FirstEnergy provides noncontributory defined benefit pension plans that cover substantially all of its employees. The trusteed plans provide defined benefits based on years of service and compensation levels. The Company’sFirstEnergy’s funding policy is based on actuarial computations using the projected unit credit method. FirstEnergy uses a December 31 measurement date for its pension and other postretirement benefit plans. The fair value of the plan assets represents the actual market value as of December 31, 2006. On January 2, 2007, FirstEnergy made a $300 million voluntary cash contribution to its qualified pension plan. Projections indicate that additional cash contributions are not expected to be required before 2016. FirstEnergy also provides a minimum amount of noncontributory life insurance to retired employees in addition to optional contributory insurance. Health care benefits, which include certain employee contributions, deductibles and co-payments, are available upon retirement to employees hired prior to January 1, 2005, their dependents and, under certain circumstances, their survivors. FirstEnergy recognizes the expected cost of providing pension benefits and other postretirement benefits from the time employees are hired until they become eligible to receive those benefits. During 2006, FirstEnergy amended the health care plan effective in 2008 to cap the monthly contribution for many of the retirees and their spouses receiving subsidized health care coverage. In addition, FirstEnergy has obligations to former or inactive employees after employment, but before retirement, for disability-related benefits.

The components of FirstEnergy's net periodic pension cost and other postretirement benefit costcosts (including amounts capitalized) for the three months and six months ended March 31,June 30, 2007 and 2006 consisted of the following:

Pension and other postretirement benefit obligations are allocated to FirstEnergy’s subsidiaries employing the plan participants. The CompaniesFirstEnergy’s subsidiaries capitalize employee benefits related to construction projects. The net periodic pension costs and net periodicother postretirement benefit costs (including amounts capitalized) recognized by each of the Companies for the three months and six months ended March 31,June 30, 2007 and 2006 were as follows:

The model rules for both CAIR and CAMR contemplate an input-based methodology to allocate allowances to affected facilities. Under this approach, allowances would be allocated based on the amount of fuel consumed by the affected sources. FirstEnergy would prefer an output-based generation-neutral methodology in which allowances are allocated based on megawatts of power produced, allowing new and non-emitting generating facilities (including renewables and nuclear) to be entitled to their proportionate share of the allowances. Consequently, FirstEnergy will be disadvantaged if these model rules were implemented as proposed because FirstEnergy’s substantial reliance on non-emitting (largely nuclear) generation is not recognized under the input-based allocation.

Pennsylvania has submitted a new mercury rule for EPA approval that does not provide a cap and trade approach as in the CAMR, but rather follows a command and control approach imposing emission limits on individual sources. Pennsylvania’s mercury regulation would deprive FES of mercury emission allowances that were to be allocated to the Mansfield Plant under the CAMR and that would otherwise be available for achieving FirstEnergy system-wide compliance. It is anticipated that compliance with these regulations, if approved by the EPA and implemented, would not require the addition of mercury controls at the Mansfield Plant, FirstEnergy’s only Pennsylvania coal-fired power plant, until 2015, if at all.

In 1999 and 2000, the EPA issued NOV or compliance orders to nine utilities alleging violations of the Clean Air Act based on operation and maintenance of 44 power plants, including the W. H. Sammis Plant, which was owned at that time by OE and Penn.Penn, and is now owned by FGCO. In addition, the DOJ filed eight civil complaints against various investor-owned utilities, including a complaint against OE and Penn in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. These cases are referred to as the New Source Review, or NSR, cases.

The Sammis NSR Litigation consent decree also requires FirstEnergy to spend up to $25 million toward environmentally beneficial projects, $14 million of which is satisfied by entering into 93 MW (or 23 MW if federal tax credits are not applicable) of wind energy purchased power agreements with a 20-year term. An initial 16 MW of the 93 MW consent decree obligation was satisfied during 2006.

In December 1997, delegates to the United Nations' climate summit in Japan adopted an agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, to address global warming by reducing the amount of man-made GHG emitted by developed countries by 5.2% from 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. The United States signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1998 but it failed to receive the two-thirds vote required for ratification by the United States Senate. However, the Bush administration has committed the United States to a voluntary climate change strategy to reduce domestic GHG intensity -– the ratio of emissions to economic output -– by 18% through 2012. At the international level, efforts have begun to develop climate change agreements for post-2012 GHG reductions. The EPACT established a Committee on Climate Change Technology to coordinate federal climate change activities and promote the development and deployment of GHG reducing technologies.

At the federal level, members of Congress have introduced several bills seeking to reduce emissions of GHG in the United States.  State activities, primarily the northeastern states participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and western states led by California, have coordinated efforts to develop regional strategies to control emissions of certain GHGs.

Various water quality regulations, the majority of which are the result of the federal Clean Water Act and its amendments, apply to FirstEnergy's plants. In addition, Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania have water quality standards applicable to FirstEnergy's operations. As provided in the Clean Water Act, authority to grant federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System water discharge permits can be assumed by a state. Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania have assumed such authority.

On September 7, 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 large 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 facility's cooling water system. On January 26, 2007, the federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit remanded portions of the rulemaking dealing with impingement mortality and entrainment back to EPA for further rulemaking and eliminated the restoration option from EPA’s regulations. On July 9, 2007, the EPA suspended this rule, noting that until further rulemaking occurs, permitting authorities should continue the existing practice of applying their best professional judgment (BPJ) to minimize impacts on fish and shellfish from cooling water intake structures. FirstEnergy is conducting comprehensive demonstration studies, due in 2008, to determine the operational measures or equipment, if any, necessary for compliance by its facilities with the performance standards. FirstEnergy is unable to predict the outcome of such studies or changes in these requirements from the remand to EPA.evaluating various control options and their costs and effectiveness. Depending on the outcome of such studies, andthe EPA’s further rulemaking and any action taken by the states exercising BPJ, the future cost of compliance with these standards may require material capital expenditures.

As a result of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, and the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, federal and state hazardous waste regulations have been promulgated. Certain fossil-fuel combustion waste products, such as coal ash, were exempted from hazardous waste disposal requirements pending the EPA's evaluation of the need for future regulation. The EPA subsequently determined that regulation of coal ash as a hazardous waste is unnecessary. In April 2000, the EPA announced that it will develop national standards regulating disposal of coal ash under its authority to regulate nonhazardous waste.

Under NRC regulations, FirstEnergy must ensure that adequate funds will be available to decommission its nuclear facilities.  As of March 31,June 30, 2007, FirstEnergy had approximately $1.4$1.5 billion invested in external trusts to be used for the decommissioning and environmental remediation of Davis-Besse, Beaver Valley and Perry.  As part of the application to the NRC to transfer the ownership of these nuclear facilities to NGC, FirstEnergy agreed to contribute another $80 million to these trusts by 2010. Consistent with NRC guidance, utilizing a “real” rate of return on these funds of approximately 2% over inflation, these trusts are expected to exceed the minimum decommissioning funding requirements set by the NRC. Conservatively, these estimates do not include any rate of return that the trusts may earn over the 20-year plant useful life extensions that FirstEnergy plans to seek for these facilities.

The Companies have been named as PRPs 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 PRPs for a particular site are liable on a joint and several basis. Therefore, environmental liabilities that are considered probable have been recognized on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31,June 30, 2007, based on estimates of the total costs of cleanup, the Companies' proportionate responsibility for such costs and the financial ability of other unaffiliated entities to pay. In addition, JCP&L has accrued liabilities for environmental remediation of former manufactured gas plants in New Jersey; those costs are being recovered by JCP&L through a non-bypassable SBC. Total liabilities of approximately $87$88 million (JCP&L - $59$60 million, TE - $3 million, CEI - $1 million, and other subsidiaries - $24 million) have been accrued through March 31,June 30, 2007.

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's territory. In an investigation into the causes of the outages and the reliability of the transmission and distribution systems of all four of New Jersey’s electric utilities, the NJBPU concluded that there was not a prima facie case demonstrating that, overall, JCP&L provided unsafe, inadequate or improper service to its customers. 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 arising from the July 1999 service interruptions in the JCP&L territory.

In August 2002, the trial court granted partial summary judgment to JCP&L and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for consumer fraud, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and strict product liability. In November 2003, the trial court granted JCP&L's motion to decertify the class and denied plaintiffs' motion to permit into evidence their class-wide damage model indicating damages in excess of $50 million. These class decertification and damage rulings were appealed to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division issued a decision on July 8, 2004, affirming the decertification of the originally certified class, but remanding for certification of a class limited to those customers directly impacted by the outages of JCP&L transformers in Red Bank, New Jersey.NJ, based on a common incident involving the failure of the bushings of two large transformers in the Red Bank substation resulting in planned and unplanned outages in the area during a 2-3 day period. In 2005, JCP&L renewed its motion to decertify the class based on a very limited number of class members who incurred damages and also filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining plaintiffs’ claims for negligence, breach of contract and punitive damages. In July 2006, the New Jersey Superior Court dismissed the punitive damage claim and again decertified the class based on the fact that a vast majority of the class members did not suffer damages and those that did would be more appropriately addressed in individual actions. Plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the New Jersey Appellate Division which, on March 7, 2007, reversed the decertification of the Red Bank class and remanded this matter back to the Trial Court to allow plaintiffs sufficient time to establish a damage model or individual proof of damages.  In late March 2007, JCP&L filed a petition for allowance of an appeal of the Appellate Division ruling to the New Jersey Supreme Court which was denied on May 9, 2007.  Proceedings are continuing in the Superior Court.  FirstEnergy is vigorously defending this class action but is unable to predict the outcome of these matters and nothis matter.  No liability has been accrued as of March 31,June 30, 2007.

On August 14, 2003, various states and parts of southern Canada experienced widespread power outages. The outages affected approximately 1.4 million customers in FirstEnergy's service area. The U.S. -– Canada Power System Outage Task Force’s final report in April 2004 on the outages concluded, among other things, that the problems leading to the outages began in FirstEnergy’s Ohio service area. Specifically, the final report concluded, among other things, that the initiation of the August 14, 2003 power outages resulted from an alleged failure of both FirstEnergy and ECAR to assess and understand perceived inadequacies within the FirstEnergy system; inadequate situational awareness of the developing conditions; and a perceived failure to adequately manage tree growth in certain transmission rights of way. The Task Force also concluded that there was a failure of the interconnected grid's reliability organizations (MISO and PJM) to provide effective real-time diagnostic support. The final report is publicly available through the Department of Energy’s Web site (www.doe.gov). FirstEnergy believes that the final report does not provide a complete and comprehensive picture of the conditions that contributed to the August 14, 2003 power outages and that it does not adequately address the underlying causes of the outages. FirstEnergy remains convinced that the outages cannot be explained by events on any one utility's system. The final report contained 46 “recommendations to prevent or minimize the scope of future blackouts.” Forty-five of those recommendations related to broad industry or policy matters while one, including subparts, related to activities the Task Force recommended be undertaken by FirstEnergy, MISO, PJM, ECAR, and other parties to correct the causes of the August 14, 2003 power outages. FirstEnergy implemented several initiatives, both prior to and since the August 14, 2003 power outages, which were independently verified by NERC as complete in 2004 and were consistent with these and other recommendations and collectively enhance the reliability of its electric system. FirstEnergy’s implementation of these recommendations in 2004 included completion of the Task Force recommendations that were directed toward FirstEnergy. FirstEnergy is also proceeding with the implementation of the recommendations that were to be completed subsequent to 2004 and will continue to periodically assess the FERC-ordered Reliability Study recommendations for forecasted 2009 system conditions, recognizing revised load forecasts and other changing system conditions which may impact the recommendations. Thus far, implementation of the recommendations has not required, nor is expected to require, substantial investment in new or material upgrades to existing equipment. The FERC or other applicable government agencies and reliability coordinators may, however, take a different view as to recommended enhancements or may recommend additional enhancements in the future that could require additional material expenditures.

FirstEnergy companies also are defending four separate complaint cases before the PUCO relating to the August 14, 2003 power outages. Two of those cases were originally filed in Ohio State courts but were subsequently dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and further appeals were unsuccessful. In these cases the individual complainants—three in one case and four in the other—sought to represent others as part of a class action. The PUCO dismissed the class allegations, stating that its rules of practice do not provide for class action complaints. Two other pending PUCO complaint cases were filed by various insurance carriers either in their own name as subrogees or in the name of their insured. In each of these cases, the carrier seeks reimbursement from various FirstEnergy companies (and, in one case, from PJM, MISO and American Electric Power Company, Inc., as well) for claims paid to insureds for damages allegedly arising as a result of the loss of power on August 14, 2003. A fifth case in which a carrier sought reimbursement for claims paid to insureds was voluntarily dismissed by the claimant in April 2007. A sixth case involving the claim of a non-customer seeking reimbursement for losses incurred when its store was burglarized on August 14, 2003 was dismissed. The four cases were consolidated for hearing by the PUCO in an order dated March 7, 2006.  In that order the PUCO also limited the litigation to service-related claims by customers of the Ohio operating companies; dismissed FirstEnergy as a defendant; and ruled that the U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force Report was not admissible into evidence. In response to a motion for rehearing filed by one of the claimants, the PUCO ruled on April 26, 2006 that the insurance company claimants, as insurers, may prosecute their claims in their name so long as they also identify the underlying insured entities and the Ohio utilities that provide their service. The PUCO denied all other motions for rehearing. The plaintiffs in each case have since filed amended complaints and the named FirstEnergy companies have answered and also have filed a motion to dismiss each action. On September 27, 2006, the PUCO dismissed certain parties and claims and otherwise ordered the complaints to go forward to hearing. The cases have been set for hearing on January 8, 2008.

On October 10, 2006, various insurance carriers refiled a complaint in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court seeking reimbursement for claims paid to numerous insureds who allegedly suffered losses as a result of the August 14, 2003 outages. All of the insureds appear to be non-customers. The plaintiff insurance companies are the same claimants in one of the pending PUCO cases. FirstEnergy, the Ohio Companies and Penn were served on October 27, 2006.  On January 18, 2007, the Court granted the Companies’ motion to dismiss the case. It is unknown whether orcase and they have not been appealed.  However, on April 25, 2007, one of the matter will be further appealed.insurance carriers refiled the complaint naming only FirstEnergy as the defendant.  On July 30, 2007, the case was voluntarily dismissed.  No estimate of potential liability is available for any of these cases.

FirstEnergy was also named, along with several other entities, in a complaint in New Jersey State Court. The allegations against FirstEnergy were based, in part, on an alleged failure to protect the citizens of Jersey City from an electrical power outage. None of FirstEnergy’s subsidiaries serve customers in Jersey City. A responsive pleading has been filed. On April 28, 2006, the Court granted FirstEnergy's motion to dismiss. The plaintiff has not appealed.

FirstEnergy is vigorously defending these actions, but cannot predict the outcome of any of these proceedings or whether any further regulatory proceedings or legal actions may be initiated against the Companies. Although FirstEnergy is unable to predict the impact of these proceedings, if FirstEnergy or its subsidiaries were ultimately determined to have legal liability in connection with these proceedings, it could have a material adverse effect on FirstEnergy's or its subsidiaries' financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

On August 12, 2004, the NRC notified FENOC that it would increase its regulatory oversight of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant as a result of problems with safety system equipment over the preceding two years and the licensee's failure to take prompt and corrective action. On April 4, 2005, the NRC held a public meeting to discuss FENOC’s performance at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant as identified in the NRC's annual assessment letter to FENOC. Similar public meetings are held with all nuclear power plant licensees following issuance by the NRC of their annual assessments. According to the NRC, overall the Perry Nuclear Power Plant operated "in a manner that preserved public health and safety" even though it remained under heightened NRC oversight. During the public meeting and in the annual assessment, the NRC indicated that additional inspections willwould continue and that the plant must improve performance to be removed from the Multiple/Repetitive Degraded Cornerstone Column of the Action Matrix.

On September 28, 2005, the NRC sent a CAL to FENOC describing commitments that FENOC had made to improve the performance at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant and stated that the CAL would remain open until substantial improvement was demonstrated. The CAL was anticipated as part of the NRC's Reactor Oversight Process. By two letters dated March 2, 2007, the NRC closed the Confirmatory Action LetterCAL commitments for Perry, the two outstanding white findings, and crosscutting issues.  Moreover, the NRC removed Perry from the Multiple Degraded Cornerstone Column of the NRC Action Matrix and placed the plant in the Licensee Response Column (routine(regular agency oversight).

There are various lawsuits, claims (including claims for asbestos exposure) and proceedings related to FirstEnergy's normal business operations pending against FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries. The other potentially material items not otherwise discussed above are described below.

On August 22, 2005, a class action complaint was filed against OE in Jefferson County, Ohio Common Pleas Court, seeking compensatory and punitive damages to be determined at trial based on claims of negligence and eight other tort counts alleging damages from W.H. Sammis Plant air emissions. The two named plaintiffs are also seeking injunctive relief to eliminate harmful emissions and repair property damage and the institution of a medical monitoring program for class members. On April 5, 2007, the Court rejected the plaintiffs'plaintiffs’ request to certify this case as a class action and, accordingly, did not appoint the plaintiffs as class representatives or their counsel as class counsel. The Court has scheduled oral argument for June 25,On July 30, 2007, to hear the plaintiffs'plaintiffs’ counsel voluntarily withdrew their request for reconsideration of itsthe April 5, 2007 Court order denying class certification and requestthe Court heard oral argument on the plaintiff’s motion to amend their complaint.complaint which OE has opposed.

JCP&L's bargaining unit employees filed a grievance challenging JCP&L's 2002 call-out procedure that required bargaining unit employees to respond to emergency power outages. On May 20, 2004, an arbitration panel concluded that the call-out procedure violated the parties' collective bargaining agreement. At the conclusion of the June 1, 2005 hearing, the arbitration panel decided not to hear testimony on damages and closed the proceedings. On September 9, 2005, the arbitration panel issued an opinion to award approximately $16 million to the bargaining unit employees. On February 6, 2006, a federal district court granted a union motion to dismiss, as premature, a JCP&L appeal of the award filed on October 18, 2005. JCP&L intends to re-file an appeal again in federal district court once the damages associated with this case are identified at an individual employee level. JCP&L recognized a liability for the potential $16 million award in 2005. The parties met on June 27, 2007 before an arbitrator to assert their positions regarding the finality of damages. A hearing before the arbitrator is set for September 7, 2007.

In late 2003 and early 2004, a series of letters, reports and recommendations were issued from various entities, including governmental, industry and ad hoc reliability entities (PUCO, FERC, NERC and the U.S. -– Canada Power System Outage Task Force) regarding enhancements to regional reliability. In 2004, FirstEnergy completed implementation of all actions and initiatives related to enhancing area reliability, improving voltage and reactive management, operator readiness and training and emergency response preparedness recommended for completion in 2004. On July 14, 2004, NERC independently verified that FirstEnergy had implemented the various initiatives to be completed by June 30 or summer 2004, with minor exceptions noted by FirstEnergy, which exceptions are now essentially complete. FirstEnergy is proceeding with the implementation of the recommendations that were to be completed subsequent to 2004 and will continue to periodically assess the FERC-ordered Reliability Study recommendations for forecasted 2009 system conditions, recognizing revised load forecasts and other changing system conditions which may impact the recommendations. Thus far, implementation of the recommendations has not required, nor is expected to require, substantial investment in new equipment or material upgrades to existing equipment. The FERC or other applicable government agencies and reliability entities may, however, take a different view as to recommended enhancements or may recommend additional enhancements in the future, which could require additional, material expenditures.