first energy Citi652008

Citi Investment Research
Power, Gas and Utilities Conference
Washington, D.C. • June 5-6, 2008

NYSE:FE

Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995
This presentation includes forward-looking statements based on information currently available to management. Such statements are subject to certain
risks and uncertainties. These statements include declarations regarding our, or our management’s, intents, beliefs and current expectations. These
statements typically contain, but are not limited to, the terms “anticipate,” “potential,” “expect,” “believe,” “estimate” and similar words. Forward-
looking statements involve estimates, assumptions, known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results,
performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-
looking statements. Actual results may differ materially due to the speed and nature of increased competition in the electric utility industry and
legislative and regulatory changes affecting how generation rates will be determined following the expiration of existing rate plans in Ohio and
Pennsylvania, economic or weather conditions affecting future sales and margins, changes in markets for energy services, changing energy and
commodity market prices, replacement power costs being higher than anticipated or inadequately hedged, the continued ability of FirstEnergy’s
regulated utilities to collect transition and other charges or to recover increased transmission costs, maintenance costs being higher than anticipated,
other legislative and regulatory changes including revised environmental requirements and possible greenhouse gas emissions regulation, the
uncertainty of the timing and amounts of the capital expenditures needed to, among other things, implement the Air Quality Compliance Plan (including
that such amounts could be higher than anticipated) or levels of emission reductions related to the Consent Decree resolving the New Source Review
litigation or other potential regulatory initiatives, adverse regulatory or legal decisions and outcomes (including, but not limited to, the revocation of
necessary licenses or operating permits and oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission including, but not limited to, the Demand for Information
issued to FENOC on May 14, 2007) as disclosed in our SEC filings, the timing and outcome of various proceedings before the PUCO (including, but
not limited to, the Distribution Rate Cases and the generation supply plan filing for the Ohio Companies and the successful resolution of the issues
remanded to the PUCO by the Supreme Court of Ohio regarding the Rate Stabilization Plan and the Rate Certainty Plan, including the deferral of fuel
costs) and Met-Ed’s and Penelec’s transmission service charge filings with the PPUC as well as the resolution of the Petitions for Review filed with the
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania with respect to the transition rate plan for Met-Ed and Penelec, the continuing availability of generating units
and their ability to continue to operate at or near full capacity, the ability to comply with applicable state and federal reliability standards, the ability to
accomplish or realize anticipated benefits from strategic goals (including employee workforce initiatives), the ability to improve electric commodity
margins and to experience growth in the distribution business, changing market conditions that could affect the value of assets held in our nuclear
decommissioning trust fund, pension fund and other trust funds, the ability to access the public securities and other capital markets and the cost of
such capital, the risks and other factors discussed from time to time in our SEC filings, and other similar factors. The foregoing review of factors
should not be construed as exhaustive. New factors emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for us to predict all such factors, nor can we
assess the impact of any such factor on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause results to differ materially
from those contained in any forward-looking statements. Dividends declared from time to time on FirstEnergy's common stock during any annual
period may in aggregate vary from the indicated amounts due to circumstances considered by FirstEnergy's Board of Directors at the time of the actual
declarations. Also, a security rating is not a recommendation to buy, sell or hold securities, and it may be subject to revision or withdrawal at any time
and each such rating should be evaluated independently of any other rating. We expressly disclaim any current intention to update any forward-
looking statements contained herein as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.

2
June 5-6, 2008
Citi Investment Research Power, Gas and Utilities Conference

Corporate Profile

3
June 5-6, 2008

FirstEnergy Corporate Profile
Diversified energy company headquartered in Akron, Ohio
Involved in generation, transmission and distribution of
electricity, as well as other energy-related services
Fifth largest investor-owned electric utility in U.S.
– 4.5 million customers in Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey
Controls over 14,000 MW of generating capacity
Approx. $13B in annual revenues and more than $32B in assets
Approx. $24B market capitalization
Investment grade credit ratings
PA
OH NJ

4
June 5-6, 2008

FirstEnergy Overview
Balanced Integrated Approach

Competitive Regulated
7 Regulated Utilities
FirstEnergy Solutions (FES),
an unregulated subsidiary: – Fifth largest investor-owned electric utility
in U.S. with 4.5 million customers in
– Controls 14,000+ MW of FirstEnergy’s
OH, PA and NJ
generation capacity
– Geographic and regulatory diversity
– Separate SEC Registrant
Strategic Focus
Strategic Focus
– Enhance reliability and customer service
– Expand generation output
– Invest in infrastructure
– Transition to market-based rates
– Pursue timely cost recovery
– Effectively hedge commodity exposures
– Control expenditures through continuous
– Leverage proven skills to succeed in
improvement culture
competitive markets

Objective: Maximize margins from each business

5
June 5-6, 2008

Financial Performance
Positioned for continued earnings growth
Strong operations with financial discipline
Integrated strategy that diversifies risks

Annualized Total Shareholder Returns Annualized Dividend Per Share
(Periods Ending December 31, 2007)
$2.50
30%
26.4%
47% Increase
23.6% $2.25
25%
Since End of 2004
21.3%
19.9%
$2.20
20% 17.8% $2.00
16.6%
$2.00
15% $1.75
$1.80
10% $1.72
$1.50
$1.50
5%
$1.25
0%
1 year 3 years 5 years $1.00
YE 2004 YE 2005 YE 2006 YE 2007 Mar. 08
FE EEI Index

6
June 5-6, 2008

Bottom Line –
FirstEnergy is an attractive risk/reward opportunity

Managing transition to competitive markets

Continuing to mine our assets

Reinvesting for future growth

Minimizing financing risks

Deploying strong cash flow

Achieving continuous improvement

Maintaining strategic flexibility

Well-positioned for climate legislation

7
June 5-6, 2008

Generation

9
June 5-6, 2008

FirstEnergy Generation – Diversity & Scale
Michigan Ashtabula
Perry 244 MW
Seneca
1,273 MW
Eastlake
Sumpter 451 MW
1,262 MW
340 MW Bay Shore
Stryker Erie
648 MW Lake Shore
18 MW
Yards Creek
Towanda
249 MW
Toledo
200 MW
Cleveland

New Castle
Pennsylvania
Akron
Davis-Besse Edgewater Morristown
Richland
893 MW Newark
48 MW
432 MW
West Lorain Johnstown Reading
545 MW Harrisburg Allenhurst

Trenton

W. H. Sammis
2,233 MW
New
Columbus Beaver Valley Bruce Mansfield
Jersey
R. E. Burger 1,779 MW 2,490 MW
413 MW
Mad River
60 MW
Ohio Unit Mission Strategy
Baseload Peaking Units Other
Load Following
MW MW MW MW

Mansfield 1-3 2,490 Sammis 1-5 1,020 West Lorain 545 OVEC 463
Wind 145
Beaver Valley 1,2 1,779 Eastlake 1-4 636 Seneca 451
Perry 1,273 Bay Shore 2-4 495 Richland 432 Total 608
FirstEnergy Power Sources* Sammis 6,7 1,200 Burger 4 -5 312 Sumpter 340
Davis-Besse 893 Lake Shore 245 Yards Creek 200
C Coal 7,469 MW
Eastlake 5 597 Ashtabula 244 Burger 3 & EMDs 101
N Nuclear 3,945
Bay Shore 1 136 Mad River 60
H Hydro Total Load Following 2,952
651 Edgewater 48
G Gas & O Oil 1,599
Total Baseload 8,368
Stryker 18
Other 522 Other 63
Total 14,186 MW Total Peaking Units 2,258
* Does not reflect the Fremont plant

10
June 5-6, 2008

FES Generation Fleet Overview
Diversified and cost-effective generating fleet
– Balanced fuel mix
– Participates in both MISO and PJM markets
Mission-driven strategy
– Each unit plays a specific role in fleet: baseload, load-following, or peaking
– Strategy optimizes performance and reliability
Well-positioned for environmental regulations
– CO2 control - over 35% of generation output is non-emitting

2007 Output Mix Generation Capacity
(MWh) (MW)*

Load-
Following
22%
Nuclear
37%
Fossil Baseload Peaking
and Other 61% 17%
63%

* Based on May 2008 NDC

11
June 5-6, 2008

Realizing Full Potential of Generating Fleet
Fleet Characteristics and Mission-Driven Strategy

Significant scale: FirstEnergy Solutions (FES) controls over
14,000 MW
Fleet strategy optimizes performance and reliability
– Each unit has a specific mission (baseload, load-following or peaking)
– Increases efficiency and reduces wear and tear on baseload units
Nuclear fleet produced a record 30.3 million MWh in 2007
Generation Output*
100

80
(million MWh)

60

40

20

0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008F 2009F 2010F 2011F
29.9 28.7 29.0 30.3 32.0 31.0 32.2 32.0
Nuclear
46.5 51.5 53.0 50.7 52.7 52.4 53.7 54.6
Fossil
* Does not reflect the Fremont plant.

12
June 5-6, 2008

Mining Our Assets – incremental, low-risk investment approach to fleet expansion

Type of MW Addition 2005–2007 2008F–2011F Cumulative MW
Fossil baseload uprates 130 44 174
Peaking unit uprates 16 0 16
Nuclear baseload uprates 152 93 245
Efficiency and capacity factor improvements 149* 129** 278
Total MW additions 447 266 713
*Reflects elimination of seasonal reductions in output due to summer temperatures on peaking units
** Reflects 45 MW baseload unit and 84 MW load-following unit efficiency and capacity factor improvements

Mining Our Assets benefits:
– ~$700/kW average capital cost is competitive vs. current market price of new capacity
– Lower risk than large, long lead-time projects
– Quicker to market

Factors impacting future generation asset decisions:
– Capacity and ancillary services market structure
– Technological advances
– Environmental regulations

13
June 5-6, 2008

Leading the Way in Procuring Renewable Energy to Meet Growing Demand

FES Wind Energy Portfolio
Renewable
State Overview
Mandate Status Capacity RECs/Year

In-service 2007 145 MW 384 GWh
Drives our
PA 18% by 2020 renewable strategy Forecasted
70 MW 180 GWh
today In-service 2008

Total: 215 MW 564 GWh

Leading wind energy supplier in PA
Will impact our
OH 12.5% by 2025
renewable strategy
Evaluating expansion of current wind
portfolio
Considering other renewable technologies:
– Solar
Represents a
– Compressed air
minimal part of our
–
NJ 22.5% by 2020 Biomass
renewable
– Land fill gas
requirements
– Anaerobic digestion

14
June 5-6, 2008

Reinvesting in the Business
Enhancing Our Generation Portfolio for the Future

FirstEnergy Generation Corp. acquired partially complete 707-MW
natural gas, combined-cycle generating plant in Fremont, Ohio
– Includes two combined-cycle combustion turbines and a steam turbine
– 544 MW of load-following capacity and 163 MW of peaking capacity
– Purchased in bankruptcy auction from Calpine Corporation for $253.6M
– Aggregate construction costs expended to date exceeded $300M
– Calpine has estimated that the plant is 70% complete
– Based on this, FirstEnergy estimates cost to complete is approximately
$150M - $200M* over 18-24 months

Key benefits to FirstEnergy:
– Plant is connected to two RTOs – MISO & PJM
– Expands fleet capacity and further diversifies generation mix
– Low-emitting characteristics will further reduce our average CO2 emission rate

* Based on estimate from prior owner. Actual cost to complete subject to change following construction study.

15
June 5-6, 2008

Fossil Operating Performance
2007 Highlights 2008 Look Ahead
– Top-quartile safety performance – Achieve top-decile safety performance
– New monthly all time generation record – Drive continuous improvement through
set Aug. 2007 (4.6 million MWh) fleet standardization of best practices,
benchmarking and Fossil Excellence
– Environmental projects (AQC) on track
annual diagnostics
– Outage performance improving
– Continue to focus on transitioning
– Implemented Fossil Excellence at workforce knowledge and skills to a new
Bay Shore and Sammis (continuous generation of employees
improvement)
– Execute Mining Our Assets strategies
– On track for workforce replenishment
– Develop and implement a full start-up
– Improved performance accountability testing, training and operation strategy
– Mansfield Unit 3 uprate (30 MW) for AQC

Fossil 2007 2008F 2011 Target*
OSHA Incident Rate (per 100 employees) 1.04 1.12 0.80
Total Generation (million MWh) 50.7 52.7 54.6
Capacity Factor (Baseload %) 80.4 87.2 90.7

16
June 5-6, 2008

Nuclear Operating Performance
2007 Highlights 2008 Look Ahead
– Top-quartile safety performance – Maintain top-quartile safety performance
– DB worked > 7.6 million hours without – Targeting record generation
a Lost Time Accident (32.0 million MWh)
– Record Fleet Generation (30.3 million MWh) – Two outages – DB (Completed 2/14/08)
and BV2 (Completed 5/22/08)
– BV1 uprate (43 MW); BV2 uprate (24 MW)
– 15 MW uprate at PY effective 1/1/08
– No forced losses at BV1; BV2 top quartile
(0.05%) – Additional 12 MW from DB Caldon
modification
– NRC accepted BV license renewal application
– Additional 45 MW from BV power uprate
– Successful NRC Security drills at PY and BV
– NRC Emergency Preparedness
– Lowest BV dose during fall outage
Evaluated Exercises at BV and PY
– Dry Cask Fuel Storage underway at PY

Nuclear 2007 2008F 2011 Target
OSHA Incident Rate (per 100 employees) 0.29 0.25 0.25
Total Generation (million MWh) 30.3 32.0 32.0
Capacity Factor (%) 88.8 92.9 92.4

17
June 5-6, 2008

Top-Tier Operational Capability
Continued Improvement of Asset Utilization

Garnered significant nuclear reliability improvements during
2006–2007 outages
Fossil fleet expected to return to top-quartile performance in 2008
– AQC-related outages will lower capacity factors in 2009 and 2010
– Expect to reach top-decile performance levels by 2011

Baseload Capability/Capacity Factors
100%

95%
Factors (%)

90%

85%

80%

75%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008F 2011 Target
84.6% 86.9% 88.5% 80.4% 87.2% 90.7%
Fossil baseload
89.5% 86.2% 86.8% 88.8% 92.9% 92.4%
Nuclear

18
June 5-6, 2008

Operational Performance Targets
2011
Operational Performance 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008F
Targets*

Total Generation (million MWh) 76.4 80.2 82.0 81.0 84.7 86.6

Fossil Reliability

Capacity Factor (Baseload %) 84.6 86.9 88.5 80.4 87.2 90.7

Nuclear Reliability

Capability Factor % 89.5 86.2 86.8 88.8 92.9 92.4


19
June 5-6, 2008

Nuclear Generation
Future Refueling Outages Focus on Reliability

Expected
Scope Driving Duration
Year Plant Outage Duration (Items with asterisk* denote duration drivers)
(days)

Refueling *
Davis-Besse In-vessel visual inspection (IVVI)
Complete Rewind Main Generator
1R15
Reinforce welds on plant equipment
2008
Split Pins*
Low Pressre-2 Turbine Inspection*
Beaver Valley Complete Reactor Vessel Head Inspection
Main Cond Tube Replacement, Expansion Joints*
2R13
Replace High Pressure Turbine*
Type A Containment Pressurization Test
Refueling*
Perry 1R12 35 10-year IVVI / Bioshield In-service Inspection
Recirc Pump Motor Replacement
Replace Low Pressure Turbines (2)*
Beaver Valley
2009F 30 Reactor Coolant System Loop Stop Valves (2)
1R19 Reactor Vessel Head Inspection

Beaver Valley
25 Refueling*
2R14

20
June 5-6, 2008

Generation – Implementing Plans for the Future

Nuclear license renewal
Current Submit Request Approval New
Expiration (NRC Docket) Expected Expiration

Beaver Valley Unit 1 2016 Submitted 2007* 2009 2036

Beaver Valley Unit 2 2027 Submitted 2007* 2009 2047

Davis-Besse 2017 2010 2012 2037

Perry 2026 2013 2015 2046

* The NRC accepted the application for review.

Nuclear steam generator replacements
– Davis-Besse in 2014
– Beaver Valley Unit 2 in 2017

21
June 5-6, 2008

Generation – Implementing Plans for the Future

Nuclear spent fuel storage
– At the federal level, Yucca Mountain has been proposed as a site for
long-term storage and may be available as early as 2017 to receive
used fuel, but this is not likely. If Yucca Mountain is available in 2017,
FirstEnergy will be eligible to ship fuel starting in 2021.

Beaver Valley
Implement dry storage by the end of 2014
Unit 1

Current ongoing criticality analysis will increase storage space
Beaver Valley
Re-rack before 2011 to provide capacity through 2025
Unit 2
Dry storage could then be implemented

Continue with wet storage until 2021
Davis-Besse
Switch back to dry storage in 2022

Perry Implement dry storage before 2011

22
June 5-6, 2008

Environmental Strategy

23
June 5-6, 2008

Our Generation Fleet is Well-Positioned for the Future

Fleet Emission Control Status
2007 2010F*
Capacity (MW) Fleet % Capacity (MW) Fleet %

Non-Emitting 4,581 34% 4,653 34%
Coal Controlled
2,626 19% 5,237 38%
(SO2/NOx – full control)
Natural Gas Peaking 1,283 9% 1,197 9%
8,490 62% 11,087 81%

Longer-term environmental considerations:
CO2 control – Over 35% of annual fleet output (MWh) is non-emitting
– Involved in CO2 capture and sequestration R&D
Mercury control – Excellent reduction through “co-benefits”
– Participating in future mercury regulatory developments


24
June 5-6, 2008

AQC Construction Overview

Sammis Plant (2,233 MW) – $1.65B
– SO2 control (scrubbers) all units
– NOx control (SCRs) Units 6 & 7 (1,200 MW)
NOx control (SNCR) Units 1–5 (1,033 MW) completed
Mansfield Plant (2,490 MW) – $50M
SO2 control (scrubber) upgrades completed
Burger Plant – $180M
– NOx control (SNCR) and SO2 control
Electro-Catalytic Oxidation (ECO)
Units 4 & 5 (312 MW)
Eastlake Plant – $6M
NOx control (SNCR) Unit 5 (597 MW) completed

25
June 5-6, 2008

AQC Upgrades – Sammis Plant
Flue Duct Work – 9,000 tons (9,000 ft.)
Electrical Cable – 9,120 circuits (530 miles)
Foundation Piles – 5,600 piles (445,000 LF)
Concrete – 51,000 cubic yards
Tons of Steel – 17,200 tons
DCS I/O Points – 8,200
Large Bore Pipe – 88,300 ft. (17 miles)
Small Bore Pipe – 13,000 ft. (2.5 miles)
Overland “Pipe” Conveyor – 3.0 miles long

Sammis Plant with computer overlay
of Wet Flue Gas Desulphurization
(WFGD) equipment

26
June 5-6, 2008

Environmental Strategy
FirstEnergy’s Climate Activities

CO2 Capture and Storage Technologies
Participating in Global Climate Change Policy
• MRCSP – R.E. Burger Plant Sequestration test well
• Global Roundtable on Climate Change
• ECO2 Carbon Capture – Powerspan
• EPRI Global Climate Policy Costs & Benefits Research
• EPRI research
• EEI Climate Change Policy Subcommittee
• Power Partners
• NEI Climate Change Policy Subcommittee
• Oxy Fuel – B&W
GHG Reduction Technologies & Voluntary Actions
End-user Energy Management
• Asia-Pacific Partnership
• NJ Clean Energy Program
• EPA SF6 Reduction Partnership
• PA Sustainable Energy Fund
• EPRI GHG Reduction and Electric Transportation Research
• Ohio Energy-efficiency Programs
• Climate Vision
Renewables
• DOE 1605(b) Voluntary Reporting of GHGs Program
• 650 MWs Hydro
• Powertree Carbon Company
• >200 MWs Wind Purchase Agreements
Generation Initiatives
Renewal of Nuclear and Hydro Plant
• Fossil plant efficiencies
Operating Licenses
• Nuclear plant uprates
• Continued operation of non-emitting generation

27
June 5-6, 2008

FirstEnergy’s Position on Global Climate Change

Climate change is a global issue ultimately requiring a
global solution
Technology development is key
– Energy efficiency and demand-side management
– Clean coal technologies
– Carbon capture and sequestration
Significant future impact on price of electricity whether
states are regulated or deregulated
– Be consistent over broad geographic region
– Include reasonable compliance timeframes
– Encourage new cost-effective technologies

28
June 5-6, 2008

Additional Key Technologies FirstEnergy
is Actively Co-Funding
Plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles (PHEV)
– Considerably cleaner than
internal combustion engine
vehicle, including battery
charging
– 30% less GHG
– 15% less SO2 and NOx
– Provides largely off-peak demand, an opportunity for growth
– Advanced meters are an enabling technology

29
June 5-6, 2008

Commodity Operations

31
June 5-6, 2008

Coal Commodity Position
Continue working to secure long-
Securing Open Coal term fuel supply contracts
Commodity Positions
Actively testing alternate fuel
blends at various plants to
100%
optimize plant economics and
2008
flexibility
Engaged in fuel flexibility
98%
2009
initiative to expand margins and
fuel choices
100%
FirstEnergy is well positioned
2010
with respect to its total coal
supply through 2010
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Total Needed Tons Total Covered Tons

As of May 13, 2008

32
June 5-6, 2008

Coal Transportation Position
All transportation positions
Securing Open Coal including both rail and barge are
Transportation Positions closed thru 2010 year end
Continuing to evaluate additional
100% delivery options to increase both
2008
capabilities and flexibility
Enhanced rail unloading
100%
2009
capabilities in process at
Ashtabula, Bay Shore and
Lake Shore
100%
2010
In 2008, FES is managing PRB rail
logistics previously outsourced
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Total Needed Tons Total Covered Tons

As of May 13, 2008

33
June 5-6, 2008

Emission Allowance Position
Based on projected generation:
SO2 Position
– Latest fuel assumptions for 2008 &
270,000
2009 have further solidified our SO2
(tons)

length
180,000

– 2010 SO2 position was closed early
90,000

to mitigate potential scrubber
0
projects completion risks
2008 2009 2010
– Seasonal NOx is covered for 2008
Needed Covered Position

& 2009; 2008 & 2009 length will
secure a portion of the 2010
Seasonal NOx Position
position; 2010 is expected to be
30,000
covered by the end of Q1 2009
20,000
– Majority of 2009 – 2010 annual NOx
(tons)

requirements are covered from
10,000

allocations made by states
0
2008 2009 2010
-10,000
Needed Covered Position

As of May 13, 2008

34
June 5-6, 2008

Fuel Flexibility Creates Margin & Fuel Choices
Enhanced systems, tools and processes providing the ability to react
and adjust blends quickly to match market prices
“Fuel Flex” creates value by continuously increasing fuel blend choices
– Maximize revenues when real-time market prices are favorable
– Minimize costs when market prices are low

The Right Fuel
at the
Right Time

35
June 5-6, 2008

Managing Commodity Positions
Expected Supply Portfolio for FES*

Significant reductions in mostly on-peak energy purchases

Expected Total Supply
120
97 94
90
100
(million MWh)

80
60
40
20
0
2008F 2009F 2010F
12 7 9
Forward / Spot Purchases
32 31 32
Nuclear
53 52 53
Fossil, Hydro, Wind
Supply numbers exclude JCP&L and firm contract portion of ME/PN

•*Assumes move to open market in Ohio in 2009 and beyond. Does not reflect the Fremont plant.

36
June 5-6, 2008

Managing Commodity Positions
Expected Sales Portfolio for FES*

Transition from Power Supply Agreement (PSA) obligations to
higher margin sales

Expected Total Sales
120 97 94
90
(million MWh)

100
80
60
40
20
0
2008F 2009F 2010F
1 31 29
Retail Auction
12 20 24
Competitive Retail
18 20 21
Forward / Spot Sales
14 19 20
ME/PN PRA Obligations
52 0 0
OH PSA Obligations
Sales numbers exclude JCP&L and firm contract portion of ME/PN

•* Assumes move to open market in Ohio in 2009 and beyond. Does not reflect the Fremont plant.
•PRA- Partial Requirements Agreement
•NOTE: Supply includes generation output and forward/spot purchases

37
June 5-6, 2008

PJM Capacity Position
ME and PN have long-term capacity contracts
Beaver Valley nuclear plant (1,779 MW) committed in PJM to cover capacity position
Covered capacity prior to RPM auction for planning year 2008-2009 to replace long-term contracts
Committed Seneca pumped storage (451 MW) to PJM as a capacity resource for planning year 2009
(commencing in June 2009)

PJM Net Capacity
FES View (continuing to serve ME and PN PRA)
3500

2500

1500

500
MW

(500)

(1500)

(2500)

(3500)

2008 2009 2010

Includes Beaver Valley, Forked River, and Seneca

38
June 5-6, 2008

Energy Delivery

39
June 5-6, 2008

FirstEnergy Utilities
Strong and Stable Cash Flows

Large and balanced sales mix
– 35% residential, 32% commercial, 33% industrial
Constructive regulatory environments
– Achieve timely and full recovery of costs
– Distribution rate cases pending for all three Ohio utilities
– Requested $332M revenue increase (including $120M of deferred cost recovery)
– PUCO Staff recommended $114M-$132M increase (including $46M of deferred
cost recovery)
– PUCO Staff recommended $115M be addressed in subsequent cases

T&D infrastructure being upgraded to enhance system reliability
and customer service
Distribution outage duration reduced by 31% over past two years

40
June 5-6, 2008

FirstEnergy Service Areas

Customers Square Miles

Toledo Edison 313,000 2,300
Ohio Edison 1,040,000 7,000
The Illuminating Company 756,000 1,600
Penelec 589,000 17,600
Penn Power 159,000 1,100
Met-Ed 542,000 3,300
Jersey Central Power & Light 1,087,000 3,200
Total 4,490,000 36,100

41
June 5-6, 2008

Energy Delivery – Striving to Achieve Top-Quartile Performance

2011
Focus Area Key Metrics 2007 2008F
Target
Reliability
Distribution SAIDI (minutes) 131 128 107
Top-quartile performance
SAIDI and TOF
TOF (per circuit) * 0.72 0.69 0.63
Financial Performance
Achieve top-quartile total
Total Cost Per Customer $273 $272 $277
spend per customer
* TOF has been revised to include all circuits 69KV and above (previously 230KV and above)

Total Direct Cost per Customer SAIDI Performance
220
$300
Total Direct CPC

190
SAIDI (Minutes)
$270 160
$240 130
100
$210
70
$180
40
$150
10
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
ED&CS Top Quartile ED&CS Top Quartile

42
June 5-6, 2008

Regulated Rate Base and Sales Growth
Projected Annual Growth

Projected Rate Base –
2011
Regulated Companies (T&D) 2008F
Target
($ millions)

Net Plant for Rate Base $10,100 $11,000

Capital Expenditures, Net of Depreciation $365 $330

Average Annual (2009F – 2011F) OH PA NJ

Growth Rate (kWh) 0.9% 1.7% 2.2%

Net Plant for Rate Base ($ millions) $4,420 $3,290 $3,000

# of Customers (millions) 2.1 1.3 1.1

Growing asset base and increased distribution throughput

43
June 5-6, 2008

Capital Planning Enhancements
Energy Delivery Capital Allocation Tool (E-CAT)

Benchmarked leading performers in the area
Game Plan:
of capital allocation
Selected Navigant to help develop capital Target spend with
an emphasis on
allocation tool based on fundamental
improving reliability
engineering economics (quantified benefits)
Continued focus
on operational
improvements

E-CAT provides the granularity which drives
our ability to prioritize thousands of projects
based on predicted benefits

Capital planning has undergone a fundamental
change to enhance our financial discipline

44
June 5-6, 2008

Workforce Management
Power Systems Institute (PSI)
– Started in 2000; partnered with two colleges in Ohio to offer
lineworker training
– Currently, partnerships with 11 local community colleges
and universities across OH, PA and NJ

Enrollment/Hires Started
2008F 2009F
Graduated Hired
2000–2007 Program
Line Workers 276 236 214 123 177
Substation
110 87 82 31 60
Electricians

Total 386 323 296 154 237

45
June 5-6, 2008

Regulatory / Legislative Matters

47
June 5-6, 2008

Retail Regulatory Structure
Transition
Generation Transmission Distribution
Costs

Ohio Edison
Stable rates RTC thru:
Pass thru Fixed rates
CEI thru 2008 2008 – OE, TE
thru 20081
MISO costs
“g + RSC” 2010 – CEI
Toledo Edison

Market in In CTC ended
Penn Power No restriction
2007 Generation Jan. 2006

CTC thru 20102
Met-Ed
POLR rates Pass thru
No restriction
thru 2010 PJM costs
CTC thru 20092
Penelec

JCP&L BGS Supply No restriction MTC thru 2018

1 CEI fixed through April 2009.
2 NUG recovery thru 2020.

48
June 5-6, 2008

Transitioning Generation to Market Prices
Industry Restructuring Status

New Jersey
– Competitive generation service with market-based pricing in effect
(Basic Generation Service auction process began in 2002)
Pennsylvania
– Transition to market-based pricing partially implemented
– Penn Power transitioned to market-based pricing in Jan. 2007
– Met-Ed (ME) and Penelec (PN) maintain POLR obligations at fixed rates
through year-end 2010
– ME and PN scheduled to transition to market-based pricing in Jan. 2011
Ohio
– Utilities transferred generation assets to competitive affiliate FES in 2005
– Utilities maintain POLR obligations at fixed rates through year-end 2008
– Utilities scheduled to transition to market-based pricing in Jan. 2009

49
June 5-6, 2008

Transitioning Generation to Market Prices
Ohio Legislative Update

Existing S.B. 3 – Enacted 1999
– Generation rates to be market-based on Jan. 1, 2009

Amended Sub. S.B. 221 – Signed by Governor on May 1, 2008
– Requires all utilities to file an electric security plan (ESP)
– Could also file a market rate offer (MRO) with the following criteria:
– Belongs to a FERC-approved RTO
– RTO has a market-monitor function and the ability to mitigate market power
– A published source exists that identifies information for traded electricity and energy
products scheduled for delivery two years into the future
– The Commission would test the ESP (pricing and all other terms and conditions)
against the MRO and may only approve the ESP if it is more favorable to customers
– Bill also contains advanced and renewable energy standards and energy efficiency
– Requires annual progress toward 2025 goal of 25% alternative energy
– Requires energy efficiency programs to achieve annual progress toward 2025 goal of
cumulative energy usage reduction of 22%
– Expect to file an ESP in the 2nd or 3rd quarter of 2008

50
June 5-6, 2008

Ohio Regulatory Update
Distribution Rate Requests

Ohio Edison, CEI and Toledo Edison
– Case detail (as filed)
– Request: $332M increase (7% on overall rates)
– Distribution revenue requirements: $212M
– Deferral recovery: $120M
– Case schedule
– Filed June 2007, with 2008 test period and date certain of May 31, 2007
– PUCO Staff report issued Dec. 4, 2007
– Evidentiary hearings held Jan. 29, 2008 – Feb. 25, 2008
– Public hearings held Mar. 5 – Mar. 24
– Main briefs filed Mar. 28; reply briefs filed Apr. 18
– Rates to be effective Jan. 2009 (CEI in May 2009)
– Expect PUCO Order in the 2nd or 3rd quarter of 2008

51
June 5-6, 2008

Distribution Rate Requests (as filed)

Proposed Changes in Revenues ($ millions) Total
Current quot;Distributionquot; Revenues $1,118
Requested Increase:
Associated with RCP Fuel Expense Deferrals 34
Associated with RCP Infrastructure Expense Deferrals 40
Associated with RCP DSM Deferrals (through a rider) 4
Associated with ETP & Ohio Line Extension Deferrals 42
quot;Basequot; Revenue Requirement Increases 212
Total Requested Increase to quot;Distributionquot; Revenues $332
Proposed quot;Distributionquot; Revenues $1,450
Offsetting RTC Decrease ($594)
Net Decrease, Including Offsets * ($262)
% Decrease, Including Offsets to Total Current Revenues * -5.7%
* Assumes current Generation & Transmission rates

52
June 5-6, 2008

Distribution Rate Requests (as filed)

Company PUCO Staff
Requested Increase in Revenues ($ Millions)
Filing Testimony
To be effective 1/09 for OE & TE 1/09; 5/09 for CEI

Traditional distribution costs $212 $68 – $86
Recovery of costs deferred under prior rate plans 120 46
Total requested increase to quot;distributionquot; revenues $332 $114 – $132

Key PUCO Staff Testimony Differences

Matters to be considered in other cases ($115)*
ROE @ 10 to 11% (vs. Co. @ 11.75%) ($35) – ($16)
Other issues (net) ($68)
* $52M related to expenses in distribution case amount, $63M related to recovery of costs deferred for fuel and post date certain

Expect PUCO Order in the 2nd or 3rd quarter of 2008
Timing of requested distribution rate increases coincides with reduction/
elimination of regulatory transition revenues and amortization expenses

53
June 5-6, 2008

Supreme Court of Ohio Remand on Deferred Fuel Recovery

Rate Certainty Plan provided for the deferral of 2006 – 2008
incremental fuel costs
– Recovery was planned to occur in distribution rates over 25 years, but
Supreme Court of Ohio remanded the recovery mechanism to PUCO
– On Jan. 9, 2008, the PUCO:
– Authorized concurrent recovery of actual 2008 fuel costs via a fuel generation
rider commencing Jan. 1, 2008 (currently projected at approx. $189M)
– Directed the Companies to file an alternative recovery mechanism to collect the
2006-2007 deferred fuel costs ($220M) and carrying charges ($6M)
– On Feb. 8, 2008, the Companies filed a separate fuel cost recovery rider
for the 2006-2007 fuel and carrying charge deferrals
– Proposed recovery periods ranging from 5 and 25 years
– Evidentiary hearing scheduled for July 15, 2008

54
June 5-6, 2008

Competitive Generation Procurement Proposal

Ohio Edison, CEI and Toledo Edison
– On July 10, 2007, filed a comprehensive supply plan for competitively
priced generation service to implement market provisions of S.B. 3
effective Jan. 1, 2009
– Proposal includes:
– Option to phase in generation price increases for residential tariff groups that
experience > 15% increase in avg. total price
– Time-of-day and hourly pricing options
– Renewable energy component
– Competitive bid process (CBP) alternatives
– By Customer Class, or
– Slice of System

55
June 5-6, 2008

Competitive Generation Procurement Proposal (continued)

CBP process
– Descending clock bidding format
– Full requirements product (energy, capacity, transmission)
– Individual bidders limited to 75% of total customer load
– Multiple solicitations; three-year ladder
Bids secured in 2008 would be for service beginning Jan. 1, 2009,
and ending:
– May 31, 2010 (17-month)
– May 31, 2011 (29-month)
– May 31, 2012 (41-month)
Subsequent annual bids for 1/3 of load (3-year supply)

56
June 5-6, 2008

Pennsylvania Regulatory Update
Commonwealth Court Appeals & Generation Procurement Filing

Met-Ed (ME) and Penelec (PN)
Commonwealth Court appeals of rate cases
– $109M net increase effective Jan. 2007
– Pending appeals to Commonwealth Court
– ME & PN – denial of generation relief and tax expense adjustment
– Industrials & OCA – transmission recovery
– Oral arguments before panel of judges scheduled for September 2008

Generation procurement filing plan
– ME and PN transition to competitive generation market prices on
Jan. 1, 2011
– Plan to submit generation procurement proposal in 2008

57
June 5-6, 2008

Pennsylvania Regulatory Update
Penn Power POLR II Case

Penn Power successfully transitioned to competitive generation market
prices on Jan. 1, 2007
POLR I RFPs implemented for Jan. 2007 – May 2008
POLR II (June 2008 – May 2011)
– Multiple RFPs for residential and small commercial customers
– Hourly pricing for large commercial and industrial customers

RFP Tranches (50 MW)
Group Term
Feb 08 Mar 08 Apr 08 May 08 Oct 08 Jan 09 Oct 09 Jan 10
Residential 1 year 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 2
Residential 2 year 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 0

Small Commercial 1 year 3 4 0 0 3 4 3 4

Small Commercial Residential
■ RFPs held on Feb. 20 and Mar. 18 for June 2008 – May 2009 ■ RFPs held on Apr. 14 and May 14 for June 2008 – May 2010
■ Average price of winning bids was $80.49/ MWH (before line ■ Average price of winning bids was $80.48/ MWH (before line
losses, administration fees, and gross receipt taxes) losses, administration fees, and gross receipt taxes)

58
June 5-6, 2008

New Jersey Regulatory Matters
Jersey Central Power & Light

Draft New Jersey Energy Master Plan (Apr. 17, 2008)
– Plan goals
– Maximize energy conservation and energy efficiency
– Reduce peak electricity demand
– Meet 22.5% of the State’s electricity needs from renewable resources
– Develop new low carbon emitting, efficient power plants to help close the gap
between supply and demand of electricity
– Invest in innovative clean energy technologies and businesses to stimulate the
industry’s growth in New Jersey
– Public meetings held Apr. 28 and May 1
– Public roundtable discussions with state and national energy experts
tentatively scheduled for late June
– Public hearings to be held in July
JCP&L focus: Peak demand management and cost recovery

59
June 5-6, 2008

Financial Matters

61
June 5-6, 2008

Projected 2008 – 2012 Capital Expenditures*

2009F – 2012F
2008F**
($ millions)
Average**
Energy Delivery $730 $730
Nuclear 132 259
Fossil 354 168
Corporate/ Other 173 66
Subtotal without AQC $1,389 $1,223
Total with AQC $2,038

($ millions) 2008F 2009F 2010F 2011F 2012F
Air Quality Control (AQC) $649 $500 $156 $11 $4
Change from Prior Year $263 ($149) ($344) ($145) ($7)

* Per 2007 10-K
**Reflects Fremont plant purchase price of $253.6 million in 2008, but does not yet reflect additional construction costs under study to complete the facility.

62
June 5-6, 2008

Capital Expenditure Forecast*

Capital Expenditures ($ millions)
Business
Project Area
2009F-2012F
Unit
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008F**
Average**
– Aged infrastructure rebuild
Energy
– Pockets of load growth $445 $724 $650 $746 $730 $730
Delivery – Reliability improvements

– Improve managing operating risk
– Upgrade aged equipment
Fossil $106 $148 $116 $106 $354** $168**
– Environmental / fuel enhancements

– Availability improvements
– Dry fuel storage / license renewal
Nuclear $141 $173 $229 $150 $132 $259
– Materials issues

– Information Technology, etc.
Corporate $29 $45 $39 $108 $173 $66

Sub-Total $731 $1,090 $1,034 $1,110 $1,389 $1,223
Compliance strategy totals - Sammis,
AQC $0 $54 $136 $386 $649 $168***
Burger Units, Mansfield and Eastlake
Unit 5

Total $731 $1,144 $1,170 $1,496 $2,038 $1,391

* Per 2007 10-K
** Reflects Fremont plant purchase price of $253.6 million in 2008, but does not yet reflect additional construction costs under study to complete the facility.
*** AQC annual expenditures include $500M (2009), $156M (2010), $11M (2011), $4M (2012).

63
June 5-6, 2008

Conversion of Auction Rate Bonds
In early 2008, FirstEnergy’s debt portfolio included $530M of
long-term debt sold at auction rates
Auction rate market severely impacted by loss of liquidity and
weak investor demand
– Resulted in higher auction rate resets and failed auctions
Securities were repurchased and are currently held in Treasury
– Initially funded with short-term facilities
– Exposure capped at short-term borrowing rate, currently around 3%
On Apr. 22, Met-Ed ($28.5M) and Penelec ($45M) remarketed their
former auction-rate bonds into a variable-rate mode supported by
an LOC
Subject to market conditions, plan to refinance remainder of
these securities over the balance of the year in either a fixed-rate
or variable-rate mode

64
June 5-6, 2008

Acquiring Additional 18.26% Equity Interest
in Beaver Valley 2
On Mar. 3, 2008, notice of intent was given that FirstEnergy
Nuclear Generation Corp. (NGC) would acquire ownership of an
additional 18.26% undivided interest in Beaver Valley Unit 2 (BV2)
– NGC is exercising an early purchase option under certain existing BV2
leases originally entered into in 1987
– Purchase price is higher of specified lease casualty values (approx. $239M for
equity portion of all nine leases) or fair market value of such interests.
– Proposed structure: NGC purchases equity portion from current owners/lessors and
becomes the new lessor. The lessor notes of the nine owner trusts that secure lease
obligation bonds associated with the debt portion of the original sale and leaseback
transactions would remain in place.
– Alternative structure: NGC would purchase the equity and terminate the lease.
Would require an additional payment of approx. $236M to prepay the outstanding
principal of the lessor notes. The bonds are not subject to prepayment. If
prepayment of the notes is insufficient to pay the bonds when due, NGC would
provide a mechanism to address any such potential shortfall in a timely manner.

65
June 5-6, 2008

Achieving Targeted Growth
2008 Earnings Guidance

Issued on Dec. 5, 2007
$5.00

Ohio
Transition
Cost
Amortization
$0.14
Depreciation &
$4.50
General Taxes
$0.03
$0.06
$0.05 Other
($0.13) $4.25*
Generation
$0.04 2007
$4.20* Output
Financing Share ($0.10)
Outage ($0.04)
Costs Buyback
Wires
O&M
Sales
Costs
$4.00 Growth

$3.50 Midpoint 2007 Midpoint 2008
Non-GAAP Non-GAAP
EPS Guidance EPS Guidance

* See GAAP to Non-GAAP reconciliations in the Appendix. 2008 EPS guidance, excluding special items, is $4.15 to $4.35. On a GAAP basis, 2008 EPS is
expected to be $4.23 to $4.43 reflecting $0.08 of special items.

66
June 5-6, 2008

first energy Citi652008

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (13)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to first energy Citi652008

Similar to first energy Citi652008 (20)

More from finance21

More from finance21 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

first energy Citi652008