| REGULATORY MATTERS | REGULATORY MATTERS STATE REGULATION Each of the Electric Companies retail rates, conditions of service, issuance of securities and other matters are subject to regulation in the states in which it operates - in Maryland by the MDPSC, in New Jersey by the NJBPU, in Ohio by the PUCO, in Pennsylvania by the PPUC, in West Virginia by the WVPSC and in New York by the NYPSC. The transmission operations of PE and TrAIL in Virginia, ATSI in Ohio, the Transmission Companies in Pennsylvania, PE and MP in West Virginia, and PE in Maryland are subject to certain regulations of the VSCC, PUCO, PPUC, WVPSC, and MDPSC, respectively. In addition, under Ohio law, municipalities may regulate rates of a public utility, subject to appeal to the PUCO if not acceptable to the utility. Further, if any of the FirstEnergy affiliates were to engage in the construction of significant new transmission facilities, depending on the state, they may be required to obtain state regulatory authorization to site, construct and operate the new transmission facility. The following table summarizes the key terms of state base rate orders in effect for the Electric Companies as of December 31, 2024: Company Rates Effective For Customers Allowed Debt/Equity Allowed ROE CEI May 2009 51%/ 49% 10.5% FE PA (1) January 2017 Settled (2) Settled (2) MP March 2024 Settled (2) 9.8% JCP&L June 2024 48.1% / 51.9% 9.6% OE January 2009 51% /49% 10.5% PE (West Virginia) March 2024 Settled (2) 9.8% PE (Maryland) October 2023 47% / 53% 9.5% TE January 2009 51% / 49% 10.5% (1) As further discussed below, new rates became effective for customers on January 1, 2025, and did not disclose allowed debt/equity and ROE rates. (2) Commission-approved settlement agreements did not disclose allowed debt/equity and/or ROE rates. MARYLAND PE operates under MDPSC approved distribution base rates that were effective as of October 19, 2023, and that were subsequently modified by an MDPSC order dated January 3, 2024, which became effective as of March 1, 2024. PE also provides SOS pursuant to a combination of settlement agreements, MDPSC orders and regulations, and statutory provisions. SOS supply is competitively procured in the form of rolling contracts of varying lengths through periodic auctions that are overseen by the MDPSC and a third-party monitor. Although settlements with respect to SOS supply for PE customers have expired, service continues in the same manner until changed by order of the MDPSC. PE recovers its costs plus a return for providing SOS. The EmPOWER Maryland program previously required each electric utility to file a plan to reduce electric consumption and demand 0.2% per year, up to the ultimate goal of 2% annual savings. The passage of the Climate Solutions Now Act of 2022 modified the annual incremental energy efficiency targets to 2% per year from 2022 through 2024, 2.25% per year in 2025 and 2026, and 2.5% per year in 2027 and thereafter. On August 1, 2023, PE filed its proposed plan for the 2024-2026 cycle as required by the MDPSC. Additionally, at the direction of the MDPSC, PE together with other Maryland utilities were required to address GHG reductions in addition to energy efficiency. In compliance with the MDPSC directive, PE submitted three scenarios with projected costs over a three-year cycle of $311 million, $354 million, and $510 million, respectively. The MDPSC conducted hearings on the proposed plans for all Maryland utilities on November 6-8, 2023. On December 29, 2023, the MDPSC issued an order approving the $311 million scenario for most programs, with some modifications. On August 15, 2024, in accordance with the MDPSC directive, PE filed a revised plan for the remainder of the 2024-2026 cycle to comply with refined GHG reduction targets with a total budget of $314 million. On December 27, 2024, the MDPSC issued an order approving PE’s revised plan. PE recovers EmPOWER program costs with a return on unamortized balances through an annually reconciled surcharge, with certain costs subject to recovery over a five-year amortization period. Maryland law only allows for the utility to recover lost distribution revenue attributable to energy efficiency or demand reduction programs through a base rate case proceeding. Consistent with a December 29, 2022, order by the MDPSC phasing out the unamortized balances of EmPOWER investments, PE is required to expense 33% of its EmPOWER program costs in 2024, 67% in 2025, and 100% in 2026 and beyond. Notwithstanding the order to phase out the unamortized balances of EmPOWER investments, all previously unamortized costs for prior cycles were to be collected by the end of 2029, consistent with the plan PE submitted on January 11, 2023. In the 2024-2026 order issued on December 29, 2023, the period to pay down the unamortized balances was extended through the end of 2030. On February 21, 2024, the MDPSC approved PE’s tariff to recover costs in 2024 but directed PE to analyze alternative amortization methods for possible use in later years. On November 27, 2024, PE filed for approval of revised tariff pages reflecting an update of the PE tariff becoming effective in 2025, which included the requested analysis of alternative amortization methods. On December 18, 2024, the MDPSC approved the revised tariff pages permitting PE to continue to use its preferred amortization method. New legislation signed into law on May 9, 2024, and effective July 1, 2024, is expected to reduce the return on the EmPOWER unamortized balances for PE by a total of $25 to $30 million over the period of 2024-2030. On July 31, 2024, the MDPSC issued an order implementing revised EmPOWER surcharge rates for PE in accordance with the new law and denying PE’s request for a hearing that sought to challenge certain portions of the law. On August 30, 2024, PE filed a petition seeking judicial review of its challenge to the law. The MDPSC and Maryland Office of People’s Counsel filed intents to participate. On November 15, 2024, the parties filed a joint motion to postpone the February 7, 2025 hearing date scheduled by the court and proposed a briefing schedule. The motion was granted on December 28, 2024. PE filed a Petitioner Memorandum on December 17, 2024. The MDPSC and Maryland Office of People’s Counsel filed a Response Memorandum on January 28, 2025. PE filed a Reply Memorandum on February 20, 2025. A hearing is scheduled for March 7, 2025. NEW JERSEY JCP&L operates under NJBPU approved rates that took effect as of February 15, 2024, and became effective for customers as of June 1, 2024. JCP&L provides BGS for retail customers who do not choose a third-party EGS and for customers of third- party EGSs that fail to provide the contracted service. All New Jersey EDCs participate in this competitive BGS procurement process and recover BGS costs directly from customers as a charge separate from base rates. The base rate increase approved by the NJBPU on February 14, 2024, took effect on February 15, 2024, and became effective for customers on June 1, 2024. Until those new rates became effective for customers, JCP&L was amortizing an existing regulatory liability totaling approximately $18 million to offset the base rate increase that otherwise would have occurred in this period. Under the base rate case settlement agreement, JCP&L also agreed to a two-phase reliability improvement plan to enhance the reliability related to 18 high-priority circuits, the first phase of which began on February 14, 2024, and represents an approximate investment of $95 million. Additionally, JCP&L recognized a $53 million pre-tax charge in the first quarter 2024 at the Integrated segment within “Other operating expenses” on the FirstEnergy Consolidated Statements of Income, associated with certain corporate support costs recorded to capital accounts from the FERC Audit that were determined, as a result of the settlement agreement, to be disallowed from future recovery. JCP&L has implemented energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs in accordance with the New Jersey Clean Energy Act as approved by the NJBPU in April 2021. The NJBPU approved plans include recovery of lost revenues resulting from the programs and a three-year plan (July 2021-June 2024) including total program costs of $203 million, of which $160 million of investment is recovered over a ten-year amortization period with a return as well as $43 million in operations and maintenance expenses and financing costs recovered on an annual basis. On May 22, 2024, the NJBPU approved JCP&L’s request for a six-month extension of the EE&C Plan I, to December 31, 2024. The budget for the extension period adds approximately $69 million to the original program cost and JCP&L will recover the costs of the extension period and the revenue impact of sales losses resulting therefrom through two separate tariff riders. On December 1, 2023, JCP&L filed a related petition with the NJBPU requesting approval of its EE&C Plan II, which covers the January 1, 2025 through June 30, 2027 period and had a proposed budget of approximately $964 million. EE&C Plan II, as filed, consisted of a portfolio of ten energy efficiency programs, one peak demand reduction program and one building decarbonization program. Under the proposal, JCP&L would recover its EE&C Plan II revenue requirements and lost revenues from reduced electricity sales associated with EE&C Plan II. On October 30, 2024, the NJBPU approved the parties’ stipulation of settlement, wherein the parties agreed to a budget of approximately $817 million for EE&C Plan II, including $784 million of investments that will earn a return on equity of 9.6%, with an equity ratio of 52%, and be recovered over 10 years. The settlement of the distribution rate case in 2020, provided among other things, that JCP&L would be subject to a management audit, which began in May 2021. On April 12, 2023, the NJBPU accepted the final management audit report for filing purposes and ordered that interested stakeholders file comments on the report by May 22, 2023, which deadline was extended until July 31, 2023. JCP&L and one other party filed comments on July 31, 2023. On September 17, 2021, in connection with Mid-Atlantic Offshore Development, LLC, a transmission company jointly owned by Shell New Energies US and EDF Renewables North America, JCP&L submitted a proposal to the NJBPU and PJM to build transmission infrastructure connecting offshore wind-generated electricity to the New Jersey power grid. On October 26, 2022, the JCP&L proposal was accepted, in part, in an order issued by NJBPU. The proposal, as accepted, included approximately $723 million in investments for JCP&L to both build new and upgrade existing transmission infrastructure. JCP&L’s proposal projects an investment ROE of 10.2% and includes the option for JCP&L to acquire up to a 20% equity stake in Mid-Atlantic Offshore Development, LLC. The resulting rates associated with the project are expected to be shared among the ratepayers of all New Jersey electric utilities. On April 17, 2023, JCP&L applied for the FERC “abandonment” transmission rates incentive, which would provide for recovery of 100% of the cancelled prudent project costs that are incurred after the incentive is approved, and 50% of the costs incurred prior to that date, in the event that some or all of the project is cancelled for reasons beyond JCP&L’s control. On August 21, 2023, FERC approved JCP&L’s application, effective August 22, 2023. On October 31, 2023, offshore wind developer, Orsted, announced plans to cease development of two offshore wind projects in New Jersey—Ocean Wind 1 and 2—having a combined planned capacity of 2,248 MWs. Orsted’s cancellation does not affect JCP&L’s awarded projects and JCP&L is moving forward with preconstruction activities for the planned transmission infrastructure. Construction is expected to begin in 2025. Consistent with the commitments made in its proposal to the NJBPU, JCP&L formally submitted in November 2023 the first part of its application to the DOE to finance a substantial portion of the project using low-interest rate loans available under the DOE’s Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Program of the IRA of 2022. JCP&L submitted the second part of its two-part application on March 13, 2024, which was approved on May 17, 2024. The DOE Loan Program Office has initiated a due diligence review of the application. On November 9, 2023, JCP&L filed a petition for approval of its EnergizeNJ with the NJBPU that would, among other things, support grid modernization, system resiliency and substation modernization in technologies designed to provide enhanced customer benefits. JCP&L proposes EnergizeNJ will be implemented over a five-year budget period with estimated costs of approximately $935 million over the deployment period, of which, $906 million is capital investments and $29 million is operating and maintenance expenses. Under the proposal, the capital costs of EnergizeNJ would be recovered through JCP&L’s base rates via annual and semi-annual base rate adjustment filings. The 2023 base rate case stipulation that was filed on February 2, 2024, necessitated amendments to the EnergizeNJ program. On February 14, 2024, the NJBPU approved the stipulated settlement between JCP&L and various parties, resolving JCP&L’s request for a distribution base rate increase. On February 27, 2024, as part of the stipulated settlement, JCP&L amended its pending EnergizeNJ petition following receipt of NJBPU approval of the base rate case settlement, to remove the high-priority circuits that are to be addressed in the first phase of its reliability improvement plan and to include the second phase of its reliability improvement plan that is expected to further address certain high-priority circuits that require additional upgrades. EnergizeNJ, if approved as amended, will result in the investment of approximately $930.5 million of total estimated costs over five years. JCP&L and various parties are engaged in settlement discussions with respect to the pending EnergizeNJ petition. OHIO The Ohio Companies operate under PUCO-approved base distribution rates that became effective in 2009. The Ohio Companies operated under ESP IV through May 31, 2024, which provided for the supply of power to non-shopping customers at a market-based price set through an auction process. From June 1, 2024 until January 31, 2025, the Ohio Companies operated under ESP V, as modified by the PUCO, and as further described below. On December 18, 2024, the PUCO approved the Ohio Companies’ notice to withdraw ESP V and approved the Ohio Companies’ proposal for returning to ESP IV, with modifications. ESP IV, as modified, continues the DCR rider, which supports continued investment related to the distribution system for the benefit of customers, with an annual revenue cap of $390 million. In addition, ESP IV, as modified, includes: (1) continuation of a base distribution rate freeze until ESP VI becomes effective or the Ohio Companies’ obtain the PUCO’s staff agreement; (2) a goal across FirstEnergy to reduce CO2 emissions by 90% below 2005 levels by 2045; and (3) contributions, totaling $6.39 million per year to: (a) fund energy conservation, economic development and job retention programs in the Ohio Companies’ service territories; and (b) establish fuel-funds in each of the Ohio Companies’ service territories to assist low-income customers. On April 5, 2023, the Ohio Companies filed an application with the PUCO for approval of ESP V, for an eight-year term beginning June 1, 2024, and continuing through May 31, 2032. On May 15, 2024, the PUCO issued an order approving ESP V with modifications, which became effective June 1, 2024 and would have continued through May 31, 2029. ESP V, as modified by the PUCO, provided for, among other things, the continuation of existing riders related to purchased power, transmission and uncollectibles, the continuation of the DCR rider with proposed annual revenue cap increases until new base rates are established, the continuation of the AMI rider, and the addition of new riders for recovery of storm and vegetation management expenses. Many of the terms and conditions were to be reconsidered in the base rate case. The ESP V order additionally directed the Ohio Companies to file another base distribution rate case not later than May 31, 2028, and contribute $32.5 million during the term of ESP V to fund low-income customer bill assistance programs and bill assistance for income-eligible senior citizens, and to develop an electric vehicle education program to assist customers in transitioning to electric vehicles which was recognized in the second quarter of 2024 within “Other operating expenses” at the Regulated Distribution segment and on FirstEnergy’s Consolidated Statements of Income. Due to the risks and uncertainty resulting from the Ohio Companies’ application for rehearing being denied by operation of law, on October 29, 2024, the Ohio Companies filed a notice of their intent to withdraw ESP V and proposed the terms under which they would resume operating under ESP IV. On December 18, 2024, the PUCO approved the Ohio Companies’ notice of withdrawal. Also on December 18, 2024, the PUCO approved the Ohio Companies’ proposal for returning to ESP IV, with modifications. Consistent with ESP IV, the PUCO authorized the Ohio Companies’ reinstatement of the DCR rider, with an annual revenue cap of $390 million, and denied the Ohio Companies’ request to continue ESP IV’s DCR rider revenue cap increases of $15 million per year. Additionally, the PUCO ordered that storm costs deferred under ESP V since June 1, 2024 remain on the Ohio Companies’ books and subject to review in a future case. The PUCO also denied the Ohio Companies’ request to lift the base rate freeze in ESP IV, permitting the Ohio Companies’ pending base rate case to continue, but prohibiting new rates from going into effect until either the effective date of ESP VI, or the staff agrees that the freeze be lifted and new rates be implemented. On January 22, 2025, the PUCO approved the Ohio Companies’ revised ESP IV tariffs, effective February 1, 2025, at which time the Ohio Companies resumed operating under ESP IV. On January 31, 2025, the Ohio Companies filed an application with the PUCO for ESP VI, for a term beginning on the date new base distribution rates from the pending base rate case go into effect, in an effort to align with the ongoing base distribution rate case, and continuing through May 31, 2028. ESP VI proposes to continue providing power to non-shopping customers at market-based prices set through an auction process, and proposes to continue riders supporting investment in the Ohio Companies’ distribution system, including Rider DCR with annual reliability performance-based revenue cap increases of $37 to $43 million, and an AMI rider for recovery of approved grid modernization investments. ESP VI additionally proposes riders to support continued maintenance of the distribution system, including recovery of vegetation management and storm restoration operations and maintenance expenses. In addition, ESP VI proposes energy efficiency programs for low-income customers, and includes a commitment to spend $6.5 million annually over the ESP VI term, without recovery from customers, on initiatives to assist low-income customers, as well as education and incentives to help ensure customers have good experiences with electric vehicles. The PUCO has scheduled a technical conference for March 12, 2025. On May 31, 2024, the Ohio Companies filed their application for an increase in base distribution rates based on a 2024 calendar year test period. The Ohio Companies requested a net increase in base distribution revenues of approximately $94 million compared to test period revenues, with a return on equity of 10.8% and capital structures of 44% debt and 56% equity for CEI, 46% debt and 54% equity for OE, and 45% debt and 55% equity for TE, which reflects a roll-in of current riders such as DCR and AMI. Key components of the base rate case filing include a proposal to change pension and OPEB recovery to the delayed recognition method and to implement a mechanism to establish a regulatory asset (or liability) to recover (or refund) net differences between the amount of pension and OPEB expense requested in the proceeding and the actual amount each year using this method. Additionally, the Ohio Companies request recovery of certain incurred costs, including the impact of major storms, a program to convert streetlights to LEDs, and others. On June 14, 2024, the Ohio Companies filed supporting testimony. On July 31, 2024, the Ohio Companies filed an update that adjusted the net increase in base distribution revenues to approximately $190 million compared to test period revenues and incorporated matters in the rate case as directed by the PUCO’s ESP V order. On January 27, 2025, the Ohio Companies filed a notice in the base rate case notifying parties that they will update their application for an increase in base distribution rates to reflect the withdrawal of ESP V and the reversion to ESP IV. The PUCO Staff hired a third party to assist in the review of the Ohio Companies' base rate case filing, and on February 21, 2025, PUCO staff and the third party auditor each filed their reports. The auditor’s report recommended adjustments which would result in a net increase of the Ohio Companies’ base distribution revenues of approximately $8 million with a return on equity of 9.63% and capital structures of 48.8% debt and 51.2% equity for each of the Ohio Companies. PUCO staff’s report takes limited positions on the auditor’s finding and recommendations and makes additional findings. The Ohio Companies plan to respond and file supplemental testimony by March 24, 2025. On May 16, 2022, May 15, 2023, and May 15, 2024, the Ohio Companies filed their SEET applications for determination of the existence of significantly excessive earnings under ESP IV for calendar years 2021, 2022, and 2023, respectively. Each application demonstrated that each of the individual Ohio Companies did not have significantly excessive earnings. These matters remain pending before the PUCO. On July 15, 2022, the Ohio Companies filed an application with the PUCO for approval of phase two of their distribution grid modernization plan that would, among other things, provide for the installation of an additional 700 thousand smart meters, distribution automation equipment on approximately 240 distribution circuits, voltage regulating equipment on approximately 220 distribution circuits, and other investments and pilot programs in related technologies designed to provide enhanced customer benefits. The Ohio Companies proposed that phase two would be implemented over a four-year budget period with estimated capital investments of approximately $626 million and operations and maintenance expenses of approximately $144 million over the deployment period. Under the proposal, costs of phase two of the grid modernization plan would be recovered through the Ohio Companies’ AMI rider, pursuant to the terms and conditions approved in ESP IV. On April 12, 2024, the Ohio Companies and certain of the parties filed a stipulation that modified the Ohio Companies’ application for phase two of its grid modernization plan, which was approved by the PUCO on December 18, 2024 and implementation has since begun. The stipulation provides for the deployment of smart meters to the balance of the Ohio Companies’ customers or approximately 1.4 million meters. Phase two of the distribution grid modernization plan, as modified by the stipulation, would be completed over a four-year budget period with estimated capital investments of approximately $421 million. On September 8, 2020, the OCC filed motions in the Ohio Companies’ corporate separation audit and DMR audit dockets, requesting the PUCO to open an investigation and management audit, hire an independent auditor, and require FirstEnergy to show it did not improperly use money collected from consumers or violate any utility regulatory laws, rules or orders in its activities regarding HB 6. On December 30, 2020, in response to the OCC's motion, the PUCO reopened the DMR audit docket, and directed PUCO staff to solicit a third-party auditor and conduct a full review of the DMR to ensure funds collected from customers through the DMR were only used for the purposes established in ESP IV. On June 2, 2021, the PUCO selected an auditor, and the auditor filed the final audit report on January 14, 2022, which made certain findings and recommendations. The report found that spending of DMR revenues was not required to be tracked, and that DMR revenues, like all rider revenues, are placed into the regulated money pool as a matter of routine, where the funds lose their identity. Therefore, the report could not suggest that DMR funds were used definitively for direct or indirect support for grid modernization. The report also concluded that there was no documented evidence that ties revenues from the DMR to lobbying for the passage of HB 6, but also could not rule out with certainty uses of DMR funds to support the passage of HB 6. The report further recommended that the regulated companies' money pool be audited more frequently and the Ohio Companies adopt formal dividend policies. Final comments and responses were filed by parties during the second quarter of 2022. The proceeding was stayed in its entirety, including discovery and motions, continuously at the request of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio beginning in August 2022 and was lifted on February 26, 2024. On February 26, 2024, the Attorney Examiner consolidated this proceeding with the expanded DCR rider audit proceeding described below and on November 22, 2024, the administrative law judge ordered that the bifurcated portion of the corporate separation audit, discussed further below, be consolidated with the already-consolidated DMR audit and expanded DCR rider audit proceeding. Evidentiary hearings are scheduled to begin May 13, 2025. On September 15, 2020, the PUCO opened a new proceeding to review the political and charitable spending by the Ohio Companies in support of HB 6 and the subsequent referendum effort, and directed the Ohio Companies to show cause, demonstrating that the costs of any political or charitable spending in support of HB 6, or the subsequent referendum effort, were not included, directly or indirectly, in any rates or charges paid by customers. The Ohio Companies initially filed a response stating that the costs of any political or charitable spending in support of HB 6, or the subsequent referendum effort, were not included, directly or indirectly, in any rates or charges paid by customers, but on August 6, 2021, filed a supplemental response explaining that, in light of the facts set forth in the DPA and the findings of the DCR rider audit report further discussed below, political or charitable spending in support of HB 6, or the subsequent referendum effort, affected pole attachment rates paid by approximately $15 thousand. On October 26, 2021, the OCC filed a motion requesting the PUCO to order an independent external audit to investigate FE’s political and charitable spending related to HB 6, and to appoint an independent review panel to retain and oversee the auditor. In November and December 2021, parties filed comments and reply comments regarding the Ohio Companies’ original and supplemental responses to the PUCO’s September 15, 2020, show cause directive. On May 4, 2022, the PUCO selected a third-party auditor to determine whether the show cause demonstration submitted by the Ohio Companies is sufficient to ensure that the cost of any political or charitable spending in support of HB 6 or the subsequent referendum effort was not included, directly or indirectly, in any rates or charges paid by ratepayers. The proceeding was stayed in its entirety, including discovery and motions, continuously at the request of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio beginning in August 2022 and the stay was lifted on February 26, 2024. On September 30, 2024, the third-party auditor’s report was filed. The audit examined 53 payments totaling approximately $75 million made in support of the passage of HB 6 and subsequent referendum efforts, and concluded that less than $5 million was allocated to the Ohio Companies. The audit report affirmed the Ohio Companies’ conclusion in its August 6, 2021 filing that a rate impact of less than $15 thousand was charged to the Ohio Companies’ pole attachment customers associated with political and charitable spending in support of HB 6. On October 22, 2024, parties filed comments on the audit report, and on November 5, 2024, parties filed reply comments. The parties' comments remain pending with the PUCO. In connection with an ongoing audit of the Ohio Companies’ policies and procedures relating to the code of conduct rules between affiliates, on November 4, 2020, the PUCO initiated an additional corporate separation audit as a result of the FirstEnergy leadership transition announcement made on October 29, 2020, as further discussed below. The additional audit is to ensure compliance by the Ohio Companies and their affiliates with corporate separation laws and the Ohio Companies’ corporate separation plan. The additional audit is for the period from November 2016 through October 2020. The final audit report was filed on September 13, 2021. The audit report makes no findings of major non-compliance with Ohio corporate separation requirements, minor non-compliance with eight requirements, and findings of compliance with 23 requirements. Parties filed comments and reply comments on the audit report. The proceeding was stayed in its entirety, including discovery and motions, continuously at the request of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio beginning in August 2022 and the stay was lifted on February 26, 2024. On September 10, 2024, the Ohio Companies filed testimony describing their compliance with Ohio corporate separation laws and the implementation of the recommendations made in the audit reports. On September 20, 2024, intervenors filed testimony recommending fines for alleged violations of the Ohio corporate separation requirements. Evidentiary hearings were held on October 9 and 10, 2024; the scope of the hearings excluded allegations involving activities related to the passage of HB 6 and the former PUCO chairman, which will be addressed at a later time. Initial and reply briefs have been filed by the Ohio Companies, PUCO staff and the intervening parties. To the extent the PUCO ultimately accepts the intervenors’ recommendations and issues a fine to the Ohio Companies, such amount is not expected to be material. On September 3, 2024, the Ohio Companies filed an application to amend their corporate separation plan to incorporate certain recommendations from prior audit reports, which include, but are not limited to, improving controls for non-regulated competitive employees’ physical space and access to data, updating and implementing a process to annually review the cost allocation manual, developing state specific codes of conduct practices, and implementing additional training related to the cost allocation manual and the state codes of conduct. On October 23, 2024, the administrative law judge issued an entry suspending automatic approval of the amended corporate separation plan and establishing a procedural schedule. In connection with an ongoing annual audit of the Ohio Companies’ DCR rider for 2020, and as a result of disclosures in FirstEnergy’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020 (filed on February 18, 2021), the PUCO expanded the scope of the audit on March 10, 2021, to include a review of certain transactions that were either improperly classified, misallocated, or lacked supporting documentation, and to determine whether funds collected from customers were used to pay the vendors, and if so, whether or not the funds associated with those payments should be returned to customers through the DCR rider or through an alternative proceeding. On August 3, 2021, the auditor filed its final report on this phase of the audit, and the parties submitted comments and reply comments on this audit report in October 2021. Additionally, on September 29, 2021, the PUCO expanded the scope of the audit in this proceeding to determine if the costs of the naming rights for FirstEnergy Stadium have been recovered from the Ohio Companies’ |
