.
MARKET RISK INFORMATION
FirstEnergy uses various market risk sensitive instruments, including derivative contracts,
primarily to manage the risk of price and interest rate fluctuations. FirstEnergys Risk Policy
Committee, comprised of members of senior management, provides general oversight for risk
management activities throughout the company.
Commodity Price Risk
FirstEnergy is exposed to financial risks resulting from fluctuating interest rates and commodity
prices, including prices for electricity, natural gas, coal and energy transmission. To manage the
volatility relating to these exposures, FirstEnergy established a Risk Policy Committee, comprised
of members of senior management, which provides general management oversight for risk management
activities throughout FirstEnergy. The Committee is responsible for promoting the effective design
and implementation of sound risk management programs and oversees compliance with corporate risk
management policies and established risk management practice. FirstEnergy uses a variety of
derivative instruments for risk management purposes including forward contracts, options, futures
contracts and swaps. In addition to derivatives, FirstEnergy also enters into master netting
agreements with certain third parties.
113
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 June 30, 2011 are summarized by year in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source of Information- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value by Contract Year |
|
2011 |
|
|
2012 |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
2014 |
|
|
2015 |
|
|
Thereafter |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Prices actively quoted(1) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Other external sources(2) |
|
|
(287 |
) |
|
|
(169 |
) |
|
|
(48 |
) |
|
|
(38 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(542 |
) |
Prices based on models |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total(3) |
|
$ |
(278 |
) |
|
$ |
(172 |
) |
|
$ |
(48 |
) |
|
$ |
(38 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
44 |
|
|
$ |
(492 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents exchange traded New York Mercantile Exchange futures and options. |
|
(2) |
|
Primarily represents contracts based on broker and IntercontinentalExchange quotes. |
|
(3) |
|
Includes $445 million in non-hedge commodity derivative contracts that are
primarily related to NUG contracts. NUG contracts are generally subject to
regulatory accounting and do not materially impact earnings. |
FirstEnergy performs sensitivity analyses to estimate its exposure to the market risk of its
commodity positions. Based on derivative contracts held as of June 30, 2011, an adverse 10% change
in commodity prices would decrease net income by approximately $31 million ($20 million net of tax)
during the next 12 months.
Equity Price Risk
FirstEnergy provides noncontributory qualified defined benefit pension plans that cover
substantially all of its employees and non-qualified pension plans that cover certain employees.
The plans provide defined benefits based on years of service and compensation levels.
FirstEnergy provides a portion of non-contributory pre-retirement basic life insurance for
employees who are eligible to retire. Health care benefits, which include certain employee
contributions, deductibles and co-payments, are also available upon retirement to certain
employees, their dependents and, under certain circumstances, their survivors. FirstEnergy also has
obligations to former or inactive employees after employment, but before retirement, for
disability-related benefits.
The benefit plan assets and obligations are remeasured annually using a December 31 measurement
date or as significant triggering events occur. As of June 30, 2011, the FirstEnergy pension plan
was invested in approximately 31% of equity securities, 46% of fixed income securities, 9% of
absolute return strategies, 6% of real estate, 4% of private equity and 4% of cash. A decline in
the value of pension plan assets could result in additional funding requirements. FirstEnergys
funding policy is based on actuarial computations using the projected unit credit method. During
the three months and six months ended June 30, 2011, FirstEnergy made contributions to its
qualified pension plans of $105 million and $262 million, respectively. FirstEnergy intends to make
additional contributions of $116 million and $2 million to its qualified pension plans and
postretirement benefit plans, respectively, in the last two quarters of 2011.
NDT funds have been established to satisfy NGCs and the Utilities nuclear decommissioning
obligations. As of June 30, 2011, approximately 87% of the funds were invested in fixed income
securities, 10% of the funds were invested in equity securities and 3% were invested in short-term
investments, with limitations related to concentration and investment grade ratings. The
investments are carried at their market values of approximately $1,779 million, $197 million and
$69 million for fixed income securities, equity securities and short-term investments,
respectively, as of June 30, 2011, excluding $6 million of receivables, payables, deferred taxes
and accrued income. A hypothetical 10% decrease in prices quoted by stock exchanges would result in
a $20 million reduction in fair value as of June 30, 2011. The decommissioning trusts of JCP&L and
the Pennsylvania Companies are subject to regulatory accounting, with unrealized gains and losses
recorded as regulatory assets or liabilities, since the difference between investments held in
trust and the decommissioning liabilities will be recovered from or refunded to customers. NGC, OE
and TE recognize in earnings the unrealized losses on available-for-sale securities held in their
NDT as other-than-temporary impairments. A decline in the value of FirstEnergys NDT or a
significant escalation in estimated decommissioning costs could result in additional funding
requirements. During the first six months of 2011, approximately $1 million, $4 million and $1
million was contributed to NDT of JCP&L, OE and TE, respectively. On March 28, 2011, FENOC
submitted its biennial report on nuclear decommissioning funding to the NRC. This submittal
identified a total shortfall in nuclear decommissioning funding for Beaver Valley Unit 1 and Perry
of $92 million. On June 24, 2011, FENOC submitted a $95 million parental guarantee to the NRC for
its approval.
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.
114
FirstEnergy maintains credit policies with respect to its counterparties to manage overall credit
risk. This includes performing independent risk evaluations, actively monitoring portfolio trends
and using collateral and contract provisions to mitigate exposure. As part of its credit program,
FirstEnergy aggressively manages the quality of its portfolio of energy
contracts, evidenced by a current weighted average risk rating for energy contract counterparties
of BBB (S&P). As of June 30, 2011, the largest credit concentration was with J.P. Morgan Chase &
Co., which is currently rated investment grade, representing 11% of FirstEnergys total approved
credit risk comprised of 2.4% for FES, 1.6% for JCP&L, 2.0% for Met-Ed, 3.4% for WP and a combined
2.0% for the Ohio Companies.
OUTLOOK
Reliability Initiatives
Federally-enforceable mandatory reliability standards apply to the bulk electric system and impose
certain operating, record-keeping and reporting requirements on the Utilities, FES, FGCO, FENOC,
ATSI and TrAIL. The NERC is the ERO charged with establishing and enforcing these reliability
standards, although it has delegated day-to-day implementation and enforcement of these reliability
standards to eight regional entities, including ReliabilityFirst Corporation. All of FirstEnergys
facilities are located within the ReliabilityFirst region. FirstEnergy actively participates in the
NERC and ReliabilityFirst stakeholder processes, and otherwise monitors and manages its companies
in response to the ongoing development, implementation and enforcement of the reliability standards
implemented and enforced by the ReliabilityFirst Corporation.
FirstEnergy believes that it generally is in compliance with all currently-effective and
enforceable reliability standards. Nevertheless, in the course of operating its extensive electric
utility systems and facilities, FirstEnergy occasionally learns of isolated facts or circumstances
that could be interpreted as excursions from the reliability standards. If and when such items are
found, FirstEnergy develops information about the item and develops a remedial response to the
specific circumstances, including in appropriate cases self-reporting an item to
ReliabilityFirst. Moreover, it is clear that the NERC, ReliabilityFirst and FERC will continue to
refine existing reliability standards as well as to develop and adopt new reliability standards.
The financial impact of complying with future 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 future reliability standards be recovered in rates. Still, any future inability on
FirstEnergys part to comply with the reliability standards for its bulk power system could result
in the imposition of financial penalties that could have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows.
On December 9, 2008, a transformer at JCP&Ls Oceanview substation failed, resulting in an outage
on certain bulk electric system (transmission voltage) lines out of the Oceanview and Atlantic
substations resulting in customers losing power for up to eleven hours. On March 31, 2009, the NERC
initiated a Compliance Violation Investigation in order to determine JCP&Ls contribution to the
electrical event and to review any potential violation of NERC Reliability Standards associated
with the event. NERC has submitted first and second Requests for Information regarding this and
another related matter. JCP&L is complying with these requests. JCP&L is not able to predict what
actions, if any, that the NERC may take with respect to this matter.
On August 23, 2010, FirstEnergy self-reported to ReliabilityFirst a vegetation encroachment event
on a Met-Ed 230 kV line. This event did not result in a fault, outage, operation of protective
equipment, or any other meaningful electric effect on any FirstEnergy transmission facilities or
systems. On August 25, 2010, ReliabilityFirst issued a Notice of Enforcement to investigate the
incident. FirstEnergy submitted a data response to ReliabilityFirst on September 27, 2010. In
March 2011, ReliabilityFirst submitted its proposed findings and settlement, although a final
determination has not yet been made by FERC.
Allegheny has been subject to routine audits with respect to its compliance with applicable
reliability standards and has settled certain related issues. In addition, ReliabilityFirst is
currently conducting certain investigations with regard to certain matters of compliance by
Allegheny.
Maryland
By statute enacted in 2007, the obligation of Maryland utilities to provide standard offer service
(SOS) to residential and small commercial customers, in exchange for recovery of their costs plus a
reasonable profit, was extended indefinitely. The legislation also established a five-year cycle
(to begin in 2008) for the MDPSC to report to the legislature on the status of SOS. PE now
conducts rolling auctions to procure the power supply necessary to serve its customer load pursuant
to a plan approved by the MDPSC. However, the terms on which PE will provide SOS to residential
customers after the settlement beyond 2012 will depend on developments with respect to SOS in
Maryland between now and then, including but not limited to possible MDPSC decisions in the
proceedings discussed below.
The MDPSC opened a new docket in August 2007 to consider matters relating to possible managed
portfolio approaches to SOS and other matters. Phase II of the case addressed utility purchases
or construction of generation, bidding for procurement of demand response resources and possible
alternatives if the TrAIL and PATH projects were delayed or defeated. It is unclear when the MDPSC
will issue its findings in this and other SOS-related pending proceedings discussed below.
115
In September 2009, the MDPSC opened a new proceeding to receive and consider proposals for
construction of new generation resources in Maryland. In December 2009, Governor Martin OMalley
filed a letter in this proceeding in which he characterized the electricity market in Maryland as a
failure and urged the MDPSC to use its existing authority to order the construction of new
generation in Maryland, vary the means used by utilities to procure generation and include more
renewables in the generation mix. In August 2010, the MDPSC opened another new proceeding to
solicit comments on the PJM RPM process. Public hearings on the comments were held in October 2010.
In December 2010,
the MDPSC issued an order soliciting comments on a model request for proposal for solicitation of
long-term energy commitments by Maryland electric utilities. PE and numerous other parties filed
comments, and at this time no further proceedings have been set by the MDPSC in this matter.
In September 2007, the MDPSC issued an order that required the Maryland utilities to file detailed
plans for how they will meet the EmPOWER Maryland proposal that electric consumption be reduced
by 10% and electricity demand be reduced by 15%, in each case by 2015.
The Maryland legislature in 2008 adopted a statute codifying the EmPOWER Maryland goals. In 2008,
PE filed its comprehensive plans for attempting to achieve those goals, asking the MDPSC to approve
programs for residential, commercial, industrial, and governmental customers, as well as a customer
education program. The MDPSC ultimately approved the programs in August 2009 after certain
modifications had been made as required by the MDPSC, and approved cost recovery for the programs
in October 2009. Expenditures were estimated to be approximately $101 million and would be
recovered over the following six years. Meanwhile, extensive meetings with the MDPSC Staff and
other stakeholders to discuss details of PEs plans for additional and improved programs for the
period 2012-2014 began in April 2011 and those programs are to be filed by September 1, 2011.
In March 2009, the MDPSC issued an order suspending until further notice the right of all electric
and gas utilities in the state to terminate service to residential customers for non-payment of
bills. The MDPSC subsequently issued an order making various rule changes relating to
terminations, payment plans, and customer deposits that make it more difficult for Maryland
utilities to collect deposits or to terminate service for non-payment. The MDPSC is continuing to
conduct hearings and collect data on payment plan and related issues and has adopted a set of
proposed regulations that expand the summer and winter severe weather termination moratoria when
temperatures are very high or very low, from one day, as provided by statute, to three days on each
occurrence.
On March 24, 2011, the MDPSC held an initial hearing to discuss possible new regulations relating
to service interruptions, storm response, call center metrics, and related reliability standards.
The proposed rules included provisions for civil penalties for non-compliance. Numerous parties
filed comments on the proposed rules and participated in the hearing, with many noting issues of
cost and practicality relating to implementation. The Maryland legislature passed a bill on April
11, 2011, which requires the MDPSC to promulgate rules by July 1, 2012 that address service
interruptions, downed wire response, customer communication, vegetation management, equipment
inspection, and annual reporting. In crafting the regulations, the legislation directs the MDPSC
to consider cost-effectiveness, and provides that the MDPSC may adopt different standards for
different utilities based on such factors as system design and existing infrastructure, geography,
and customer density. Beginning in July 2013, the MDPSC is to assess each utilitys compliance with
the standards, and may assess penalties of up to $25,000 per day per violation. The MDPSC has
ordered that a working group of utilities, regulators, and other interested stakeholders meet to
address the topics of the proposed rules, with proposed rules to be filed by September 15, 2011.
Separately, on April 7, 2011, the MDPSC initiated a rulemaking with respect to issues related to
contact voltage. On June 3, 2011, the MDPSCs Staff issued a report and draft regulations.
Comments on the draft regulations were submitted on June 17, 2011, and a hearing was held July 7,
2011. Final regulations related to contact voltage have not yet been adopted.
New Jersey
In March 2009 and again in February 2010, JCP&L filed annual SBC Petitions with the NJBPU that
included a requested zero level of recovery of TMI-2 decommissioning costs based on an updated
TMI-2 decommissioning cost analysis dated January 2009 estimated at $736 million (in 2003 dollars).
In its order of June 15, 2011, the NJBPU adopted a Stipulation reached among JCP&L, the NJBPU Staff
and the Division of Rate Counsel which resolved both Petitions, resulting in a net reduction in
recovery of $0.8 million annually for all components of the SBC (including, as requested, a zero
level of recovery of TMI-2 decommissioning costs).
Ohio
The Ohio Companies operate under an ESP, which expires on May 31, 2014. The material terms of the
ESP include: generation supplied through a CBP commencing June 1, 2011 (initial auctions held on
October 20, 2010 and January 25, 2011); a load cap of no less than 80%, which also applies to
tranches assigned post-auction; a 6% generation discount to certain low income customers provided
by the Ohio Companies through a bilateral wholesale contract with FES (FES is one of the wholesale
suppliers to the Ohio Companies); no increase in base distribution rates through May 31, 2014; and
a new distribution rider, Delivery Capital Recovery Rider (Rider DCR), to recover a return of, and
on, capital investments in the delivery system. The Ohio Companies also agreed not to recover from
retail customers certain costs related to transmission cost allocations by PJM as a result of
ATSIs integration into PJM for the longer of the five-year period from June 1, 2011 through May
31, 2015 or when the amount of costs avoided by customers for certain types of products totals $360
million dependent on the outcome of certain PJM proceedings, agreed to establish a $12 million fund
to assist low income customers over the term of the ESP and agreed to additional matters related to
energy efficiency and alternative energy requirements.
116
Under the provisions of SB221, the Ohio Companies are required to implement energy efficiency
programs that will achieve a total annual energy savings equivalent to approximately 166,000 MWH in
2009, 290,000 MWH in 2010,
410,000 MWH in 2011, 470,000 MWH in 2012 and 530,000 MWH in 2013, with additional savings required
through 2025. Utilities were also required to reduce peak demand in 2009 by 1%, with an additional
0.75% reduction each year thereafter through 2018.
In December 2009, the Ohio Companies filed the required three year portfolio plan seeking approval
for the programs they intend to implement to meet the energy efficiency and peak demand reduction
requirements for the 2010-2012 period. The Ohio Companies expect that all costs associated with
compliance will be recoverable from customers. The PUCO issued an Opinion and Order generally
approving the Ohio Companies 3-year plan, and the Companies are in the process of implementing
those programs included in the Plan. OE fell short of its statutory 2010 energy efficiency and
peak demand reduction benchmarks and therefore, on January 11, 2011, it requested that its 2010
energy efficiency and peak demand reduction benchmarks be amended to actual levels achieved in
2010. The PUCO granted this request on May 19, 2011 for OE, finding that the motion was moot for
CEI and TE. Moreover, because the PUCO indicated, when approving the 2009 benchmark request, that
it would modify the Companies 2010 (and 2011 and 2012) energy efficiency benchmarks when
addressing the portfolio plan, the Ohio Companies were not certain of their 2010 energy efficiency
obligations. Therefore, CEI and TE (each of which achieved its 2010 energy efficiency and peak
demand reduction statutory benchmarks) also requested an amendment if and only to the degree one
was deemed necessary to bring them into compliance with their yet-to-be-defined modified
benchmarks. On June 2, 2011, the Companies filed an application for rehearing to clarify the
decision related to CEI and TE. Failure to comply with the benchmarks or to obtain such an
amendment may subject the companies to an assessment by the PUCO of a penalty. In addition to
approving the programs included in the plan, with only minor modifications, the PUCO authorized the
Companies to recover all costs related to the original CFL program that the Ohio Companies had
previously suspended at the request of the PUCO. Applications for Rehearing were filed on April
22, 2011, regarding portions of the PUCOs decision, including the method for calculating savings
and certain changes made by the PUCO to specific programs. On May 4, 2011, the PUCO granted
applications for rehearing for the purpose of further consideration; however, no substantive ruling
has been issued.
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 and 0.50% of the KWH they served in 2010. In August and October 2009, the Ohio Companies
conducted RFPs to secure RECs. The RECs acquired through these two RFPs were used to help meet the
renewable energy requirements established under SB221 for 2009, 2010 and 2011. In March 2010, the
PUCO found that there was an insufficient quantity of solar energy resources reasonably available
in the market and reduced the Ohio Companies aggregate 2009 benchmark to the level of solar RECs
the Ohio Companies acquired through their 2009 RFP processes, provided the Ohio Companies 2010
alternative energy requirements be increased to include the shortfall for the 2009 solar REC
benchmark. FES also applied for a force majeure determination from the PUCO regarding a portion of
their compliance with the 2009 solar energy resource benchmark. On February 23, 2011, the PUCO
granted FES force majeure request for 2009 and increased its 2010 benchmark by the amount of SRECs
that FES was short of in its 2009 benchmark. On April 15, 2011, the Ohio Companies filed an
application seeking an amendment to each of their 2010 alternative energy requirements for solar
RECs generated in Ohio on the basis that an insufficient quantity of solar resources are available
in the market but reflecting solar RECs that they have obtained and providing additional
information regarding efforts to secure solar RECs. Other parties to the proceeding filed comments
asserting that the force majeure determination should not be granted,
and others requesting the PUCO
to review the costs the Ohio companies have incurred to comply with the renewable energy
requirements. The PUCO has not yet acted on that application.
In February 2010, OE and CEI filed an application with the PUCO to establish a new credit for
all-electric customers. In March 2010, the PUCO ordered that rates for the affected customers be
set at a level that will provide bill impacts commensurate with charges in place on December 31,
2008 and authorized the Ohio Companies to defer incurred costs equivalent to the difference between
what the affected customers would have paid under previously existing rates and what they pay with
the new credit in place. Tariffs implementing this new credit went into effect in March 2010. In
April 2010, the PUCO issued a Second Entry on Rehearing that expanded the group of customers to
which the new credit would apply and authorized deferral for the associated additional amounts. The
PUCO also stated that it expected that the new credit would remain in place through at least the
2011 winter season and charged its staff to work with parties to seek a long term solution to the
issue. Tariffs implementing this newly expanded credit went into effect in May 2010 and the
proceeding remains open. The hearing on the matter was held in February 2011. The PUCO modified and
approved the companies application on May 25, 2011, ruling that the new credit be phased out over
an eight-year period and granting authority for the companies to recover deferred costs and
associated carrying charges. OCC filed applications for rehearing on June 24, 2011 and the Ohio
Companies filed their responses on July 5, 2011. The PUCO has not yet acted on the applications
for rehearing.
117
Pennsylvania
The PPUC entered an Order on March 3, 2010 that denied the recovery of marginal transmission losses
through the TSC rider for the period of June 1, 2007 through March 31, 2008, directed Met-Ed and
Penelec to submit a new tariff or tariff supplement reflecting the removal of marginal transmission
losses from the TSC, and instructed Met-Ed and Penelec to work with the various intervening parties
to file a recommendation to the PPUC regarding the establishment of a separate account for all
marginal transmission losses collected from ratepayers plus interest to be used to mitigate future
generation rate increases beginning January 1, 2011. In March 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a
Petition with the PPUC requesting that it stay the portion of the March 3, 2010 Order requiring the
filing of tariff supplements to end collection of
costs for marginal transmission losses. The PPUC granted the requested stay until December 31,
2010. Pursuant to the PPUCs order, Met-Ed and Penelec filed plans to establish separate accounts
for marginal transmission loss revenues and related interest and carrying charges. Pursuant to the
plan approved by the PPUC, Met-Ed and Penelec began to refund those amounts to customers in January
2011, and the refunds will continue over a 29 month period until the full amounts previously
recovered for marginal transmission loses are refunded. In April 2010, Met-Ed and Penelec filed a
Petition for Review with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania appealing the PPUCs March 3, 2010
Order. On June 14, 2011, the Commonwealth Court issued an opinion and order affirming the PPUCs
Order to the extent that it holds that line loss costs are not transmission costs and, therefore,
the approximately $254 million in marginal transmission losses and associated carrying charges for
the period prior to January 1, 2011, are not recoverable under Met-Eds and Penelecs TSC riders.
Met-Ed and Penelec filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and
also a complaint seeking relief in federal district court. Although the ultimate outcome of this
matter cannot be determined at this time, Met-Ed and Penelec believe that they should ultimately
prevail through the judicial process and therefore expect to fully recover the approximately $254
million ($189 million for Met-Ed and $65 million for Penelec) in marginal transmission losses for
the period prior to January 1, 2011.
In May 2008, May 2009 and May 2010, the PPUC approved Met-Eds and Penelecs annual updates to
their TSC rider for the annual periods between June 1, 2008 to December 31, 2010, including
marginal transmission losses as approved by the PPUC, although the recovery of marginal losses will
be subject to the outcome of the proceeding related to the 2008 TSC filing as described above. The
PPUCs approval in May 2010 authorized an increase to the TSC for Met-Eds customers to provide for
full recovery by December 31, 2010.
In February 2010, Penn filed a Petition for Approval of its Default Service Plan for the period
June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2013. In July 2010, the parties to the proceeding filed a Joint
Petition for Settlement of all issues. Although the PPUCs Order approving the Joint Petition held
that the provisions relating to the recovery of MISO exit fees and one-time PJM integration costs
(resulting from Penns June 1, 2011 exit from MISO and integration into PJM) were approved, it made
such provisions subject to the approval of cost recovery by FERC. Therefore, Penn may not put these
provisions into effect until FERC has approved the recovery and allocation of MISO exit fees and
PJM integration costs.
Pennsylvania adopted Act 129 in 2008 to address issues such as: energy efficiency and peak load
reduction; generation procurement; time-of-use rates; smart meters; and alternative energy. Among
other things, Act 129 required utilities to file with the PPUC an energy efficiency and peak load
reduction plan, or EE&C Plan, by July 1, 2009, setting forth the utilities plans to reduce energy
consumption by a minimum of 1% and 3% by May 31, 2011 and May 31, 2013, respectively, and to reduce
peak demand by a minimum of 4.5% by May 31, 2013. Act 129 also required utilities to file with the
PPUC a Smart Meter Implementation Plan (SMIP).
The PPUC entered an Order in February 2010 giving final approval to all aspects of the EE&C Plans
of Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn and the tariff rider with rates effective March 1, 2010. On February
18, 2011, the companies filed a petition to approve their First Amended EE&C Plans. On June 28,
2011, a hearing on the petition was held before an administrative law judge.
WP filed its original EE&C Plan in June 2009, which the PPUC approved, in large part, by Opinion
and Order entered in October 2009. In November 2009, the Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA) filed
an appeal with the Commonwealth Court of the PPUCs October Order. The OCA contends that the
PPUCs Order failed to include WPs costs for smart meter implementation in the EE&C Plan, and that
inclusion of such costs would cause the EE&C Plan to exceed the statutory cap for EE&C
expenditures. The OCA also contends that WPs EE&C plan does not meet the Total Resource Cost
Test. The appeal remains pending but has been stayed by the Commonwealth Court pending possible
settlement of WPs SMIP. In September 2010, WP filed an amended EE&C Plan that is less reliant on
smart meter deployment, which the PPUC approved in January 2011.
Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn jointly filed a SMIP with the PPUC in August 2009. This plan proposed a
24-month assessment period in which Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn will assess their needs, select the
necessary technology, secure vendors, train personnel, install and test support equipment, and
establish a cost effective and strategic deployment schedule, which currently is expected to be
completed in fifteen years. Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn estimate assessment period costs of
approximately $29.5 million, which the Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn, in their plan, proposed to recover
through an automatic adjustment clause. The ALJs Initial Decision approved the SMIP as modified by
the ALJ, including: ensuring that the smart meters to be deployed include the capabilities listed
in the PPUCs Implementation Order; denying the recovery of interest through the automatic
adjustment clause; providing for the recovery of reasonable and prudent costs net of resulting
savings from installation and use of smart meters; and requiring that administrative start-up costs
be expensed and the costs incurred for research and development in the assessment period be
capitalized. The PPUC entered its Order in June 2010, consistent with the Chairmans Motion.
Met-Ed, Penelec and Penn filed a Petition for Reconsideration of a single portion of the PPUCs
Order regarding the future ability to include smart meter costs in base rates, which the PPUC
granted in part by deleting language from its original order that would have precluded Met-Ed,
Penelec and Penn from seeking to include smart meter costs in base rates at a later time. The
costs to implement the SMIP could be material. However, assuming these costs satisfy a just and
reasonable standard, they are expected to be recovered in a rider (Smart Meter Technologies Charge
Rider) which was approved when the PPUC approved the SMIP.
118
In August 2009, WP filed its original SMIP, which provided for extensive deployment of smart meter
infrastructure with replacement of all of WPs approximately 725,000 meters by the end of 2014. In
December 2009, WP filed a motion to reopen the evidentiary record to submit an alternative smart
meter plan proposing, among other things, a less-rapid deployment of smart meters. In an Initial
Decision dated April 29, 2010, an ALJ determined that WPs alternative smart meter deployment plan,
complied with the requirements of Act 129 and recommended approval of the alternative plan,
including WPs proposed cost recovery mechanism.
In light of the significant expenditures that would be associated with its smart meter deployment
plans and related infrastructure upgrades, as well as its evaluation of recent PPUC decisions
approving less-rapid deployment proposals by other utilities, WP re-evaluated its Act 129
compliance strategy, including both its plans with respect to smart meter deployment and certain
smart meter dependent aspects of the EE&C Plan. In October 2010, WP and Pennsylvanias OCA filed a
Joint Petition for Settlement addressing WPs smart meter implementation plan with the PPUC. Under
the terms of the proposed settlement, WP proposed to decelerate its previously contemplated smart
meter deployment schedule and to target the installation of approximately 25,000 smart meters in
support of its EE&C Plan, based on customer requests, by mid-2012. The proposed settlement also
contemplates that WP take advantage of the 30-month grace period authorized by the PPUC to continue
WPs efforts to re-evaluate full-scale smart meter deployment plans. WP currently anticipates
filing its plan for full-scale deployment of smart meters in June 2012. Under the terms of the
proposed settlement, WP would be permitted to recover certain previously incurred and anticipated
smart-meter related expenditures through a levelized customer surcharge, with certain expenditures
amortized over a ten-year period. Additionally, WP would be permitted to seek recovery of certain
other costs as part of its revised SMIP that it currently intends to file in June 2012, or in a
future base distribution rate case.
In December 2010, the PPUC directed that the SMIP proceeding be referred to the ALJ for further
proceedings to ensure that the impact of the proposed merger with FirstEnergy is considered and
that the Joint Petition for Settlement has adequate support in the record. On March 9, 2011, WP
submitted an Amended Joint Petition for Settlement which restates the Joint Petition for Settlement
filed in October 2010, adds the PPUCs Office of Trial Staff as a signatory party, and confirms the
support or non-opposition of all parties to the settlement. One party retained the ability to
challenge the recovery of amounts spent on WPs original smart meter implementation plan. The
proposed settlement also obligates OCA to withdraw its November 2009 appeal of the PPUCs Order in
WPs EE&C plan proceeding. A Joint Stipulation with the OSBA was also filed on March 9, 2011. On
May 3, 2011, the ALJ issued an Initial Decision recommending that the PPUC approve the Amended
Joint Petition for Full Settlement. The PPUC approved the Initial Decision by order entered June
30, 2011.
By Tentative Order entered in September 2009, the PPUC provided for an additional 30-day comment
period on whether the 1998 Restructuring Settlement, which addressed how Met-Ed and Penelec were
going to implement direct access to a competitive market for the generation of electricity, allows
Met-Ed and Penelec to apply over-collection of NUG costs for select and isolated months to reduce
non-NUG stranded costs when a cumulative NUG stranded cost balance exists. In response to the
Tentative Order, various parties filed comments objecting to the above accounting method utilized
by Met-Ed and Penelec. Met-Ed and Penelec are awaiting further action by the PPUC.
In the PPUC Order approving the FirstEnergy and Allegheny merger, the PPUC announced that a
separate statewide investigation into Pennsylvanias retail electricity market will be conducted
with the goal of making recommendations for improvements to ensure that a properly functioning and
workable competitive retail electricity market exists in the state. On April 29, 2011, the PPUC
entered an Order initiating the investigation and requesting comments from interested parties on
eleven directed questions. Met-Ed, Penelec, Penn Power and West Penn submitted joint comments on
June 3, 2011. FES also submitted comments on June 3, 2011. On June 8, 2011, the PPUC conducted an
en banc hearing on these issues at which both the Pennsylvania Companies and FES participated and
offered testimony.
Virginia
In September 2010, PATH-VA filed an application with the VSCC for authorization to construct the
Virginia portions of the PATH Project. On February 28, 2011, PATH-VA filed a motion to withdraw the
application. On May 24, 2011, the VSCC granted PATH-VAs motion to withdraw its application for
authorization to construct the Virginia portions of the PATH Project. See Transmission Expansion
in the Federal Regulation and Rate Matters section for further discussion of this matter.
119
West Virginia
In August 2009, MP and PE filed with the WVPSC a request to increase retail rates, which was
amended through subsequent filings. MP and PE ultimately requested an annual increase in retail
rates of approximately $95 million. In April 2010, MP and PE filed with the WVPSC a Joint
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement reached with the other parties in the proceeding that
provided for:
|
|
|
a $40 million annualized base rate increase effective June 29, 2010; |
|
|
|
a deferral of February 2010 storm restoration expenses in West Virginia over a
maximum five-year period; |
|
|
|
an additional $20 million annualized base rate increase effective in January 2011; |
|
|
|
|
a decrease of $20 million in ENEC rates effective January 2011, which amount is
deferred for later recovery in 2012; and |
|
|
|
a moratorium on filing for further increases in base rates before December 1, 2011,
except under specified circumstances. |
The WVPSC approved the Joint Petition and Agreement of Settlement in June 2010.
In 2009, the West Virginia Legislature enacted the Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Act
(Portfolio Act), which generally requires that a specified minimum percentage of electricity sold
to retail customers in West Virginia by electric utilities each year be derived from alternative
and renewable energy resources according to a predetermined schedule of increasing percentage
targets, including ten percent by 2015, fifteen percent by 2020, and twenty-five percent by 2025.
In November 2010, the WVPSC issued Rules Governing Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio
Standard (RPS Rules), which became effective on January 4, 2011. Under the RPS Rules, on or before
January 1, 2011, each electric utility subject to the provisions of this rule was required to
prepare an alternative and renewable energy portfolio standard compliance plan and file an
application with the WVPSC seeking approval of such plan. MP and PE filed their combined compliance
plan in December 2010. A hearing was held at the WVPSC on June 13, 2011. An order is expected by
late September 2011.
Additionally, in January 2011, MP and PE filed an application with the WVPSC seeking to certify
three facilities as Qualified Energy Resource Facilities. If the application is approved, the
three facilities would then be capable of generating renewable credits which would assist the
companies in meeting their combined requirements under the Portfolio Act. Further, in February
2011, MP and PE filed a petition with the WVPSC seeking an Order declaring that MP is entitled to
all alternative and renewable energy resource credits associated with the electric energy, or
energy and capacity, that MP is required to purchase pursuant to electric energy purchase
agreements between MP and three non-utility electric generating facilities in WV. The City of New
Martinsville and Morgantown Energy Associates, each the owner of one of the contracted resources,
has participated in the case in opposition to the Petition.
FERC Matters
Rates for Transmission Service Between MISO and PJM
In November 2004, FERC issued an order eliminating the through and out rate for transmission
service between the MISO and PJM regions. FERC also ordered MISO, PJM and the transmission owners
within MISO and PJM to submit compliance filings containing a rate mechanism to recover lost
transmission revenues created by elimination of this charge (referred to as SECA) during a 16-month
transition period. In 2005, FERC set the SECA for hearing. The presiding ALJ issued an initial
decision in August 2006, rejecting the compliance filings made by MISO, PJM and the transmission
owners, and directing new compliance filings. This decision was subject to review and approval by
FERC. In May 2010, FERC issued an order denying pending rehearing requests and an Order on Initial
Decision which reversed the presiding ALJs rulings in many respects. Most notably, these orders
affirmed the right of transmission owners to collect SECA charges with adjustments that modestly
reduce the level of such charges, and changes to the entities deemed responsible for payment of the
SECA charges. The Ohio Companies were identified as load serving entities responsible for payment
of additional SECA charges for a portion of the SECA period (Green Mountain/Quest issue).
FirstEnergy executed settlements with AEP, Dayton and the Exelon parties to fix FirstEnergys
liability for SECA charges originally billed to Green Mountain and Quest for load that returned to
regulated service during the SECA period. The AEP, Dayton and Exelon, settlements were approved by
FERC in November 2010, and the relevant payments made. The subsidiaries of Allegheny entered into
nine settlements to fix their liability for SECA charges with various parties. All of the
settlements were approved by FERC and the relevant payments have been made for eight of the
settlements. Payments due under the remaining settlement will be made as a part of the refund
obligations of the Utilities that are under review by FERC as part of a compliance filing.
Potential refund obligations of FirstEnergy and the Allegheny subsidiaries are not expected to be
material. Rehearings remain pending in this proceeding.
PJM Transmission Rate
In April 2007, FERC issued an order (Opinion 494) finding that the PJM transmission owners
existing license plate or zonal rate design was just and reasonable and ordered that the current
license plate rates for existing transmission facilities be retained. On the issue of rates for new
transmission facilities, FERC directed that costs for new transmission facilities that are rated at
500 kV or higher are to be collected from all transmission zones throughout the PJM footprint by
means of a postage-stamp rate based on the amount of load served in a transmission zone. Costs for
new transmission facilities that are rated at less than 500 kV, however, are to be allocated on a
load flow methodology (DFAX), which is generally referred to as a beneficiary pays approach to
allocating the cost of high voltage transmission facilities.
120
FERCs Opinion 494 order was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which
issued a decision in August 2009. The court affirmed FERCs ratemaking treatment for existing
transmission facilities, but found that FERC had not supported its decision to allocate costs for
new 500+ kV facilities on a load ratio share basis and, based on this finding, remanded the rate
design issue back to FERC.
In an order dated January 21, 2010, FERC set the matter for a paper hearing meaning that FERC
called for parties to submit written comments pursuant to the schedule described in the order. FERC
identified nine separate issues for comments and directed PJM to file the first round of comments
on February 22, 2010, with other parties submitting responsive comments and then reply comments on
later dates. PJM filed certain studies with FERC on April 13, 2010, in response to the FERC order.
PJMs filing demonstrated that allocation of the cost of high voltage transmission facilities on a
beneficiary pays basis results in certain eastern utilities in PJM bearing the majority of the
costs. Numerous parties filed responsive comments or studies on May 28, 2010 and reply comments on
June 28, 2010. FirstEnergy and a number of other utilities, industrial customers and state
commissions supported the use of the beneficiary pays approach for cost allocation for high voltage
transmission facilities. Certain eastern utilities and their state commissions supported continued
socialization of these costs on a load ratio share basis. This matter is awaiting action by FERC.
RTO Realignment
On
June 1, 2011, ATSI and the ATSI zone entered into PJM. The move was performed as planned with no
known operational or reliability issues for ATSI or for the wholesale transmission customers in the
ATSI zone.
On February 1, 2011, ATSI in conjunction with PJM filed its proposal with FERC for moving its
transmission rate into PJMs tariffs. On April 1, 2011, the MISO Transmission Owners (including
ATSI) filed proposed tariff language that describes the mechanics of collecting and administering
MTEP costs from ATSI-zone ratepayers. From March 20, 2011 through April 1, 2011, FirstEnergy, PJM
and the MISO submitted numerous filings for the purpose of effecting movement of the ATSI zone to
PJM on June 1, 2011. These filings include amendments to the MISOs tariffs (to remove the ATSI
zone), submission of load and generation interconnection agreements to reflect the move into PJM,
and submission of changes to PJMs tariffs to support the move into PJM.
On May 31, 2011, FERC issued orders that address the proposed ATSI transmission rate, and certain
parts of the MISO tariffs that reflect the mechanics of transmission cost allocation and
collection. In its May 31, 2011 orders, FERC approved ATSIs proposal to move the ATSI formula
rate into the PJM tariff without significant change. Speaking to ATSIs proposed treatment of the
MISOs exit fees and charges for transmission costs that were allocated to the ATSI zone, FERC
required ATSI to present a cost-benefit study that demonstrates that the benefits of the move for
transmission customers exceed the costs of any such move, which FERC had not previously required.
Accordingly, FERC ruled that these costs must be removed from ATSIs proposed transmission rates
until such time as ATSI files and FERC approves the cost-benefit study. On June 30, 2011, ATSI
submitted the compliance filing that removed the MISO exit fees and transmission cost allocation
charges from ATSIs proposed transmission rates. Also on June 30, 2011, ATSI requested rehearing
of FERCs decision to require a cost-benefit study analysis as part of FERCs evaluation of ATSIs
proposed transmission rates. The compliance filing, and ATSIs request for rehearing, are
currently pending before FERC.
From late April 2011 through June 2011, FERC issued other orders that address ATSIs move into PJM.
These orders approve ATSIs proposed interconnection agreements for large wholesale transmission
customers and generators, and revisions to the PJM and MISO tariffs that reflect ATSIs move into
PJM. In addition, FERC approved an Exit Fee Agreement that memorializes the agreement between
ATSI and MISO with regard to ATSIs obligation to pay certain administrative charges to the MISO
upon exit. Finally, ATSI and the MISO were able to negotiate an agreement of ATSIs responsibility
for certain charges associated with long term firm transmission rights that, according to the
MISO, were payable by the ATSI zone upon its departure from the MISO. ATSI did not and does not
agree that these costs should be charged to ATSI but, in order to settle the case and all claims
associated with the case, ATSI agreed to a one-time payment of $1.8 million to the MISO. This
settlement agreement has been submitted for FERCs review and approval. The final outcome of those
proceedings that address the remaining open issues related to ATSIs move into PJM and their
impact, if any, on FirstEnergy cannot be predicted at this time.
MISO Multi-Value Project Rule Proposal
In July 2010, MISO and certain MISO transmission owners jointly filed with FERC their proposed cost
allocation methodology for certain new transmission projects. The new transmission
projectsdescribed as MVPs are a class of transmission projects that are approved via MISOs
formal transmission planning process (the MTEP). The filing parties proposed to allocate the costs
of MVPs by means of a usage-based charge that will be applied to all loads within the MISO
footprint, and to energy transactions that call for power to be wheeled through the MISO as well
as to energy transactions that source in the MISO but sink outside of MISO. The filing parties
expect that the MVP proposal will fund the costs of large transmission projects designed to bring
wind generation from the upper Midwest to load centers in the east. The filing parties requested an
effective date for the proposal of July 16, 2011. On August 19, 2010, MISOs Board approved the
first MVP project the Michigan Thumb Project. Under MISOs proposal, the costs of MVP projects
approved by MISOs Board prior to the June 1, 2011 effective date of FirstEnergys integration into
PJM would continue to be allocated to FirstEnergy. MISO estimated that approximately $15 million in
annual revenue requirements would be allocated to the ATSI zone associated with the Michigan Thumb
Project upon its completion.
121
In September 2010, FirstEnergy filed a protest to the MVP proposal arguing that MISOs proposal to
allocate costs of MVPs 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 that had been
made to date in the ATSI integration into PJM, it would be unjust and unreasonable to allocate any
MVP costs to the ATSI zone, or to ATSI. Numerous other parties filed pleadings on MISOs MVP
proposal.
In December 2010, FERC issued an order approving the MVP proposal without significant change.
FERCs order was not clear, however, as to whether the MVP costs would be payable by ATSI or load
in the ATSI zone. FERC stated that the MISOs tariffs obligate ATSI to pay all charges that
attached prior to ATSIs exit but ruled that the question of the amount of costs that are to be
allocated to ATSI or to load in the ATSI zone were beyond the scope of FERCs order and would be
addressed in future proceedings.
On January 18, 2011, FirstEnergy filed for rehearing of FERCs order. In its rehearing request,
FirstEnergy argued that because the MVP rate is usage-based, costs could not be applied to ATSI,
which is a stand-alone transmission company that does not use the transmission system. FirstEnergy
also renewed its arguments regarding cost causation and the impropriety of allocating costs to the
ATSI zone or to ATSI.
As noted above, on February 1, 2011, ATSI filed proposed transmission rates related to its move
into PJM. The proposed rates included line items that were intended to recover all MVP costs (if
any) that might be charged to ATSI or to the ATSI zone. In its May 31, 2011 order on ATSIs
proposed transmission rates FERC ruled that ATSI must submit a cost-benefit study before ATSI can
recover the MVP costs. FERC further directed that ATSI remove the line-items from ATSIs formula
rate that would recover the MVP costs until such time as ATSI submits and FERC approves the
cost-benefit study. ATSI requested a rehearing of these parts of FERCs order and, pending this
further legal process, has removed the MVP line items from its transmission rates.
FirstEnergy cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings at this time.
California Claims Matters
In October 2006, several California governmental and utility parties presented AE Supply with a
settlement proposal to resolve alleged overcharges for power sales by AE Supply to the California
Energy Resource Scheduling division of the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) during
2001. The settlement proposal claims that CDWR is owed approximately $190 million for these alleged
overcharges. This proposal was made in the context of mediation efforts by FERC and the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in pending proceedings to resolve all outstanding
refund and other claims, including claims of alleged price manipulation in the California energy
markets during 2000 and 2001. The Ninth Circuit has since remanded one of those proceedings to
FERC, which arises out of claims previously filed with FERC by the California Attorney General on
behalf of certain California parties against various sellers in the California wholesale power
market, including AE Supply (the Lockyer case). AE Supply and several other sellers filed motions
to dismiss the Lockyer case. In March 2010, the judge assigned to the case entered an opinion that
granted the motions to dismiss filed by AE Supply and other sellers and dismissed the claims of the
California Parties. On May 4, 2011, FERC affirmed the judges ruling.
In June 2009, the California Attorney General, on behalf of certain California parties, filed a
second complaint with FERC against various sellers, including AE Supply (the Brown case), again
seeking refunds for trades in the California energy markets during 2000 and 2001. The above-noted
trades with CDWR are the basis for including AE Supply in this new complaint. AE Supply filed a
motion to dismiss the Brown complaint that was granted by FERC on May 24, 2011. On June 23, 2011,
the California Attorney General requested rehearing of the May 24, 2011 order. FirstEnergy cannot
predict the outcome of this matter.
Transmission Expansion
TrAIL Project. TrAIL is a 500 kV transmission line extending from southwest Pennsylvania through
West Virginia and into northern Virginia. Effective May 19, 2011, all segments of TrAIL were
energized and in service.
PATH Project. The PATH Project is comprised of a 765 kV transmission line that was proposed to
extend from West Virginia through Virginia and into Maryland, modifications to an existing
substation in Putnam County, West Virginia, and the construction of new substations in Hardy
County, West Virginia and Frederick County, Maryland.
122
PJM initially authorized construction of the PATH Project in June 2007. In December 2010, PJM
advised that its 2011 Load Forecast Report included load projections that are different from
previous forecasts and that may have an impact on the proposed in-service date for the PATH
Project. As part of its 2011 RTEP, and in response to a January 19, 2011 directive by a Virginia
Hearing Examiner, PJM conducted a series of analyses using the most current economic forecasts and
demand response commitments, as well as potential new generation resources. Preliminary analysis
revealed the expected reliability violations that necessitated the PATH Project had moved several
years into the future. Based on those results, PJM announced on February 28, 2011 that its Board
of Managers had decided to hold the PATH Project in abeyance in its 2011 RTEP and directed
FirstEnergy and AEP, as the sponsoring transmission owners, to suspend current development efforts
on the project, subject to those activities necessary to maintain the project in its current state,
while PJM conducts more rigorous analysis of the need for the project as part of its continuing
RTEP process. PJM stated that its action did not constitute a directive to FirstEnergy and AEP to
cancel or abandon the PATH Project. PJM further stated that it will complete a more rigorous
analysis of the PATH Project and other transmission requirements and
its Board will review this comprehensive analysis as part of its consideration of the 2011 RTEP.
On February 28, 2011, affiliates of FirstEnergy and AEP filed motions or notices to withdraw
applications for authorization to construct the project that were pending before state commissions
in West Virginia, Virginia and Maryland. Withdrawal was deemed effective upon filing the notice
with the MDPSC. The WVPSC and VSCC have granted the motions to withdraw.
PATH, LLC submitted a filing to FERC to implement a formula rate tariff effective March 1, 2008.
In a November 19, 2010 order addressing various matters relating to the formula rate, FERC set the
projects base return on equity for hearing and reaffirmed its prior authorization of a return on
CWIP, recovery of start-up costs and recovery of abandonment costs. In the order, FERC also
granted a 1.5% return on equity incentive adder and a 0.50% return on equity adder for RTO
participation. These adders will be applied to the base return on equity determined as a result of
the hearing. PATH, LLC is currently engaged in settlement discussions with the staff of FERC and
intervenors regarding resolution of the base return on equity.
Seneca Pumped Storage Project Relicensing
The Seneca (Kinzua) Pumped Storage Project is a 451 MW hydroelectric project located in Warren
County, Pennsylvania owned and operated by FGCO. FGCO holds the current FERC license that
authorizes ownership and operation of the project. The current FERC license will expire on
November 30, 2015. FERCs regulations call for a five-year relicensing process. On November 24,
2010, and acting pursuant to applicable FERC regulations and rules, FGCO initiated the relicensing
process by filing its notice of intent to relicense and pre-application document (PAD) in the
license docket.
On November 30, 2010, the Seneca Nation of Indians filed its notice of intent to relicense and PAD
documents necessary for them to submit a competing application. Section 15 of the FPA contemplates
that third parties may file a competing application to assume ownership and operation of a
hydroelectric facility upon (i) relicensure and (ii) payment of net book value of the plant to the
original owner/operator. Nonetheless, FGCO believes it is entitled to a statutory incumbent
preference under Section 15.
The Seneca Nation and certain other intervenors have asked FERC to redefine the project boundary
of the hydroelectric plant to include the dam and reservoir facilities operated by the U.S. Army
Corps. of Engineers. On May 16, 2011, FirstEnergy filed a Petition for Declaratory Order with FERC
seeking an order to exclude the dam and reservoir facilities from the project. The Seneca Nation,
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the U.S. Department of Interior
each submitted responses to FirstEnergys petition, including motions to dismiss FirstEnergys
petition. The project boundary issue is pending before FERC.
The next steps in the relicensing process are for FirstEnergy and the Seneca Nation to define and
perform certain environmental and operational studies to support their respective applications.
These steps are expected to run through approximately November of 2013. FirstEnergy cannot predict
the outcome of these proceedings at this time.
Environmental Matters
Various federal, state and local authorities regulate FirstEnergy with regard to air and water
quality and other environmental matters. Compliance with environmental regulations could have a
material adverse effect on FirstEnergys earnings and competitive position to the extent that
FirstEnergy competes with companies that are not subject to such regulations and, therefore, do not
bear the risk of costs associated with compliance, or failure to comply, with such regulations.
CAA Compliance
FirstEnergy is required to meet federally-approved SO2 and NOx emissions regulations
under the CAA. FirstEnergy complies with SO2 and NOx reduction requirements under the
CAA and SIP(s) by burning lower-sulfur fuel, combustion controls and post-combustion controls,
generating more electricity from lower-emitting plants and/or using emission allowances. Violations
can result in the shutdown of the generating unit involved and/or civil or criminal penalties.
In July 2008, three complaints were filed against FGCO in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on coal-fired Bruce Mansfield Plant air emissions.
Two of these complaints also seek to enjoin the Bruce Mansfield Plant from operating except in a
safe, responsible, prudent and proper manner, one being a complaint filed on behalf of twenty-one
individuals and the other being a class action complaint seeking certification as a class action
with the eight named plaintiffs as the class representatives. FGCO believes the claims are without
merit and intends to defend itself against the allegations made in these three complaints.
123
The states of New Jersey and Connecticut filed CAA citizen suits in 2007 alleging NSR violations at
the Portland Generation Station against GenOn Energy, Inc. (formerly RRI Energy, Inc. and the
current owner and operator), Sithe Energy (the purchaser of the Portland Station from Met-Ed in
1999) and Met-Ed. Specifically, these suits allege that modifications at Portland Units 1 and 2
occurred between 1980 and 2005 without preconstruction NSR permitting in violation of the CAAs PSD
program, and seek injunctive relief, penalties, attorney fees and mitigation of the harm caused by
excess emissions. In September 2009, the Court granted Met-Eds motion to dismiss New Jerseys and
Connecticuts claims for injunctive relief against Met-Ed, but denied Met-Eds motion to dismiss
the claims for civil penalties. The
parties dispute the scope of Met-Eds indemnity obligation to and from Sithe Energy, and Met-Ed is
unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
In January 2009, the EPA issued a NOV to GenOn Energy, Inc. alleging NSR violations at the Portland
coal-fired plant based on modifications dating back to 1986. On March 31, 2011, the EPA proposed
emissions limits and compliance schedules to reduce SO2 air emissions by approximately 81% at the
Portland Plant based on an interstate pollution transport petition submitted by New Jersey under
Section 126 of the CAA. The NOV also alleged NSR violations at the Keystone and Shawville
coal-fired plants based on modifications dating back to 1984. Met-Ed, JCP&L, as the former owner
of 16.67% of Keystone, and Penelec, as former owner and operator of Shawville, are unable to
predict the outcome of this matter.
In June 2008, the EPA issued a Notice and Finding of Violation to Mission Energy Westside, Inc.
(Mission) alleging that modifications at the coal-fired Homer City Plant occurred from 1988 to
the present without preconstruction NSR permitting in violation of the CAAs PSD program. In May
2010, the EPA issued a second NOV to Mission, Penelec, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation
and others that have had an ownership interest in Homer City containing in all material respects
allegations identical to those included in the June 2008 NOV. In January 2011, the DOJ filed a
complaint against Penelec in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
seeking injunctive relief against Penelec based on alleged modifications at Homer City between
1991 to 1994 without preconstruction NSR permitting in violation of the CAAs PSD and Title V
permitting programs. The complaint was also filed against the former co-owner, New York State
Electric and Gas Corporation, and various current owners of Homer City, including EME Homer City
Generation L.P. and affiliated companies, including Edison International. In January 2011, another
complaint was filed against Penelec and the other entities described above in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on Homer Citys air emissions
as well as certification as a class action and to enjoin Homer City from operating except in a
safe, responsible, prudent and proper manner. Penelec believes the claims are without merit and
intends to defend itself against the allegations made in the complaint, but, at this time, is
unable to predict the outcome of this matter. In addition, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the
States of New Jersey and New York intervened and have filed separate complaints regarding Homer
City seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties. Mission is seeking indemnification from
Penelec, the co-owner and operator of Homer City prior to its sale in 1999. On April 21, 2011,
Penelec and all other defendants filed Motions to Dismiss all of the federal claims and the various
state claims. Responsive and Reply briefs were filed on May 26, 2011 and June 17, 2011,
respectively. The scope of Penelecs indemnity obligation to and from Mission is under dispute and
Penelec is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
In August 2009, the EPA issued a Finding of Violation and NOV alleging violations of the CAA and
Ohio regulations, including the PSD, NNSR and Title V regulations at the Eastlake, Lakeshore, Bay
Shore and Ashtabula coal-fired 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 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 Eastlake Plant. In June 2011, EPA issued
another Finding of Violation and NOV alleging violations of the CAA and Ohio regulations,
specifically opacity limitations and requirements to continuously operate opacity monitoring
systems at the Eastlake, Lakeshore, Bay Shore and Ashtabula coal-fired plants. Also, in June 2011,
FirstEnergy received an information request pursuant to section 114(a) of the CAA for certain
operating maintenance and planning information, among other information regarding these plants.
FGCO intends to comply with the CAA, including the EPAs information requests but, at this time, is
unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
In August 2000, AE received an information request pursuant to section 114(a) of the CAA letter
from the EPA requesting that it provide information and documentation relevant to the operation and
maintenance of the following ten coal-fired plants, which collectively include 22 electric
generation units Albright, Armstrong, Fort Martin, Harrison, Hatfields Ferry, Mitchell, Pleasants,
Rivesville, R. Paul Smith and Willow Island to determine compliance with the CAA and related
requirements, including potential application of the NSR standards under the CAA, which can require
the installation of additional air emission control equipment when the major modification of an
existing facility results in an increase in emissions. AE has provided responsive information to
this and a subsequent request but is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
In May 2004, AE, AE Supply, MP and WP received a Notice of Intent to Sue Pursuant to CAA §7604 from
the Attorneys General of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut and from the PA DEP, alleging that
Allegheny performed major modifications in violation of the PSD provisions of the CAA at the
following West Virginia coal-fired plants: Albright Unit 3; Fort Martin Units 1 and 2; Harrison
Units 1, 2 and 3; Pleasants Units 1 and 2 and Willow Island Unit 2. The Notice also alleged PSD
violations at the Armstrong, Hatfields Ferry and Mitchell coal-fired plants in Pennsylvania and
identifies PA DEP as the lead agency regarding those facilities. In September 2004, AE, AE Supply,
MP and WP received a separate Notice of Intent to Sue from the Maryland Attorney General that
essentially mirrored the previous Notice.
124
In June 2005, the PA DEP and the Attorneys General of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and
Maryland filed suit against AE, AE Supply, MP, PE and WP in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging, among other things, that Allegheny performed major
modifications in violation of the CAA and the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act at the
Hatfields Ferry, Armstrong and Mitchell Plants in Pennsylvania. On January 17, 2006, the
PA DEP and the Attorneys General filed an amended complaint. A non-jury trial on liability only was
held in September 2010. Plaintiffs filed their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in
December 2010, Allegheny made its related filings in February 2011 and plaintiffs filed their
responses in April 2011. The parties are awaiting a decision from the District Court, but there is
no deadline for that decision.
In September 2007, Allegheny also received a NOV from the EPA alleging NSR and PSD violations under
the CAA, as well as Pennsylvania and West Virginia state laws at the Hatfields Ferry and Armstrong
Plants in Pennsylvania and the Fort Martin and Willow Island coal-fired plants in West Virginia.
FirstEnergy intends to vigorously defend against the CAA matters described above but cannot predict
their outcomes.
State Air Quality Compliance
In early 2006, Maryland passed the Healthy Air Act, which imposes state-wide emission caps on
SO2 and NOX, requires mercury emission reductions and mandates that Maryland
join the RGGI and participate in that coalitions regional efforts to reduce CO2
emissions. On April 20, 2007, Maryland became the 10th state to join the RGGI. The Healthy Air Act
provides a conditional exemption for the R. Paul Smith coal-fired plant for NOX,
SO2 and mercury, based on a PJM declaration that the plant is vital to reliability in
the Baltimore/Washington DC metropolitan area, which PJM determined in 2006. Pursuant to the
legislation, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) passed alternate NOX and
SO2 limits for R. Paul Smith, which became effective in April 2009. However, R. Paul
Smith is still required to meet the Healthy Air Act mercury reductions of 80% beginning in 2010.
The statutory exemption does not extend to R. Paul Smiths CO2 emissions. Maryland
issued final regulations to implement RGGI requirements in February 2008. Ten RGGI auctions have
been held through the end of calendar year 2010. RGGI allowances are also readily available in the
allowance markets, affording another mechanism by which to secure necessary allowances. On March
14, 2011, MDE requested PJM perform an analysis to determine if termination of operation at R. Paul
Smith would adversely impact the reliability of electrical service in the PJM region under current
system conditions. FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
In January 2010, the WVDEP issued a NOV for opacity emissions at Alleghenys Pleasants coal-fired
plant. FirstEnergy is discussing with WVDEP steps to resolve the NOV including installing a
reagent injection system to reduce opacity.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
The EPAs CAIR requires reductions of NOx and SO2 emissions in two phases (2009/2010 and
2015), ultimately capping SO2 emissions in affected states to 2.5 million tons annually and NOx
emissions to 1.3 million tons annually. In 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated CAIR in its entirety and directed the EPA to redo its analysis from the
ground up. In December 2008, the Court reconsidered its prior ruling and allowed CAIR to remain in
effect to temporarily preserve its environmental values until the EPA replaces CAIR with a new
rule consistent with the Courts opinion. The Court ruled in a different case that a cap-and-trade
program similar to CAIR, called the NOx SIP Call, cannot be used to satisfy certain CAA
requirements (known as reasonably available control technology) for areas in non-attainment under
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In July 2011, the EPA finalized the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR) to replace CAIR, which remains in effect until CSAPR becomes effective (60 days after
publication in the Federal Register). CSAPR requires reductions of NOx and SO2 emissions in two
phases (2012 and 2014), ultimately capping SO2 emissions in affected states to 2.4 million tons
annually and NOx emissions to 1.2 million tons annually. CSAPR allows trading of NOx and
SO2 emission allowances between power plants located in the same state and interstate
trading of NOx and SO2 emission allowances with some restrictions. FGCOs future cost of
compliance may be substantial and changes to FirstEnergys operations may result. Management is
currently assessing the impact of CSAPR, other environmental proposals and other factors on
FirstEnergys competitive fossil generating facilities, including but not limited to, the impact on
value of our emissions allowances (currently reflected at $38 million on our Consolidated Balance
Sheet as of June 30, 2011) and the operations of its coal-fired plants.
Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions
On March 16, 2011, the EPA released its MACT proposal to establish emission standards for mercury,
hydrochloric acid and various metals for electric generating units. Depending on the action taken
by the EPA and how any future regulations are ultimately implemented, FirstEnergys future cost of
compliance with MACT regulations may be substantial and changes to FirstEnergys operations may
result.
125
Climate Change
There are a number of initiatives to reduce GHG emissions under consideration at the federal, state
and international level. At the federal level, members of Congress have introduced several bills
seeking to reduce emissions of GHG in the United States, and the House of Representatives passed
one such bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, in June 2009. The Senate
continues to consider a number of measures to regulate GHG emissions. President Obama has announced
his Administrations New Energy for America Plan that includes, among other provisions, proposals
to ensure that 10% of electricity used in the United States comes from renewable sources by 2012,
to increase to 25% by 2025, to implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce GHG
emissions by 80% by 2050.
Certain states, primarily the northeastern states participating in the RGGI and western states, led
by California, have coordinated efforts to develop regional strategies to control emissions of
certain GHGs.
In September 2009, the EPA finalized a national GHG emissions collection and reporting rule that
required FirstEnergy to measure GHG emissions commencing in 2010 and will require it to submit
reports commencing in 2011. In December 2009, the EPA released its final Endangerment and Cause or
Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act. The EPAs finding concludes that
concentrations of several key GHGs increase the threat of climate change and may be regulated as
air pollutants under the CAA. In April 2010, the EPA finalized new GHG standards for model years
2012 to 2016 passenger cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles and clarified
that GHG regulation under the CAA would not be triggered for electric generating plants and other
stationary sources until January 2, 2011, at the earliest. In May 2010, the EPA finalized new
thresholds for GHG emissions that define when permits under the CAAs NSR program would be
required. The EPA established an emissions applicability threshold of 75,000 tons per year (tpy) of
carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2) effective January 2, 2011 for existing facilities under the CAAs
PSD program. Until July 1, 2011, this emissions applicability threshold will only apply if PSD is
triggered by non-CO2 pollutants.
At the international level, the Kyoto Protocol, signed by the U.S. in 1998 but never submitted for
ratification by the U.S. Senate, was intended to address global warming by reducing the amount of
man-made GHG, including CO2, emitted by developed countries by 2012. A December 2009
U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen did not reach a consensus on a successor treaty to the
Kyoto Protocol, but did take note of the Copenhagen Accord, a non-binding political agreement that
recognized the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below two degrees
Celsius; includes a commitment by developed countries to provide funds, approaching $30 billion
over the next three years with a goal of increasing to $100 billion by 2020; and establishes the
Copenhagen Green Climate Fund to support mitigation, adaptation, and other climate-related
activities in developing countries. To the extent that they have become a party to the Copenhagen
Accord, developed economies, such as the European Union, Japan, Russia and the United States, would
commit to quantified economy-wide emissions targets from 2020, while developing countries,
including Brazil, China and India, would agree to take mitigation actions, subject to their
domestic measurement, reporting and verification.
In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded lower court decisions that had dismissed complaints alleging
damage from GHG emissions on jurisdictional grounds. However, a subsequent ruling from the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reinstated the lower court dismissal of a complaint
alleging damage from GHG emissions. These cases involve common law tort claims, including
public and private nuisance, alleging that GHG emissions contribute to global warming and result
in property damages. The U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision
of the Second Circuit. On June 20, 2011, the U. S. Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit.
The Court remanded to the Second Circuit the issue of whether the CAA preempted state
common law nuisance actions. The Courts ruling also failed to answer the question of the extent
to which actions for damages may remain viable. While FirstEnergy is not a party to this litigation,
in June 2011, FirstEnergy received notice of a complaint alleging that the GHG emissions of 87
companies, including FirstEnergy, render them liable for damages to certain residents of
Mississippi stemming from Hurricane Katrina. On July 27, 2011, the plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed FirstEnergy from this complaint.
FirstEnergy cannot currently estimate the financial impact of climate change policies, although
potential legislative or regulatory programs restricting CO2 emissions, or litigation
alleging damages from GHG emissions, could require significant capital and other expenditures or
result in changes to its operations. The CO2 emissions per KWH of electricity generated
by FirstEnergy is lower than many of its regional competitors due to its diversified generation
sources, which include low or non-CO2 emitting gas-fired and nuclear generators.
Clean Water Act
Various water quality regulations, the majority of which are the result of the federal Clean Water
Act and its amendments, apply to FirstEnergys plants. In addition, the states in which FirstEnergy
operates have water quality standards applicable to FirstEnergys operations.
In 2004, 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). In
2007, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit invalidated portions of the Section 316(b)
performance standards and the EPA has taken the position that until further rulemaking occurs,
permitting authorities should continue the existing practice of applying their best professional
judgment to minimize impacts on fish and shellfish from cooling water intake structures. In April
2009, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed one significant aspect of the Second Circuits opinion and
decided that Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act authorizes the EPA to compare costs with
126
benefits in determining the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact
at cooling water intake structures. On March 28, 2011, the EPA released a new proposed regulation
under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act generally requiring fish impingement to be reduced to a
12% annual average and studies to be conducted at the majority of our existing generating
facilities to assist permitting authorities to determine whether and what site-specific controls,
if any, would be required to reduce entrainment of aquatic life. On July 19, 2011, the EPA
extended the public comment period for the new proposed Section 316(b) regulation by 30 days but
stated its schedule for issuing a final rule remains July 27, 2012. FirstEnergy is
studying various control options and their costs and effectiveness, including pilot testing of
reverse louvers in a portion of the Bay Shore power plants water intake channel to divert fish
away from the plants water intake system. In November 2010, the Ohio EPA issued a permit for the
coal-fired Bay Shore Plant requiring installation of reverse louvers in its entire water intake
channel by December 31, 2014. Depending on the results of such studies and the EPAs further
rulemaking and any final action taken by the states exercising best professional judgment, the
future costs of compliance with these standards may require material capital expenditures.
In April 2011, the U.S. Attorneys Office in Cleveland, Ohio advised FGCO that it is no longer
considering prosecution under the Clean Water Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for three
petroleum spills at the Edgewater, Lakeshore and Bay Shore plants which occurred on November 1,
2005, January 26, 2007 and February 27, 2007. This matter has been referred back to EPA for civil
enforcement and FGCO is unable to predict the outcome of this matter.
In May 2011, the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, and the
Sierra Club filed a CWA citizen suit alleging violations of arsenic limits in the NPDES water
discharge permit for the fly ash disposal site at the Albright coal-fired plant seeking unspecified
civil penalties and injunctive relief. MP is currently seeking relief from the arsenic limits
through WVDEP agency review. In June 2011, the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, the West
Virginia Rivers Coalition, and the Sierra Club served another 60-Day Notice of Intent required
prior to filing a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act for alleged failure to obtain a permit to
construct the fly ash impoundments at the Albright Station.
FirstEnergy intends to vigorously defend against the CWA matters described above but cannot predict
their outcomes.
Monongahela River Water Quality
In late 2008, the PA DEP imposed water quality criteria for certain effluents, including TDS and
sulfate concentrations in the Monongahela River, on new and modified sources, including the
scrubber project at the Hatfields Ferry coal-fired plant. These criteria are reflected in the
current PA DEP water discharge permit for that project. AE Supply appealed the PA DEPs permitting
decision, which would require it to incur significant costs or negatively affect its ability to
operate the scrubbers as designed. Preliminary studies indicate an initial capital investment in
excess of $150 million in order to install technology to meet the TDS and sulfate limits in the
permit. The permit has been independently appealed by Environmental Integrity Project and Citizens
Coal Council, which seeks to impose more stringent technology-based effluent limitations. Those
same parties have intervened in the appeal filed by AE Supply, and both appeals have been
consolidated for discovery purposes. An order has been entered that stays the permit limits that AE
Supply has challenged while the appeal is pending. The hearing is scheduled to begin in September
2011, however the Court stayed all prehearing deadlines on July 15, 2011 to allow the parties
additional time to work out a settlement. AE Supply intends to vigorously pursue these issues, but
cannot predict the outcome of these appeals.
In a parallel rulemaking, the PA DEP recommended, and in August 2010, the Pennsylvania
Environmental Quality Board issued, a final rule imposing end-of-pipe TDS effluent limitations.
FirstEnergy could incur significant costs for additional control equipment to meet the requirements
of this rule, although its provisions do not apply to electric generating units until the end of
2018, and then only if the EPA has not promulgated TDS effluent limitation guidelines applicable to
such units.
In December 2010, PA DEP submitted its Clean Water Act 303(d) list to the EPA with a recommended
sulfate impairment designation for an approximately 68 mile stretch of the Monongahela River north
of the West Virginia border. In May 2011, the EPA agreed with PA DEPs recommended sulfate
impairment designation. PA DEPs goal is to submit a final water quality standards regulation,
incorporating the sulfate impairment designation for EPA approval by May, 2013. PA DEP will then
need to develop a TMDL limit for the river, a process that will take approximately five years.
Based on the stringency of the TMDL, FirstEnergy may incur significant costs to reduce sulfate
discharges into the Monongahela River from its Hatfields Ferry and Mitchell facilities in
Pennsylvania and its Fort Martin facility in West Virginia.
In October 2009, the WVDEP issued the water discharge permit for the Fort Martin generation
facility. Similar to the Hatfields Ferry water discharge permit issued for the scrubber project,
the Fort Martin permit imposes effluent limitations for TDS and sulfate concentrations. The permit
also imposes temperature limitations and other effluent limits for heavy metals that are not
contained in the Hatfields Ferry water permit. Concurrent with the issuance of the Fort Martin
permit, WVDEP also issued an administrative order that sets deadlines for MP to meet certain of the
effluent limits that are effective immediately under the terms of the permit. MP appealed the Fort
Martin permit and the administrative order. The appeal included a request to stay certain of the
conditions of the permit and order while the appeal is pending, which was granted pending a final
decision on appeal and subject to WVDEP moving to dissolve the stay. The appeals have been
consolidated. MP moved to dismiss certain of the permit conditions for the failure of the WVDEP to
submit those conditions for public review and comment during the permitting process. An agreed-upon
order that suspends further action on this appeal, pending WVDEPs release for public review and
comment on those conditions, was entered on August 11, 2010. The stay remains in effect during that
process. The current terms of the Fort Martin permit would require MP to incur significant costs or
negatively affect operations at Fort Martin. Preliminary information indicates an initial capital
investment in excess of the capital investment that may be needed at Hatfields Ferry in order to
install technology to meet the TDS and sulfate limits in the Fort Martin permit, which technology
may also meet certain of the
other effluent limits in the permit. Additional technology may be needed to meet certain other
limits in the permit. MP intends to vigorously pursue these issues but cannot predict the outcome
of these appeals.
127
Regulation of Waste Disposal
Federal and state hazardous waste regulations have been promulgated as a result of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, and the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
Certain fossil-fuel combustion residuals, such as coal ash, were exempted from hazardous waste
disposal requirements pending the EPAs evaluation of the need for future regulation. In February
2009, the EPA requested comments from the states on options for regulating coal combustion
residuals, including whether they should be regulated as hazardous or non-hazardous waste.
In December 2009, in an advanced notice of public rulemaking, the EPA asserted that the large
volumes of coal combustion residuals produced by electric utilities pose significant financial risk
to the industry. In May 2010, the EPA proposed two options for additional regulation of coal
combustion residuals, including the option of regulation as a special waste under the EPAs
hazardous waste management program which could have a significant impact on the management,
beneficial use and disposal of coal combustion residuals. FirstEnergys future cost of compliance
with any coal combustion residuals regulations that may be promulgated could be substantial and
would depend, in part, on the regulatory action taken by the EPA and implementation by the EPA or
the states.
The Little Blue Run (LBR) Coal Combustion By-products (CCB) impoundment is expected to run out of
disposal capacity for disposal of CCBs from the Bruce Mansfield Plant between 2016 and 2018. In
July 2011, BMP submitted a Phase I permit application to PA DEP for construction of a new dry CCB
disposal facility adjacent to LBR. BMP anticipates submitting zoning applications for approval to
allow construction of a new dry CCB disposal facility prior to commencing construction.
The Utility Registrants have been named as potentially responsible parties at waste disposal sites,
which may require cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980. Allegations of disposal of hazardous substances at historical sites and the
liability involved are often unsubstantiated and subject to dispute; however, federal law provides
that all potentially responsible parties for a particular site may be liable on a joint and several
basis. Environmental liabilities that are considered probable have been recognized on the
consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2011, based on estimates of the total costs of cleanup,
the Utility Registrants proportionate responsibility for such costs and the financial ability of
other unaffiliated entities to pay. Total liabilities of approximately $133 million (JCP&L $69
million, TE $1 million, CEI $1 million, FGCO $1 million and FirstEnergy $61 million) have
been accrued through June 30, 2011. Included in the total are accrued liabilities of approximately
$63 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. On July 11, 2011, FirstEnergy was found to be a potentially responsible party under CERCLA indirectly liable for a portion of past and future clean-up costs at certain legacy MGP sites, estimated to total approximately $59 million. FirstEnergy recognized additional expense of $29 million during the
second quarter of 2011; $30 million had previously been reserved prior to 2011.
Other Legal Proceedings
Power Outages and Related Litigation
In July 1999, the Mid-Atlantic States experienced a severe heat wave, which resulted in power
outages throughout the service territories of many electric utilities, including JCP&L. Two class
action lawsuits (subsequently consolidated into a single proceeding) were filed in New Jersey
Superior Court in July 1999 against JCP&L, GPU and other GPU companies, seeking compensatory and
punitive damages due to the outages. After various motions, rulings and appeals, the Plaintiffs
claims for consumer fraud, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, strict product liability
and punitive damages were dismissed, leaving only the negligence and breach of contract causes of
actions. On July 29, 2010, the Appellate Division upheld the trial courts decision decertifying
the class. Plaintiffs have filed, and JCP&L has opposed, a motion for leave to appeal to the New
Jersey Supreme Court. In November 2010, the Supreme Court issued an order denying Plaintiffs
motion. The Courts order effectively ends the class action attempt, and leaves only nine (9)
plaintiffs to pursue their respective individual claims. The remaining individual plaintiffs have
yet to take any affirmative steps to pursue their individual claims.
Nuclear Plant Matters
Under NRC regulations, FirstEnergy must ensure that adequate funds will be available to
decommission its nuclear facilities. As of June 30, 2011, FirstEnergy had approximately $2 billion
invested in external trusts to be used for the decommissioning and environmental remediation of
Davis-Besse, Beaver Valley, Perry and TMI-2. As required by the NRC, FirstEnergy annually
recalculates and adjusts the amount of its parental guarantee, as appropriate. The values of
FirstEnergys NDT fluctuate based on market conditions. If the value of the trusts decline by a
material amount, FirstEnergys obligation to fund the trusts may increase. Disruptions in the
capital markets and their effects on particular businesses and the economy could also affect the
values of the NDT. The NRC issued guidance anticipating an increase in low-level radioactive waste
disposal costs associated with the decommissioning of nuclear facilities. On March 28, 2011, FENOC
submitted its biennial report on nuclear decommissioning funding to the NRC. This submittal
identified a total shortfall in nuclear decommissioning funding for Beaver Valley Unit 1 and Perry
of approximately $92.5 million. On June 24, 2011, FENOC submitted a $95 million parental guarantee
to the NRC for its approval.
128
In August 2010, FENOC submitted an application to the NRC for renewal of the Davis-Besse Nuclear
Power Station operating license for an additional twenty years, until 2037. By an order dated April
26, 2011, a NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) granted a hearing on the Davis-Besse
license renewal application to a group of petitioners. By this order, the ASLB also admitted two
contentions challenging whether FENOCs Environmental Report adequately evaluated (1) a combination
of renewable energy sources as alternatives to the renewal of Davis-Besses operating license, and
(2) severe accident mitigation alternatives at Davis-Besse. On May 6, 2011, FENOC filed an appeal
with the NRC Commissioners from the order granting a hearing on the Davis-Besse license renewal
application.
On April 14, 2011, a group of environmental organizations petitioned the NRC Commissioners to
suspend certain pending nuclear licensing proceedings, including the Davis-Besse license renewal
proceeding, to ensure that any safety and environmental implications of the accident at the
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station in Japan are considered. By May 2, 2011, the NRC Staff,
FENOC and much of the nuclear industry filed responses opposing the petition. On May 6, 2011,
petitioners filed a supplemental reply.
In January 2004, subsidiaries of FirstEnergy filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims
seeking damages in connection with costs incurred at the Beaver Valley, Davis-Besse and Perry
Nuclear facilities as a result of the DOE failure to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel on January
31, 1998. DOE was required to so commence accepting spent nuclear fuel by the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act (42 USC 10101 et seq) and the contracts entered into by the DOE and the owners and
operators of these facilities pursuant to the Act. On January 18, 2011, the parties, FirstEnergy
and DOJ, filed a joint status report that established a schedule for the litigation of these
claims. FirstEnergy filed damages schedules and disclosures with the DOJ on February 11, 2011,
seeking approximately $57 million in damages for delay costs incurred through September 30, 2010.
The damage claim is subject to review and audit by DOE.
ICG Litigation
On December 28, 2006, AE Supply and MP filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania against International Coal Group, Inc. (ICG), Anker West Virginia Mining
Company, Inc. (Anker WV), and Anker Coal Group, Inc. (Anker Coal). Anker WV entered into a long
term Coal Sales Agreement with AE Supply and MP for the supply of coal to the Harrison generating
facility. Prior to the time of trial, ICG was dismissed as a defendant by the Court, which issue
can be the subject of a future appeal. As a result of defendants past and continued failure to
supply the contracted coal, AE Supply and MP have incurred and will continue to incur significant
additional costs for purchasing replacement coal. A non-jury trial was held from January 10, 2011
through February 1, 2011. At trial, AE Supply and MP presented evidence that they have incurred in
excess of $80 million in damages for replacement coal purchased through the end of 2010 and will
incur additional damages in excess of $150 million for future shortfalls. Defendants primarily
claim that their performance is excused under a force majeure clause in the coal sales agreement
and presented evidence at trial that they will continue to not provide the contracted yearly
tonnage amounts. On May 2, 2011, the court entered a verdict in favor of AE Supply and MP for $104
million ($90 million in future damages and $14 million for replacement coal / interest).
Post-trial filings occurred in May 2011, with Oral Argument on June 28, 2011. The parties expect
a ruling sometime in the third quarter, at which time the judgment
will be final. The parties have 30 days
to appeal the final judgment. AE Supply and MP intend to vigorously pursue this matter through
appeal if necessary but cannot predict its outcome.
Other Legal Matters
In February 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in Geauga County Court of Common Pleas against
FirstEnergy, CEI and OE seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, as well as
compensatory, incidental and consequential damages, on behalf of a class of customers related to
the reduction of a discount that had previously been in place for residential customers with
electric heating, electric water heating, or load management systems. The reduction in the discount
was approved by the PUCO. In March 2010, the named-defendant companies filed a motion to dismiss
the case due to the lack of jurisdiction of the court of common pleas. The court granted the motion
to dismiss on September 7, 2010. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals of
Ohio, which has not yet rendered an opinion.
129
There are various lawsuits, claims (including claims for asbestos exposure) and proceedings related
to FirstEnergys normal business operations pending against FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries. The
other potentially material items not otherwise discussed above are described below.
FirstEnergy accrues legal liabilities only when it concludes that it is probable that it has an
obligation for such costs and can reasonably estimate the amount of such costs. If it were
ultimately determined that FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries have legal liability or are otherwise
made subject to liability based on the above matters, it could have a material adverse effect on
FirstEnergys or its subsidiaries financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
NEW ACCOUNTING STANDARDS AND INTERPRETATIONS
See Note 12 of the Combined Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) for
discussion of new accounting pronouncements.
130
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
MANAGEMENTS NARRATIVE
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
FES is a wholly owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy. FES provides energy-related products and
services, and through its subsidiaries, FGCO and NGC, owns or leases, operates and maintains
FirstEnergys fossil and hydroelectric generation facilities (excluding the Allegheny facilities),
and owns FirstEnergys nuclear generation facilities, respectively. FENOC, a wholly owned
subsidiary of FirstEnergy, operates and maintains the nuclear generating facilities.
FES revenues are derived from sales to individual retail customers, sales to communities in the
form of governmental aggregation programs, and participation in affiliated and non-affiliated POLR
auctions. FES sales are primarily concentrated in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan
and New Jersey. In 2010, FES also supplied the POLR default service requirements of Met-Ed and
Penelec.
The demand for electricity produced and sold by FES, along with the price of that electricity, is
impacted by conditions in competitive power markets, global economic activity, economic activity in
the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic regions and weather conditions.
For additional information with respect to FES, please see the information contained in
FirstEnergys Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
under the following subheadings, which information is incorporated by reference herein: Capital
Resources and Liquidity, Guarantees and Other Assurances, Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements, Market
Risk Information, Credit Risk, Outlook and New Accounting Standards and Interpretations.
Results of Operations
Net income decreased by $158 million in the first six months of 2011 compared to the same period of
2010. The decrease was primarily due to lower sales margin, an inventory reserve adjustment,
non-core asset impairments and the effect of mark-to-market adjustments.
Revenues
Total revenues decreased $30 million, or 1%, in the first six months of 2011, compared to
the same period of 2010, primarily due to reduced POLR and structured sales, partially offset by
growth in direct and governmental aggregation sales.
The decrease in revenues resulted from the following sources:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
Increase |
|
Revenues by Type of Service |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Direct and Governmental Aggregation |
|
$ |
1,765 |
|
|
$ |
1,097 |
|
|
$ |
668 |
|
POLR and Structured Sales |
|
|
607 |
|
|
|
1,315 |
|
|
|
(708 |
) |
Wholesale |
|
|
156 |
|
|
|
142 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
Transmission |
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
RECs |
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
(23 |
) |
Other |
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
2,684 |
|
|
$ |
2,714 |
|
|
$ |
(30 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended June 30 |
|
|
Increase |
|
MWH Sales by Type of Service |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
Direct |
|
|
21,219 |
|
|
|
12,857 |
|
|
|
65.0 |
% |
Governmental Aggregation |
|
|
8,279 |
|
|
|
5,447 |
|
|
|
52.0 |
% |
POLR and Structured Sales |
|
|
9,561 |
|
|
|
25,344 |
|
|
|
(62.3 |
)% |
Wholesale |
|
|
1,380 |
|
|
|
1,538 |
|
|
|
(10.3 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Sales |
|
|
40,439 |
|
|
|
45,186 |
|
|
|
(10.5 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
131
The increase in direct and governmental aggregation revenues of $668 million resulted from the
acquisition of new commercial and industrial customers as well as new governmental aggregation
contracts with communities in Ohio that
provided generation to approximately 1.5 million residential and small commercial customers at the
end of June 2011 compared to approximately 1.1 million customers at the end of June 2010.
The decrease in POLR revenues of $708 million was due to lower sales volumes to Met-Ed and Penelec,
primarily due to the absence in 2011 of a 1,300 MW third-party contract associated with serving
Met-Ed and Penelec, and reduced sales to the Ohio Companies, partially offset by increased sales to
non-associated companies and higher unit prices to the Pennsylvania Companies consistent with our
business strategy. Participation in
POLR auctions and RFPs are expected to continue but the proportion of these sales will depend on
our hedge positions for direct retail and aggregation sales.
Wholesale revenues increased by $14 million due to higher wholesale prices partially offset by
decreased volumes. The lower sales volumes were the result of decreased short-term (net hourly
positions) transactions in MISO. Additional capacity revenues earned by generating units were
partially offset by losses on financially settled sales.
The following tables summarize the price and volume factors contributing to changes in revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Direct and Governmental Aggregation |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Direct Sales: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of increase in sales volumes |
|
$ |
493 |
|
Change in prices |
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
473 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Governmental Aggregation: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of increase in sales volumes |
|
|
176 |
|
Change in prices |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
195 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Direct and Governmental Aggregation Revenues |
|
$ |
668 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in POLR Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
POLR: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of decrease in sales volumes |
|
$ |
(819 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(708 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Wholesale Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
Wholesale: |
|
|
|
|
Effect of increase in sales volumes |
|
$ |
(15 |
) |
Change in prices |
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission revenues increased by $20 million due primarily to higher MISO and PJM congestion
revenue. The revenues derived from the sale of RECs declined $23 million in the first six months of
2011.
Expenses
Total
operating expenses increased by $199 million in the first six months of 2011, compared with
the same period of 2010.
132
The following table summarizes the factors contributing to the changes in fuel and purchased power
costs in the first six months of 2011, compared with the same period last year:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Source of Change in Fuel and Purchased Power |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Fossil Fuel: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to increased unit costs |
|
$ |
2 |
|
Change due to volume consumed |
|
|
(29 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear Fuel: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to increased unit costs |
|
|
14 |
|
Change due to volume consumed |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-affiliated Purchased Power: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to increased unit costs |
|
|
108 |
|
Change due to volume purchased |
|
|
(242 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(134 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Affiliated Purchased Power: |
|
|
|
|
Change due to increased unit costs |
|
|
34 |
|
Change due to volume purchased |
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Fuel and Purchased Power Costs |
|
$ |
(142 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Total fuel costs decreased by $12 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to the same
period of 2010, as a result of reduced generation at the fossil units, partially offset by higher
fossil unit costs. Fossil unit prices increased primarily due to increased coal transportation
costs. Nuclear fuel expenses increased primarily due to higher unit prices following the refueling
outages that occurred in 2010.
Non-affiliated purchased power costs decreased by $134 million in the first six months of 2011,
compared to the same period of 2010, due to lower volumes purchased partially offset by higher unit
costs. The decrease in volume relates to the absence in 2011 of a 1,300 MW third-party contract
associated with serving Met-Ed and Penelec in the first half of 2011. Affiliated purchased power
costs increased by $4 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010,
due to higher unit costs, partially offset by decreased volumes purchased.
Other
operating expenses increased by $302 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to the
same period of 2010 due to the following:
|
|
|
Transmission expenses increased by $176 million due primarily to increases in PJM of
$198 million from higher congestion, network, and line loss expense, partially offset by
lower MISO transmission expenses of $22 million. |
|
|
|
Nuclear operating costs increased by $48 million due primarily to having two refueling
outages, Perry and Beaver Valley 2, occurring this year. While Davis-Besse had a refueling
outage last year, the work performed during the second quarter of 2010 was largely
capital-related. |
|
|
|
Fossil operating costs increased by $20 million due primarily to higher labor,
contractor and material costs resulting from an increase in planned and unplanned outages. |
|
|
|
A $54 million provision for excess and obsolete material related to revised inventory
practices adopted in connection with the Allegheny merger. |
Impairment charges of long-lived assets increased by $18 million due to impairments at certain
non-core peaking facilities during the first six months of 2011.
General taxes increased by $11 million due to an increase in revenue-related taxes.
Other Expense
Total
other expense increased by $17 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to the same
period of 2010, primarily due to a decrease in capitalized interest ($24 million) associated with
the completion of the Sammis AQC project in 2010, partially offset by increased investment income
($8 million) from higher NDT income.
133
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. OE procures generation services for those franchise customers
electing to retain OE and Penn as their power supplier.
For additional information with respect to OE, please see the information contained in
FirstEnergys Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
under the following subheadings, which information is incorporated by reference herein: Regulatory
Assets, Capital Resources and Liquidity, Guarantees and Other Assurances, Off-Balance Sheet
Arrangements, Market Risk Information, Credit Risk, Outlook and New Accounting Standards and
Interpretations.
Results of Operations
Earnings available to parent decreased by $5 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to
the same period of 2010. The decrease primarily resulted from lower revenues and higher other
operating expenses, partially offset by lower purchased power costs and amortization of regulatory
assets.
Revenues
Revenues decreased by $171 million, or 18%, in the first six months of 2011, compared with the same
period in 2010, due to a decrease in generation revenues, partially offset by higher distribution
and wholesale generation revenues.
Distribution revenues increased by $31 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to the
same period in 2010, due to an increase in KWH deliveries in the residential and industrial sectors
and higher average prices in all customer classes. The higher KWH deliveries in the residential
class were driven by increased weather-related usage in the first six months of 2011, reflecting a
6% increase in heating degree days. The increase in distribution deliveries to industrial
customers was primarily due to recovering economic conditions in OEs and Penns service territory.
Higher average prices in all customer classes were principally due to the recovery of deferred
distribution costs.
Changes in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first six months of 2011, compared to
the same period in 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
Increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
3.0 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
0.2 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
3.5 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Increase in Distribution Deliveries |
|
|
2.4 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution Revenues |
|
Increase |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
19 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
7 |
|
Industrial |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
Increase in Distribution Revenues |
|
$ |
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
Retail generation revenues decreased by $211 million primarily due to a decrease in KWH sales
and lower average prices in all customer classes. Retail generation obligations are attributable to
non-shopping customers and are procured through full-requirements auctions. OE defers the
difference between retail generation revenues and purchased power costs, resulting in no material
effect to current period earnings. Lower KWH sales were primarily the result of increased customer
shopping, partially offset by increased weather-related usage in the first six months of 2011, as
described above. The increase in customer shopping for residential, commercial and industrial
customer classes was 23%, 14% and 8%, respectively.
134
Decreases in retail generation KWH sales and revenues in the first six months of 2011, compared to
the same period in 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation KWH Sales |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
(30.7 |
)% |
Commercial |
|
|
(39.0 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
(25.4 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Sales |
|
|
(31.2 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation Revenues |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
(128 |
) |
Commercial |
|
|
(52 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
(211 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Wholesale revenues increased by $15 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to the
same period of 2010, due to higher revenues from sales to NGC from OEs leasehold interests in
Perry Unit 1 and Beaver Valley Unit 2.
Expenses
Total expenses decreased by $171 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to the same
period of 2010. The following table presents changes from the prior period by expense category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Expenses - Changes |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Purchased power costs |
|
$ |
(175 |
) |
Other operating expenses |
|
|
36 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(36 |
) |
General taxes |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Expenses |
|
$ |
(171 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchased power costs decreased in the first six months of 2011, compared to the same period of
2010, due to lower KWH purchases resulting from reduced generation sales requirements in the first
six months of 2011 coupled with lower unit costs. The increase in other operating expenses for the
first six months of 2011 was principally due to expenses associated with refueling outages at OEs
leased Perry and Beaver Valley Unit 2 that were absent in 2010. The amortization of regulatory
assets decreased primarily due to higher deferred residential generation credits in 2011. General
taxes increased as a result of higher property taxes.
Other Expense
Other expense increased by $3 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to the same period
of 2010 due to lower nuclear decommissioning trust investment income.
135
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: Regulatory
Assets, Capital Resources and Liquidity, Guarantees and Other Assurances, Off-Balance Sheet
Arrangements, Market Risk Information, Credit Risk, Outlook and New Accounting Standards and
Interpretations.
Results of Operations
Earnings available to parent decreased slightly in the first six months of 2011, compared to
the same period of 2010. The decrease in earnings was due to lower revenues, partially offset by
lower purchased power and amortization of regulatory assets.
Revenues
Revenues decreased by $183 million, or 29%, in the first six months of 2011, compared to the same
period of 2010, due to lower retail generation and distribution revenues.
Distribution revenues decreased by $14 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to the
same period of 2010, due to lower average unit prices for the residential and industrial customer
classes, partially offset by increased KWH deliveries to the residential and commercial customer
classes. The lower average unit prices were the result of the absence of transition charges in
2011. Higher KWH deliveries to the residential class were driven by increased weather-related
usage in the first six months of 2011, reflecting a 15% increase in heating degree days in CEIs
service territory. Lower distribution deliveries to industrial customers reflected softer economic
conditions in this sector.
Changes in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first six months of 2011, compared to
the same period of 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
2.2 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
2.9 |
% |
Industrial |
|
|
(3.1 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
Increase in Distribution Deliveries |
|
|
0.6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Distribution Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
2 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
17 |
|
Industrial |
|
|
(33 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Distribution Revenues |
|
$ |
(14 |
) |
|
|
|
|
136
Retail generation revenues decreased by $169 million in the first six months of 2011, compared
to the same period of 2010, primarily due to lower KWH sales in all customer classes and lower
average unit prices for the commercial and residential customer classes. Customer shopping has
increased for residential, commercial and industrial classes by 22%, 13% and 36%, respectively.
Retail generation obligations are attributable to non-shopping customers and are procured through
full-requirements auctions. CEI defers the difference between retail generation revenues and
purchased power costs, resulting in no material effect to current period earnings. Reduced KWH
sales were primarily the result of increased customer shopping in the first six months of 2011,
partially offset by the impact of increased weather-related usage by residential customers as
described above. Lower average unit prices in the residential customer class were the result of
generation credits in place for 2011.
Decreases in retail generation sales and revenues in the first six months of 2011, compared to the
same period of 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation KWH Sales |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
(46.6 |
)% |
Commercial |
|
|
(44.2 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
(69.8 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Sales |
|
|
(55.0 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation Revenues |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
(69 |
) |
Commercial |
|
|
(46 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(54 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
(169 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Expenses
Total expenses decreased by $173 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to the same
period of 2010. The following table presents the change from the prior period by expense category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Expenses - Changes |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Purchased power costs |
|
$ |
(155 |
) |
Other operating costs |
|
|
6 |
|
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(34 |
) |
General taxes |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Expenses |
|
$ |
(173 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchased power costs decreased in the first six months of 2011 due to lower KWH purchases
resulting from reduced sales requirements in the first six months of 2011. Other operating
expenses increased principally due to 2011 inventory valuation adjustments. Decreased amortization
of regulatory assets was primarily due to the completion of transition cost recovery at the end of
2010 and deferred residential generation credits in 2011, partially offset by increased recovery of
deferred distribution costs and the absence in 2011 of renewable energy credit expenses that were
deferred in 2010. General taxes increased in the first six months of 2011 due to increased
property taxes as compared to the same period of 2010.
137
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: Regulatory
Assets, 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 $3 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to
the same period of 2010. The increase primarily resulted from lower purchased power costs and
higher cost deferrals, partially offset by lower revenues and higher other operating expenses.
Revenues
Revenues decreased by $40 million, or 16%, in the first six months of 2011, compared to the same
period of 2010, due to a decrease in retail generation revenues, partially offset by higher
distribution revenues and wholesale generation revenues.
Distribution revenues increased by $3 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to the same
period of 2010, due to higher residential revenues, partially offset by lower industrial revenues.
Residential revenues were the result of higher KWH deliveries and average unit prices. The higher
KWH deliveries in the residential class were driven by increased weather-related usage in the first
six months of 2011, reflecting a 14% increase in heating degree days, partially offset by a 23%
decrease in cooling degree days in TEs service territory. Industrial revenues were impacted by
lower average unit prices, partially offset by higher KWH deliveries from recovering economic
conditions.
Changes in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first six months of 2011, compared to
the same period of 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
4.5 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
(2.5 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
3.7 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Distribution Deliveries |
|
|
2.6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Distribution Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
5 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
|
|
Industrial |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Distribution Revenues |
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Retail generation revenues decreased by $53 million in the first six months of 2011, compared
to the same period of 2010, due to lower KWH sales and lower unit prices for all customer classes.
Retail generation obligations are attributable to non-shopping customers and are procured through
full-requirements auctions. TE defers the difference between retail generation revenues and
purchased power costs, resulting in no material effect to current period earnings. Lower KWH sales
were the result of increased customer shopping, partially offset by increased weather-related usage
as described above. Customer shopping has increased for residential, commercial and industrial
classes by 16%, 13% and 5%, respectively.
138
Decreases in retail generation KWH sales and revenues in the first six months of 2011, compared to
the same period of 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation KWH Sales |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
(28.3 |
)% |
Commercial |
|
|
(46.6 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
(11.7 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Sales |
|
|
(22.6 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation Revenues |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
(16 |
) |
Commercial |
|
|
(13 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
(53 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Wholesale revenues increased by $9 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to the
same period of 2010, primarily due to higher revenues from sales to NGC from TEs leasehold
interest in Beaver Valley Unit 2.
Expenses
Total expenses decreased by $42 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to the same
period of 2010. The following table presents changes from the prior period by expense category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Expenses - Changes |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Purchased power costs |
|
$ |
(53 |
) |
Other operating expenses |
|
|
18 |
|
Deferral of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(8 |
) |
General Taxes |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Expenses |
|
$ |
(42 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchased power costs decreased in the first six months of 2011, compared to the same period of
2010, due to lower KWH purchases resulting from reduced generation sales requirements in the first
six months of 2011 coupled with lower unit costs. The increase in other operating costs for the
first six months of 2011 was primarily due to expenses associated with the 2011 refueling outage at
the leased Beaver Valley Unit 2 and an Ohio Supreme Court decision rendered in the second quarter
of 2011 favoring a large industrial customer, both of which were absent in 2010. The deferral of
regulatory assets reduced expenses due to higher PUCO-approved cost deferrals in the first six
months of 2011, compared to the same period of 2010.
Other Expense
Other expense increased by $2 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to the same period
of 2010, due to lower nuclear decommissioning trust investment income.
139
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.
As authorized by JCP&Ls Board of Directors, on May 31, 2011 JCP&L returned $500 million of capital
to FirstEnergy Corp., the sole owner of all of the shares of JCP&Ls common stock.
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: Regulatory
Assets, Capital Resources and Liquidity, Market Risk Information, Credit Risk, Outlook and New
Accounting Standards and Interpretations.
Results of Operations
Net income decreased by $18 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to the same period of
2010. The decrease was primarily due to lower revenues, partially offset by reductions in purchased
power costs, other operating costs and net amortization of regulatory assets.
Revenues
Revenues decreased by $190 million, or 13%, in the first six months of 2011 compared to the same
period of 2010. The decrease in revenues was due to lower distribution and retail generation
revenues, partially offset by an increase in wholesale generation and other revenues.
Distribution revenues decreased by $71 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to the
same period of 2010, primarily due to an NJBPU-approved rate adjustment that became effective March
1, 2011, for all customer classes. The lower KWH deliveries to the residential class were
influenced by decreased weather-related usage in the first six months of 2011, reflecting a 16%
decrease in cooling degree days offsetting a 7% increase in heating degree days in JCP&Ls service
territory. Lower distribution deliveries to commercial and industrial customers reflected soft
economic conditions in these sectors.
Decreases in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first six months of 2011 compared to
the same period of 2010 are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
(2.5 |
)% |
Commercial |
|
|
(3.3 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
(1.8 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Distribution Deliveries |
|
|
(2.7 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution Revenues |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
(33 |
) |
Commercial |
|
|
(31 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Distribution Revenues |
|
$ |
(71 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Retail generation revenues decreased by $132 million due to lower retail generation KWH sales
in all customer classes primarily due to an increase in customer shopping. Customer shopping has
increased for residential, commercial and industrial classes by 10%, 11% and 4%, respectively.
Retail generation obligations are attributable to non-shopping customers and are procured through
full-requirements auctions. JCP&L defers the difference between retail generation revenues and
purchased power costs, resulting in no material effect to current period earnings.
140
Decreases in retail generation KWH sales and revenues in the first six months of 2011, compared to
the same period of 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation KWH Sales |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
(12.1 |
)% |
Commercial |
|
|
(26.2 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
(24.8 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Sales |
|
|
(16.7 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation Revenues |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
(68 |
) |
Commercial |
|
|
(59 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
(132 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Wholesale generation revenues increased by $6 million in the first six months of 2011, compared
to the same period of 2010, due to an increase in PJM spot market energy sales.
Other revenues increased by $8 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to the same period
of 2010, primarily due to increases in PJM network transmission revenues and transition bond
revenues.
Expenses
Total expenses decreased by $163 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to the same
period of 2010. The following table presents changes from the prior period by expense category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Expenses - Changes |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Purchased power costs |
|
$ |
(126 |
) |
Other operating costs |
|
|
(6 |
) |
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
(3 |
) |
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(29 |
) |
General taxes |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Expenses |
|
$ |
(163 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchased power costs decreased by $126 million in the first six months of 2011 due to lower
requirements from reduced retail generation sales. Other operating costs decreased by $6 million in
the first six months of 2011 principally from lower storm restoration costs. The amortization of
regulatory assets decreased by $29 million due to reduced cost recovery under the NJBPU-approved
NUG tariffs that became effective March 1, 2011, partially offset by lower storm cost deferrals and
the write-off of nonrecoverable NUG costs.
141
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 procures power under its Default Service Plan (DSP) in which full
requirements products (energy, capacity, ancillary services, and applicable transmission services)
are procured through descending clock auctions.
As authorized by Met-Eds Board of Directors, Met-Ed returned $150 million of capital to
FirstEnergy Corp. on May 31, 2011, the sole owner of all of the shares of Met-Eds common stock.
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: Regulatory
Assets, 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 $10 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to the same period of
2010. The increase was primarily due to decreased purchased power, other operating expenses and
amortization of net regulatory assets partially offset by decreased revenues.
Revenues
Revenue decreased by $279 million, or 30%, in the first six months of 2011 compared to the same
period of 2010, reflecting lower distribution, retail generation, wholesale generation and
transmission revenues.
Distribution revenues decreased by $154 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to the
same period of 2010, primarily due to lower rates resulting from the DSP that began in 2011 that
eliminated the transmission component from the distribution rate. Slightly higher KWH deliveries
reflect increased weather-related usage due to an 8% increase in heating degree days offsetting a
15% decrease in cooling degree days in the first six months of 2011, compared to the same period in
2010.
Changes in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first six months of 2011, compared to
the same period of 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
0.2 |
% |
Commercial |
|
|
(4.1 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
3.6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Distribution Deliveries |
|
|
0.5 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution Revenues |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
(58 |
) |
Commercial |
|
|
(47 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(49 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Distribution Revenues |
|
$ |
(154 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Retail generation revenues decreased by $10 million in the first six months of 2011 compared to
the same period of 2010, due to lower KWH sales to all customer classes resulting from increased
customer shopping. Customer shopping has increased for residential, commercial and industrial
classes by 1%, 42% and 87%, respectively. The impact of increased customer shopping is partially
offset by higher generation rates that reflect the inclusion of transmission services under the
DSP, effective January 1, 2011, for all customer classes. Retail generation obligations are
attributable to non-shopping customers and are procured through full-requirements auctions. In
2011, Met-Ed began deferring the difference between retail generation revenues and purchased power
costs, resulting in no material effect to current period earnings.
142
Changes in retail generation KWH sales and revenues in the first six months of 2011, compared to
the same period of 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation KWH Sales |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
(1.0 |
)% |
Commercial |
|
|
(44.7 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
(87.6 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Sales |
|
|
(43.1 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Retail Generation Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
88 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
(14 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(84 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Retail Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
(10 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Wholesale revenues decreased by $105 million in the first six months of 2011 compared to the
same period of 2010 primarily due to Met-Ed ending certain capacity purchase for resale contracts.
Transmission revenues decreased by $11 million in the first six months of 2011 compared to the same
period of 2010 primarily due to the termination of Met-Eds TSC rates effective January 1, 2011.
Met-Ed defers the difference between transmission revenues and transmission costs incurred,
resulting in no material effect to current period earnings.
Expenses
Total
expenses decreased $290 million in the first six months of 2011 compared to the same period
of 2010. The following table presents changes from the prior year by expense category:
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses - Changes |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Purchased power costs |
|
$ |
(149 |
) |
Other operating costs |
|
|
(95 |
) |
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
(1 |
) |
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
(43 |
) |
General taxes |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Expenses |
|
$ |
(290 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchased power costs decreased by $149 million in the first six months of 2011 due to a
decrease in KWH purchased to source generation sales requirements, partially offset by higher unit
costs. Other operating costs decreased $95 million in the first six months of 2011 compared to the
same period in 2010 due to lower transmission congestion and transmission loss expenses that are
now included in the cost of purchased power (see reference to deferral accounting above) partially
offset by increased costs for energy efficiency programs. The amortization of regulatory assets
decreased $43 million in the first six months of 2011 primarily due to the termination of
transmission and transition tariff riders at the end of 2010. General taxes decreased by
$2 million in the first six months of 2011 primarily due to lower gross receipts taxes.
Other Expense
In the first six months of 2011, interest income decreased by $2 million due to reduced CTC
stranded asset balances compared to the same period of 2010.
143
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 electric transmission and
distribution services. Penelec also procures generation service for those customers electing to
retain Penelec as their power supplier. Penelec procures power under its Default Service Plan (DSP)
in which full requirements products (energy, capacity, ancillary services and applicable
transmission services) are procured through descending clock auctions.
For additional information with respect to Penelec, please see the information contained in
FirstEnergys Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
under the following subheadings, which information is incorporated by reference herein: Regulatory
Assets, 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 $2 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to the same period of
2010. The increase was primarily due to lower purchased power and other operating costs, partially
offset by lower revenues and higher net amortization of regulatory assets.
Revenues
Revenues decreased by $193 million, or 25%, in the first six months of 2011 compared to the same
period of 2010. The decrease in revenue was primarily due to lower distribution revenues, retail
and wholesale generation revenues, and transmission revenues.
Distribution revenues decreased by $5 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to the same
period of 2010, primarily due to lower rates resulting from the DSP that began in 2011 that
eliminated the transmission component from the distribution rate, partially offset by a PPUC
approved rate adjustment for NUG costs. Higher KWH deliveries to industrial customers were
primarily due to recovering economic conditions in Penelecs service territories, compared to the
first six months of 2010. Lower KWH deliveries to residential and commercial customers in the first
six months of 2011 reflected lower weather-related usage as cooling degree days were 10% below the
same period in 2010.
Changes in distribution KWH deliveries and revenues in the first six months of 2011, compared to
the same period of 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Distribution KWH Deliveries |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
(1.2 |
)% |
Commercial |
|
|
(4.7 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
7.3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Distribution Deliveries |
|
|
1.4 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Distribution Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
3 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
(14 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Distribution Revenues |
|
$ |
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Retail generation revenues decreased by $80 million in the first six months of 2011, compared
to the same period of 2010, due to lower KWH sales for all customer classes resulting from
increased customer shopping. The increase in customer shopping for residential, commercial and
industrial customer classes was 2%, 45% and 81%, respectively. The impact of customer shopping is
partially offset by higher generation rates that reflect the inclusion of transmission services
under the DSP, effective January 1, 2011, for all customer classes. Retail generation obligations
are attributable to non-shopping customers and are procured through full-requirements auctions. In
2011, Penelec began deferring the difference between retail generation revenues and purchased power
costs, resulting in no material effect to current period earnings.
144
Changes in retail generation KWH sales and revenues in the first six months of 2011, compared to
the same period of 2010, are summarized in the following tables:
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Generation KWH Sales |
|
Decrease |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential |
|
|
(2.7 |
)% |
Commercial |
|
|
(47.1 |
)% |
Industrial |
|
|
(87.4 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Retail Generation Sales |
|
|
(47.5 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Retail Generation Revenues |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Residential |
|
$ |
52 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
(35 |
) |
Industrial |
|
|
(97 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Retail Generation Revenues |
|
$ |
(80 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Wholesale generation revenues decreased by $98 million in the first six months of 2011,
compared to the same period of 2010, due to Penelec no longer purchasing non-NUG capacity for
resale to the PJM market beginning in 2011.
Transmission revenues decreased by $11 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to the
same period of 2010, primarily due to the termination of Penelecs TSC rates effective January 1,
2011. Penelec defers the difference between transmission revenues and transmission costs incurred,
resulting in no material effect to current period earnings.
Expenses
Total
expenses decreased by $200 million in the first six months of 2011, as compared with the same
period of 2010. The following table presents changes from the prior year by expense category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase |
|
Expenses - Changes |
|
(Decrease) |
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Purchased power costs |
|
$ |
(192 |
) |
Other operating costs |
|
|
(53 |
) |
Amortization of regulatory assets, net |
|
|
46 |
|
Provision for depreciation |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Net Decrease in Expenses |
|
$ |
(200 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchased power costs decreased by $192 million in the first six months of 2011, compared to
the same period of 2010, due to decreased KWH purchased to source generation sales requirements.
Other operating costs decreased by $53 million in the first six months of 2011, due to lower
transmission congestion and transmission loss expenses that are now included in the cost of
purchased power (see reference to deferral accounting above). The amortization of net regulatory
assets increased by $46 million in the first six months of 2011, primarily due to reduced NUG
deferrals as a result of a PPUC approved increase in Penelecs NUG cost recovery rider in January
2011.
145
|
|
|
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
The management of each registrant, with the participation of each registrants 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 of each
registrant have concluded that each respective registrants disclosure controls and procedures were
effective as of the end of the period covered by this report.
(b) CHANGES IN INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
During the quarter ended June 30, 2011, other than changes resulting from the Allegheny merger
discussed below, there have been no changes in internal control over financial reporting that have
materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, FirstEnergys, FES, OEs,
CEIs, TEs, JCP&Ls, Met-Eds and Penelecs internal control over financial reporting.
On February 25, 2011, the merger between FirstEnergy and Allegheny closed. FirstEnergy is
currently in the process of integrating Alleghenys operations, processes, and internal controls.
See Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements in Part I, Item I for additional information
relating to the merger.
146
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.
For the quarter ended June 30, 2011, there have been no material changes to the risk factors
included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as modified by
changes to certain risk factors disclosed in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2011.
|
|
|
ITEM 2. |
|
UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS |
(c) FirstEnergy
The table below includes information on a monthly basis regarding purchases made by FirstEnergy of
its common stock during the second quarter of 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period |
|
|
|
April |
|
|
May |
|
|
June |
|
|
Second Quarter |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Number of Shares Purchased(a) |
|
|
213,550 |
|
|
|
367,422 |
|
|
|
428,966 |
|
|
|
1,009,938 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Price Paid per Share |
|
$ |
38.59 |
|
|
$ |
42.62 |
|
|
$ |
44.44 |
|
|
$ |
42.54 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Number of Shares Purchased As Part of
Publicly Announced Plans or Programs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maximum Number (or Approximate Dollar Value)
of Shares that May Yet Be Purchased Under the
Plans or Programs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Share amounts reflect purchases on the open market to satisfy
FirstEnergys obligations to deliver common stock for some or all
of the following: 2007 Incentive Plan, Deferred Compensation Plan
for Outside Directors, Executive Deferred Compensation Plan,
Savings Plan, Director Compensation, Allegheny Energy, Inc. 1998
Long-Term Incentive Plan, Allegheny Energy, Inc. 2008 Long-Term
Incentive Plan, Allegheny Energy, Inc, Non-Employee Director Stock
Plan, Allegheny Energy, Inc, Amended and Restated Revised Plan for
Deferral of Compensation of Directors, and Stock Investment Plan. |
|
|
|
ITEM 5. |
|
OTHER INFORMATION |
Signal Peak Mine Safety
FirstEnergy, through its FEV wholly-owned subsidiary, has a 50% interest in Global Mining Group
LLC, a joint venture that owns Signal Peak which is a company that constructed and operates the
Bull Mountain Mine No. 1 (Mine), an underground coal mine near Roundup, Montana. The operation of
the Mine is subject to regulation by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) under
the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act).
Section 1503 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act),
which was enacted on July 21, 2010, contains new reporting requirements regarding mine safety,
including, to the extent applicable, disclosing in periodic reports filed under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 the receipt of certain notifications from the MSHA.
147
Signal Peak received the following notices of violation and proposed assessments for the Mine under
the Mine Act during the three months ended June 30, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signal |
|
|
|
Peak |
|
Number of significant and substantial violations of mandatory health
or safety standards under 104* |
|
|
30 |
|
Number of orders issued under 104(b)* |
|
|
|
|
Number of citations and orders for unwarrantable failure to comply
with mandatory health or safety standards under 104(d)* |
|
|
|
|
Number of flagrant violations under 110(b)(2)* |
|
|
|
|
Number of imminent danger orders issued under 107(a)* |
|
|
|
|
MSHA written notices under Mine Act section 104(e)* of a pattern
of violation of mandatory health or safety standards or of the
potential to have such a pattern |
|
|
|
|
Pending Mine Safety Commission legal actions (including any
contested citations issued) |
|
|
8 |
|
Number of mining related fatalities |
|
|
|
|
Total dollar value of proposed assessments |
|
$ |
6,989 |
|
|
|
|
* |
|
References to sections under Mine Act |
The inclusion of this information in this report is not an admission by FirstEnergy that it
controls Signal Peak or that Signal Peak is FirstEnergys subsidiary for purposes of Section 1503
or for any other purpose,
More detailed information about the Mine, including safety-related data, can be found at MSHAs
website, www.MSHA.gov. Signal Peak operates the Mine under the MSHA identification number 2401950.
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit Number |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FirstEnergy
|
|
|
|
3.1 |
|
|
Amendment to the Amended Articles of Incorporation of FirstEnergy Corp. dated
as of February 25, 2011 (incorporated by reference to FirstEnergys Form 8-K
filed February 25, 2011, Exhibit 3.1, File No. 21011) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.1 |
|
|
Credit Agreement, dated as of June 17, 2011, among FirstEnergy Corp.,
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Metropolitan Edison
Company, Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania Power Company, The Toledo
Edison Company, American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, Jersey
Central Power & Light Company, Monongahela Power Company, Pennsylvania
Electric Company, The Potomac Edison Company and West Penn Power Company, as
borrowers, the Royal Bank of Scotland plc, as administrative agent, and
the lending banks, fronting banks and swing line lenders identified
therein. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
Fixed charge ratios |
|
|
|
|
|
|
31.1 |
|
|
Certification of chief executive officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
31.2 |
|
|
Certification of chief financial officer, as adopted pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
Certification of chief executive officer and chief financial officer, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
101 |
* |
|
The following materials from the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of FirstEnergy
Corp. for the period ended June 30, 2011, formatted in XBRL (extensible
Business Reporting Language): (i) Consolidated Statements of Income and
Comprehensive Income, (ii) Consolidated Balance Sheets, (iii) Consolidated
Statements of Cash Flows, (iv) related notes to these financial statements
tagged as blocks of text and (v) document and entity information. |
148
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit Number |
|
|
FES
|
|
|
|
10.1 |
|
|
Credit Agreement, dated as of June 17, 2011, among FirstEnergy Solutions
Corp., and Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC, as borrowers, JPMorgan
Chase Bank, N.A., as administrative agent, and the lending banks,
fronting banks and swing line lenders identified therein. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
Solutions Corp. for the period ended June 30, 2011, formatted in XBRL
(extensible Business Reporting Language): (i) Consolidated Statements of
Income and Comprehensive Income, (ii) Consolidated Balance Sheets, (iii)
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, (iv) related notes to these financial
statements tagged as blocks of text and (v) document and entity information. |
|
|
|
|
|
OE
|
|
|
|
10.1 |
|
|
Credit Agreement, dated as of June 17, 2011, among FirstEnergy Corp.,
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Metropolitan Edison
Company, Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania Power Company, The Toledo
Edison Company, American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, Jersey
Central Power & Light Company, Monongahela Power Company, Pennsylvania
Electric Company, The Potomac Edison Company and West Penn Power, as
borrowers, the Royal Bank of Scotland plc, as administrative agent, and
the lending banks, fronting banks and swing line lenders identified
therein. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 Ohio Edison
Company. for the period ended June 30, 2011, formatted in XBRL (extensible
Business Reporting Language): (i) Consolidated Statements of Income and
Comprehensive Income, (ii) Consolidated Balance Sheets, (iii) Consolidated
Statements of Cash Flows, (iv) related notes to these financial statements
tagged as blocks of text and (v) document and entity information. |
|
|
|
|
|
CEI
|
|
|
|
10.1 |
|
|
Credit Agreement, dated as of June 17, 2011, among FirstEnergy Corp.,
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Metropolitan Edison
Company, Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania Power Company, The Toledo
Edison Company, American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, Jersey
Central Power & Light Company, Monongahela Power Company, Pennsylvania
Electric Company, The Potomac Edison Company and West Penn Power, as
borrowers, the Royal Bank of Scotland plc, as administrative agent, and
the lending banks, fronting banks and swing line lenders identified
therein. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 The
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company. for the period ended June 30, 2011,
formatted in XBRL (extensible Business Reporting Language): (i) Consolidated
Statements of Income and Comprehensive Income, (ii) Consolidated Balance
Sheets, (iii) Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, (iv) related notes to
these financial statements tagged as blocks of text and (v) document and
entity information. |
149
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit Number |
|
|
TE
|
|
|
|
10.1 |
|
|
Credit Agreement, dated as of June 17, 2011, among FirstEnergy Corp.,
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Metropolitan Edison
Company, Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania Power Company, The Toledo
Edison Company, American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, Jersey
Central Power & Light Company, Monongahela Power Company, Pennsylvania
Electric Company, The Potomac Edison Company and West Penn Power, as
borrowers, the Royal Bank of Scotland plc, as administrative agent, and
the lending banks, fronting banks and swing line lenders identified
therein. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 The Toledo
Edison Company. for the period ended June 30, 2011, formatted in XBRL
(extensible Business Reporting Language): (i) Consolidated Statements of
Income and Comprehensive Income, (ii) Consolidated Balance Sheets, (iii)
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, (iv) related notes to these financial
statements tagged as blocks of text and (v) document and entity information. |
|
|
|
|
|
JCP&L
|
|
|
|
10.1 |
|
|
Credit Agreement, dated as of June 17, 2011, among FirstEnergy Corp.,
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Metropolitan Edison
Company, Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania Power Company, The Toledo
Edison Company, American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, Jersey
Central Power & Light Company, Monongahela Power Company, Pennsylvania
Electric Company, The Potomac Edison Company and West Penn Power, as
borrowers, the Royal Bank of Scotland plc, as administrative agent, and
the lending banks, fronting banks and swing line lenders identified
therein. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 Jersey
Central Power & Light Company. for the period ended June 30, 2011, formatted
in XBRL (extensible Business Reporting Language): (i) Consolidated Statements
of Income and Comprehensive Income, (ii) Consolidated Balance Sheets, (iii)
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, (iv) related notes to these financial
statements tagged as blocks of text and (v) document and entity information. |
|
|
|
|
|
Met-Ed
|
|
|
|
10.1 |
|
|
Credit Agreement, dated as of June 17, 2011, among FirstEnergy Corp.,
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Metropolitan Edison
Company, Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania Power Company, The Toledo
Edison Company, American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, Jersey
Central Power & Light Company, Monongahela Power Company, Pennsylvania
Electric Company, The Potomac Edison Company and West Penn Power, as
borrowers, the Royal Bank of Scotland plc, as administrative agent, and
the lending banks, fronting banks and swing line lenders identified
therein. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
150
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit Number |
|
|
|
101 |
* |
|
The following materials from the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Metropolitan
Edison Company. for the period ended June 30, 2011, formatted in XBRL
(extensible Business Reporting Language): (i) Consolidated Statements of
Income and Comprehensive Income, (ii) Consolidated Balance Sheets, (iii)
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, (iv) related notes to these financial
statements tagged as blocks of text and (v) document and entity information. |
|
|
|
|
|
Penelec
|
|
|
|
10.1 |
|
|
Credit Agreement, dated as of June 17, 2011, among FirstEnergy Corp.,
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Metropolitan Edison
Company, Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania Power Company, The Toledo
Edison Company, American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, Jersey
Central Power & Light Company, Monongahela Power Company, Pennsylvania
Electric Company, The Potomac Edison Company and West Penn Power, as
borrowers, the Royal Bank of Scotland plc, as administrative agent, and
the lending banks, fronting banks and swing line lenders identified
therein. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 Pennsylvania
Electric Company. for the period ended June 30, 2011, formatted in XBRL
(extensible Business Reporting Language): (i) Consolidated Statements of
Income and Comprehensive Income, (ii) Consolidated Balance Sheets, (iii)
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, (iv) related notes to these financial
statements tagged as blocks of text and (v) document and entity information. |
|
|
|
* |
|
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.
151
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, each Registrant has duly
caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
August 2, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
FIRSTENERGY CORP.
Registrant
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.
Registrant
OHIO EDISON COMPANY
Registrant
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC
ILLUMINATING COMPANY
Registrant
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY
Registrant
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
Registrant
PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
Registrant
|
|
|
|
|
|
Harvey L. Wagner |
|
|
Vice President, Controller
and Chief Accounting Officer |
|
|
|
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
Registrant
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Jon Taylor |
|
|
Controller
(Principal Accounting Officer) |
|
152