Indicate by check mark whether each of the registrants (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.

Indicate by check mark whether any of the registrantregistrants is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of "accelerated filer and large accelerated filer" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Indicate by check mark whether any of the registrantregistrants is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer'sissuer’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date:

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's principal business is the holding, directly or indirectly, of all of the outstanding common stock of its eight principal electric utility operating subsidiaries: OE, CEI, TE, Penn, ATSI, JCP&L, Met-Ed and Penelec. Penn is a wholly owned subsidiary of OE. FirstEnergy’s consolidated financial statements also include its other subsidiaries: FENOC, FES and its subsidiaries FGCO and NGC, and FESC.

FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries follow GAAP and comply with the regulations, orders, policies and practices prescribed by the SEC, FERC and, as applicable, the PUCO, PPUC and NJBPU. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make periodic estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. Actual results could differ from these estimates. The reported results of operations are not indicative of results of operations for any future period.

These statements should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes included in the combined Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 for FirstEnergy and the Companies. The consolidated unaudited financial statements of FirstEnergy, FES and each of the Companies reflect all normal recurring adjustments that, in the opinion of management, are necessary to fairly present results of operations for the interim periods. Certain businesses divested in 2006 have been classified as discontinued operations on the Consolidated Statements of Income (see Note 3)4). As discussed in Note 12,14, interim period segment reporting in 2006 was reclassified to conform with the current year business segment organizations and operations. 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 (see Note 7)8) when it is determined to be the VIE's primary beneficiary. Investments in non-consolidated affiliates over which FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries have the ability to exercise significant influence, but not control (20-50% owned companies, joint ventures and partnerships) are accounted for underfollow the equity method.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 entity’s earnings is reported in the Consolidated Statements of Income. Certain prior year amounts

The consolidated financial statements as of September 30, 2007 and for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2007 and 2006 have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation.

Basic earnings per share of common stock is computed using the weighted average of actual common shares outstanding during the respective period as the denominator. The denominator for diluted earnings per share of common stock reflects the weighted average of common shares outstanding plus the potential additional common shares that could result if dilutive securities and other agreements to issue common stock were exercised. The pool of stock-based compensation tax benefits is calculated in accordance with SFAS 123(R). On August 10, 2006, FirstEnergy repurchased 10.6 million shares, approximately 3.2%, of its outstanding common stock through an accelerated share repurchase program. The initial purchase price was $600 million, or $56.44 per share. A final purchase price adjustment of $27 million was settled in cash on April 2, 2007. On March 2, 2007, FirstEnergy repurchased approximately 14.4 million shares, or 4.5%, of its outstanding common stock through an additional accelerated share repurchase program with an affiliate of Morgan Stanley and Co., Incorporated at an initial price of $62.63 per share, or a total initial purchase price of approximately $900 million. The final purchase price for this program will be adjusted to reflect the volume weightedvolume-weighted average price of FirstEnergy’s common stock during the period of time that the bank will acquire shares to cover its short position, which is approximately one year.expected to be by the end of 2007. The basic and diluted earnings per share calculations for the first quarter of 2007shown below reflect the impact associated with the March 2007these accelerated share repurchase program.programs. FirstEnergy intends to settle, in cash or shares, any obligation on its part to pay the difference between the average of the daily volume-weighted average price of the shares as calculated under the March 2007 program and the initial price of the shares. The effect of any potential settlement in shares is currently unknown.

In 2006, FirstEnergy sold its remaining FSG subsidiaries (Roth Bros., Hattenbach, Dunbar, Edwards and RPC) for an aggregate net after-tax gain of $2.2 million. Hattenbach, Dunbar, Edwards, and RPC are included in discontinued operations for the third quarter and nine months ended March 31,September 30, 2006; Roth Bros. doesdid not meet the criteria for that classification.

In March 2006, FirstEnergy sold 60% of its interest in MYR for an after-tax gain of $0.2 million. In June 2006, as part of the March agreement, FirstEnergy sold an additional 1.67% interest. As a result of the March sale, FirstEnergy deconsolidated MYR in the first quarter of 2006 and accounted for its remaining 38.33% interest under the equity method.  In the fourth quarter of 2006, FirstEnergy sold its remaining MYR interest for an after-tax gain of $8.6 million.

The income for the period that MYR was accounted for as an equity method investment has not been included in discontinued operations; however, results in the first quarter of 2006 prior to the initial sale in March 2006, including the gain on the sale, are reported as discontinued operations.

Revenues associated with discontinued operations were $140$36 million and $211 million in the third quarter and first quarternine months of 2006.2006, respectively. The following table summarizes the net income (loss) included in "Discontinued Operations" on the Consolidated Statements of Income for the three months and nine months ended March 31, 2006 (in millions):September 30, 2006:

FirstEnergy is exposed to financial risks resulting from the fluctuation of interest rates and commodity prices, including prices for electricity, natural gas, coal and energy transmission. To manage the volatility relating to these exposures, FirstEnergy uses a variety of derivative instruments, including forward contracts, options, futures contracts and swaps. The derivatives are used principally for hedging purposes. FirstEnergy's Risk Policy Committee, comprised of members of senior management, provides general management oversight for risk management activities throughout the Company.FirstEnergy. They are responsible for promoting the effective design and implementation of sound risk management programs. They also oversee compliance with corporate risk management policies and established risk management practices.

FirstEnergy accounts for derivative instruments on its Consolidated Balance Sheet at their fair value unless they meet the normal purchase and normal sales criterion. Derivatives that meet that criterion are accounted for on theusing traditional accrual basis.accounting. The changes in the fair value of derivative instruments that do not meet the normal purchase and normal sales criterion are recorded as other expense, as AOCL, or as part of the value of the hedged item, depending on whether or not it is designated as part of a hedge transaction, the nature of the hedge transaction and hedge effectiveness.

FirstEnergy hedges anticipated transactions using cash flow hedges. Such transactions include hedges of anticipated electricity and natural gas purchases and anticipated interest payments associated with future debt issues. The effective portion of such hedges are initially recorded in equity as other comprehensive income or loss and are subsequently included in net income as the underlying hedged commodities are delivered or interest payments are made. Gains and losses from any ineffective portion of cash flow hedges are included directly in earnings.

The net deferred losses of $45$52 million included in AOCL as of March 31,September 30, 2007, for derivative hedging activity, as compared to the$58 million as of December 31, 2006, balance of $58 million of net deferred losses, resulted from a net $9$10 million decreaseincrease related to current hedging activity and a $4$16 million decrease due to net hedge losses reclassified intoto earnings during the threenine months ended March 31,September 30, 2007. Based on current estimates, approximately $7$14 million (after tax) of the net deferred losses on derivative instruments in AOCL as of March 31,September 30, 2007 is expected to be reclassified to earnings during the next twelve months as hedged transactions occur. The fair value of these derivative instruments fluctuate from period to period based on various market factors.

FirstEnergy has entered into swaps that have been designated as fair value hedges of fixed-rate, long-term debt issues to protect against the risk of changes in the fair value of fixed-rate debt instruments due to lower interest rates. Swap maturities, call options, fixed interest rates received, and interest payment dates match those of the underlying debt obligations. In prior years,During the first nine months of 2007, FirstEnergy has unwound swaps the gains andwith a total notional value of $150 million, for which it incurred $8 million in cash losses are amortized in earningsthat will be recognized as interest expense over the remaining maturity of each respective hedged security as adjustments to interest expense.security. As of March 31,September 30, 2007, FirstEnergy had interest rate swaps with an aggregate notional value of $750$600 million and a fair value of $(24)$(14) million.

During 2006 and the first threenine months of 2007, FirstEnergy entered into several forward starting swap agreements (forward swaps) in order to hedge a portion of the consolidated interest rate risk associated with the anticipated issuances of fixed-rate, long-term debt securities for one or more of its subsidiaries during 2007 - 2008 as outstanding debt matures.matures during 2007 and 2008. These derivatives are 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. During the first threenine months of 2007, FirstEnergy terminated swaps with a notional value of $250 million$1.6 billion for which it paid $3$20 million, all of which waswere deemed effective. FirstEnergy will recognize the $20 million loss over the life of the associated future debt. As of March 31,September 30, 2007, FirstEnergy had forward swaps with an aggregate notional amount of $475$400 million and a long-term debt securities fair value of $(2)$5 million.

FirstEnergy has recognized applicable legal obligations under SFAS 143 for nuclear power plant decommissioning, reclamation of a sludge disposal pond and closure of two coal ash disposal sites. In addition, FirstEnergy has recognized conditional retirement obligations (primarily for asbestos remediation) in accordance with FIN 47.

The ARO liability of $1.2 billion as of March 31,September 30, 2007 is primarily related to the nuclear decommissioning of the Beaver Valley, Davis-Besse, Perry and TMI-2 nuclear generating facilities. The obligation to decommission these units was developed based on site specific studies performed by an independent engineer. FirstEnergy utilized an expected cash flow approach to measure the fair value of the nuclear decommissioning ARO.

FirstEnergy maintains nuclear decommissioning trust funds that are legally restricted for purposes of settling the nuclear decommissioning ARO. As of March 31,September 30, 2007, the fair value of the decommissioning trust assets was $2.0approximately $2.1 billion.

The following tables analyze changes to the ARO balancebalances during the first quarters ofthree months and nine months ended September 30, 2007 and 2006, respectively.

FirstEnergy provides noncontributory defined benefit pension plans that cover substantially all of its and its subsidiaries’ 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 nine months ended March 31,September 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 benefitsbenefit costs related to construction projects. The net periodic pension costs and net periodicother postretirement benefit costs (including amounts capitalized) recognized by FES and each of the Companies for the three months and nine months ended March 31,September 30, 2007 and 2006 were as follows:

FIN 46R addresses the consolidation of VIEs, including special-purpose entities, that are not controlled through voting interests or in which the equity investors do not bear the entity's residual economic risks and rewards. FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries consolidate VIEs when they are determined to be the VIE's primary beneficiary as defined by FIN 46R.

FirstEnergy’s consolidated financial statements include PNBV and Shippingport, VIEs created in 1996 and 1997, respectively, to refinance debt originally issued in connection with sale and leaseback transactions. PNBV and Shippingport financial data are included in the consolidated financial statements of OE and CEI, respectively.

PNBV was established to purchase a portion of the lease obligation bonds issued in connection with OE’s 1987 sale and leaseback of its interests in the Perry Plant and Beaver Valley Unit 2. OE used debt and available funds to purchase the notes issued by PNBV. Ownership of PNBV includes a 3% equity interest by an unaffiliated third party and a 3% equity interest held by OES Ventures, a wholly owned subsidiary of OE. Shippingport was established to purchase all of the lease obligation bonds issued in connection with CEI’s and TE’s Bruce Mansfield Plant sale and leaseback transaction in 1987. CEI and TE used debt and available funds to purchase the notes issued by Shippingport.

OE, CEI and TE are exposed to losses under the applicable sale-leaseback agreements upon the occurrence of certain contingent events that each company considers unlikely to occur. OE, CEI and TE each have a maximum exposure to loss under these provisions of approximately $817$827 million, $960$758 million and $960$758 million, respectively, which represents the net amount of casualty value payments upon the occurrence of specified casualty events that render the applicable plant worthless. Under the applicable sale and leaseback agreements, OE, CEI and TE have net minimum discounted lease payments of $646$606 million, $89$73 million and $500$429 million, respectively, that would not be payable if the casualty value payments are made.

In accordance with FIN 46R, FirstEnergy evaluated its power purchase agreements and determined that certain NUG entities may be VIEs to the extent they own a plant that sells substantially all of its output to the Companies and the contract price for power is correlated with the plant’s variable costs of production. FirstEnergy, through its subsidiaries JCP&L, Met-Ed and Penelec, maintains approximately 30 long-term power purchase agreements with NUG entities. The agreements were entered into pursuant to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978. FirstEnergy was not involved in the creation of, and has no equity or debt invested in, these entities.

FirstEnergy has determined that for all but eight of these entities, neither JCP&L, Met-Ed nor Penelec have variable interests in the entities or the entities are governmental or not-for-profit organizations not within the scope of FIN 46R. JCP&L, Met-Ed or Penelec may hold variable interests in the remaining eight entities, which sell their output at variable prices that correlate to some extent with the operating costs of the plants. As required by FIN 46R, FirstEnergy periodically requests from these eight entities the information necessary to determine whether they are VIEs or whether JCP&L, Met-Ed or Penelec is the primary beneficiary. FirstEnergy has been unable to obtain the requested information, which in most cases was deemed by the requested entity to be proprietary. As such, FirstEnergy applied the scope exception that exempts enterprises unable to obtain the necessary information to evaluate entities under FIN 46R.

Since FirstEnergy has no equity or debt interests in the NUG entities, its maximum exposure to loss relates primarily to the above-market costs it incurs for power. FirstEnergy expects any above-market costs it incurs to be recovered from customers. As of March 31,September 30, 2007, the net projected above-market loss liability recognizedprojected for these eight NUG agreements was $155$158 million. Purchased power costs from these entities during the first quarters ofthree months and nine months ended September 30, 2007 and 2006 are shown in the table below:following table:

The consolidated financial statements of FirstEnergy and JCP&L include the results of JCP&L Transition Funding and JCP&L Transition Funding II, wholly owned limited liability companies of JCP&L. In June 2002, JCP&L Transition Funding sold $320 million of transition bonds to securitize the recovery of JCP&L's bondable stranded costs associated with the previously divested Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. In August 2006, JCP&L Transition Funding II sold $182 million of transition bonds to securitize the recovery of deferred costs associated with JCP&L’s supply of BGS.

JCP&L did not purchase and does not own any of the transition bonds, which are included as long-term debt on FirstEnergy's and JCP&L's Consolidated Balance Sheets. As of March 31,September 30, 2007, $420$404 million of the transition bonds arewere outstanding. The transition bonds are the sole obligations of JCP&L Transition Funding and JCP&L Transition Funding II and are collateralized by each company’s equity and assets, which consists primarily of bondable transition property.

Bondable transition property represents the irrevocable right under New Jersey law of a utility company to charge, collect and receive from its customers, through a non-bypassable TBC, the principal amount and interest on transition bonds and other fees and expenses associated with their issuance. JCP&L sold its bondable transition property to JCP&L Transition Funding and JCP&L Transition Funding II and, as servicer, manages and administers the bondable transition property, including the billing, collection and remittance of the TBC, pursuant to separate servicing agreements with JCP&L Transition Funding and JCP&L Transition Funding II. For the two series of transition bonds, JCP&L is entitled to aggregate quarterly servicing fees of $157,000 that is payable from TBC collections.

On January 1, 2007, FirstEnergy adopted FIN 48, which provides guidance for accounting for uncertainty in income taxes recognized in a company’s financial statements in accordance with SFAS 109. This interpretation prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement attribute for financial statement recognition and measurement of tax positions taken or expected to be taken on a company’s tax return. FIN 48 also provides guidance on derecognition, classification, interest, penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure and transition. The evaluation of a tax position in accordance with this interpretation is a two-step process. The first step is to determine if it is more likely than not that a tax position will be sustained upon examination, based on the merits of the position, and should therefore be recognized. The second step is to measure a tax position that meets the more likely than not recognition threshold to determine the amount of income tax benefit to recognize in the financial statements.

As of January 1, 2007, the total amount of FirstEnergy’s unrecognized tax benefits was $268 million. FirstEnergy recorded a $2.7 million cumulative effect adjustment to the January 1, 2007 balance of retained earnings to increase reserves for uncertain tax positions. Of the total amount of unrecognized income tax benefits, $92 million would favorably affect FirstEnergy’s effective tax rate upon recognition. The majority of items that would not affecthave affected the effective tax rate would be purchase accounting adjustments to goodwill upon recognition. During the first quarternine months of 2007, there were no material changes to FirstEnergy’s unrecognized tax benefits. TheAs of September 30, 2007, the entire balanceliability for uncertain tax positions is included in other non-current liabilities.liabilities and changes to FirstEnergy’s tax contingencies that are reasonably possible in the next twelve months are not material.

FIN 48 also requires companies to recognize 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 in accordance with FIN 48 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, consistent with its policy prior to implementing FIN 48. As of January 1, 2007, the net amount of interest accrued was $34 million. During the first quarternine months of 2007, there were no material changes to the amount of interest accrued.

FirstEnergy has tax returns that are under review at the audit or appeals level by the IRS and state tax authorities. All state jurisdictions are open from 2001-2006. The IRS began reviewing returns for the years 2001-2003 in July 2004 and several items are under appeal. The federal audit for years 2004 and 2005 began in June 2006 and is not expected to close before December 2007. The IRS began auditing the year 2006 in April 2006 under its Compliance Assurance Process experimental program, which is not expected to close before December 2007. Management believes that adequate reserves have been recognized and final settlement of these audits is not expected to have a material adverse effect on FirstEnergy’s financial condition or results of operations.

InOn July 13, 2007, FGCO completed a sale and leaseback transaction for its 93.825% undivided interest in Bruce Mansfield Unit 1, representing 779 MW of net demonstrated capacity (see Note 12). This transaction generated tax capital gains of approximately $752 million, all of which were offset by existing tax capital loss carryforwards. Accordingly, FirstEnergy reduced its tax loss carryforward valuation allowances in the firstthird quarter of 2007, OE’s income taxes included an immaterial adjustment applicablewith a corresponding reduction to prior periods of $7.2 million related to an inter-company federal tax allocation arrangement between FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries.

As part of normal business activities, FirstEnergy enters into various agreements on behalf of its subsidiaries to provide financial or performance assurances to third parties. These agreements include contract guarantees, surety bonds and LOCs. As of March 31,September 30, 2007, outstanding guarantees and other assurances aggregated approximately $4.3$4.7 billion, consisting of contractparental guarantees - $2.5$1.2  billion, subsidiaries’ guarantees - $2.7 billion, surety bonds - $0.1 billion and LOCs - $1.7$0.7  billion.

FirstEnergy guarantees energy and energy-related payments of its subsidiaries involved in energy commodity activities principally to facilitate normal physical transactions involving electricity, gas, emission allowances and coal. FirstEnergy also provides guarantees to various providers of credit support for subsidiary financings or refinancings 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, FirstEnergy's guarantee enables the counterparty's legal claim to be satisfied by other FirstEnergy assets. The likelihood is remote that such parental guarantees of $0.9$0.6 billion (included in the $2.5$1.2 billion discussed above) as of March 31,September 30, 2007 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 or provision of an LOC may be required of the subsidiary. As of March 31,September 30, 2007, FirstEnergy's maximum exposure under these collateral provisions was $392$442 million.

Most of FirstEnergy's surety bonds are backed by various indemnities common within the insurance industry. Surety bonds and related FirstEnergy guarantees of $106$75 million provide additional assurance to outside parties that contractual and statutory obligations will be met in a number of areas including construction jobs, environmental commitments and various retail transactions.

The Companies, with the exception of TE and JCP&L, each have a wholly owned subsidiary whose borrowings are secured by customer accounts receivable purchased from its respective parent company. The CEI subsidiary's borrowings are also secured by customer accounts receivable purchased from TE. Each subsidiary company has its own receivables financing arrangement and, as a separate legal entity with separate creditors, would have to satisfy its obligations to creditors before any of its remaining assets could be available to its parent company.

FirstEnergy has also guaranteed the obligations of the operators of the TEBSA project, up to a maximum of $6 million (subject to escalation) under the project's operations and maintenance agreement. In connection with the sale of TEBSA in January 2004, the purchaser indemnified FirstEnergy against any loss under this guarantee. FirstEnergy has also provided an LOC ($27 million as of March 31,September 30, 2007), which is renewable and declines yearly based upon the senior outstanding debt of TEBSA. The LOC was reduced to $19 million on October 15, 2007.

Various federal, state and local authorities regulate FirstEnergy with regard to air and water quality and other environmental matters. The effects of compliance on FirstEnergy with regard to environmental matters could have a material adverse effect on FirstEnergy's earnings and competitive position to the extent that it 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. Overall, FirstEnergy believes it is in compliance with existing regulations but is unable to predict future changes in regulatory policies and what, if any, the effects of such changes would be. FirstEnergy estimates additional capital expenditures for environmental compliance of approximately $1.8 billion for 2007 through 2011.

FirstEnergy accrues environmental 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. Unasserted claims are reflected in FirstEnergy’s determination of environmental liabilities and are accrued in the period that they become both probable and reasonably estimable.

The EPA Region 5 issued a Finding of Violation and NOV to the Bay Shore Power Plant dated June 15, 2006 alleging violations to various sections of the Clean Air Act. FirstEnergy has disputed those alleged violations based on its Clean Air Act permit, the Ohio SIP and other information provided at an August 2006 meeting with the EPA. The EPA has several enforcement options (administrative compliance order, administrative penalty order, and/or judicial, civil or criminal action) and has indicated that such option may depend on the time needed to achieve and demonstrate compliance with the rules alleged to have been violated. On June 5, 2007, the EPA requested another meeting to discuss “an appropriate compliance program” and a disagreement regarding the opacity limit applicable to the common stack for Bay Shore Units 2, 3 and 4.

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 tradecap-and-trade approach as in the CAMR, but rather follows a command and controlcommand-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,September 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 in 2005, 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,September 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$89 million (JCP&L - $59$60 million, TE - $3 million, CEI - $1 million, and other subsidiariesFirstEnergy Corp. - $24$25 million) have been accrued through March 31,September 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 onin 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, onin 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 in May 2007.  Proceedings are continuing in the Superior Court.  FirstEnergy is 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,September 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. (AEP), 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 remaining 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 August 12, 2004,May 14, 2007, the Office of Enforcement of the NRC notifiedissued a Demand for Information to FENOC following FENOC’s reply to an April 2, 2007 NRC request for information about two reports prepared by expert witnesses for an insurance arbitration related to Davis-Besse. The NRC indicated that this information was needed for the NRC “to determine whether an Order or other action should be taken pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, to provide reasonable assurance that FENOC will continue to operate its licensed facilities in accordance with the terms of its licenses and the Commission’s regulations.” FENOC was directed to submit the information to the NRC within 30 days. On June 13, 2007, FENOC filed a response to the NRC’s Demand for Information reaffirming that it would increase its regulatory oversight ofaccepts full responsibility for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant as a result of problems with safety system equipment overmistakes and omissions leading up to the preceding two yearsdamage to the reactor vessel head and the licensee's failurethat it remains committed to take promptoperating Davis-Besse and corrective action. On April 4, 2005, theFirstEnergy’s other nuclear plants safely and responsibly. The NRC held a public meeting on June 27, 2007 with FENOC to discuss FENOC’s performance atresponse to the Perry Nuclear Power Plant as identified inDemand for Information. In follow-up discussions, FENOC was requested to provide supplemental information to clarify certain aspects of the NRC's annual assessment letterDemand for Information response and provide additional details regarding plans to FENOC. Similar public meetings are held with all nuclear power plant licensees following issuance byimplement the NRC of their annual assessments. Accordingcommitments made therein. FENOC submitted this supplemental response 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 will continue and that the plant must improve performance to be removed from the Multiple/Repetitive Degraded Cornerstone Column of the Action Matrix.

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 plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint which OE has opposed. On August 2, 2007, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint. The plaintiffs have appealed the Court’s denial of the motion for certification as a class action and motion to amend their complaint.

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. The arbitration panel provided additional rulings regarding damages during a September 2007 hearing and it is anticipated that he will issue a final order in late 2007. 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.

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 FirstEnergy's or its subsidiaries' financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

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.