first energy Lehman Con9/03/08

Lehman Brothers
2008 CEO Energy/Power Conference
New York City, NY • September 2-4, 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, the impact of the
PUCO’s rulemaking process on the Ohio Companies’ ESP and MRO filings, economic or weather conditions affecting future sales and margins, changes
in markets for energy services, changing energy and commodity market prices and availability, 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 impact of the U.S. Court of Appeals July 11, 2008 decision to vacate the CAIR rules and the scope of
any laws, rules or regulations that may ultimately take their place, 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
September 2-4, 2008
Lehman Brothers 2008 CEO Energy/Power Conference

Agenda
FirstEnergy Overview

Transition to Market-Based Rates

Maximize Generation Value

Hedging Commodity Exposures

Financial Flexibility

3
September 2-4, 2008

FirstEnergy Overview
Balanced Integrated Approach

Regulated Competitive
7 Regulated Utilities FirstEnergy Solutions (FES),
an unregulated subsidiary:
– Fifth largest U.S. investor-owned electric
utility with 4.5 million customers in – Controls 14,000+ MW of generation
OH, PA & NJ capacity
– Geographic and regulatory diversity – Separate SEC Registrant
Focus on Fundamentals Focus on Fundamentals
– Enhance reliability and customer service – Transition to market-based rates
– Invest in infrastructure – Expand generation output
– 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

4
September 2-4, 2008

Transition to Market-Based Generation Rates
Ohio – 2009

Our goals in this process
– Offer achievable path toward a competitive generation market
– Meet both financial and public policy objectives
Electric Security Plan (ESP)
– Comprehensive: covering generation, distribution and transmission
– Predictable rates and customer benefits
– Provides Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) with flexibility
– 3-year generation offer; PUCO option to terminate after 2 years
– Commits to energy efficiency, economic development and infrastructure
improvements
– More favorable in the aggregate than expected MRO outcome
Market Rate Offer (MRO)
– If ESP not approved by PUCO
– Competitive supply of generation

5
September 2-4, 2008

ESP Benefits

Comprehensive Plan
– Transition toward market pricing for generation

ESP Effects 2009 2010 2011
Predictable Customer
5.32% 4.01% 5.99%
Price Increases

Generation Price $75/MWh $80/MWh $85/MWh

Phase-in Credit $7.5/MWh $8.5/MWh $9.5/MWh

Generation Price Deferrals $429M $488M $553M

6
September 2-4, 2008

ESP Benefits (continued)

Comprehensive Plan
– CEI Regulatory Transition Charge write-off – $485M
– Resolves pending Distribution rate case
– Increased distribution revenue for system and reliability improvements
– Recovers prior deferrals and establishes new deferrals
– Generation supply arrangement with FirstEnergy Solutions (FES)
– Generation prices fixed with limited exceptions
– FES commitment to add 1,000 MW of generation capacity
– Environmental remediation and reclamation up to $45M

Dec. 10, 2008 Dec. 26, 2008 Jan. 1, 2009

PUCO Order Required
PUCO Order Requested ESP Rates Effective

7
September 2-4, 2008

MRO Overview

Alternative to ESP to secure competitively priced power supply
– Competitive Bidding Process (CBP)
– Slice-of-system approach
– Independent manager to ensure transparency of bidding process
– Affiliates (FirstEnergy Solutions) may bid
Power supply is a pass through for utilities
Mitigates wholesale market volatility
– Initial supply periods staggered
– Subsequent to initial bid, 1/3 of total load bid annually via two solicitations

Oct. 29, 2008 Jan. 1, 2009

PUCO MRO Order Required MRO Rates Effective

8
September 2-4, 2008

Pennsylvania

Transition periods
– 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
Pennsylvania legislation
– Alternative Energy Investment Act enacted – $650M alternative energy fund
– Other pending legislation addresses
– Generation procurement
– Expiration of rate caps
– Conservation and renewable energy

9
September 2-4, 2008

Expand Generation Output
“Mining our Assets” Initiatives*
– No new planned baseload additions
– Low-cost, internally funded
– Proven technology, quick to market
– 2005-2007: 447 MW additions
– 2008-2011: 322 MW forecast
Fremont Natural Gas Plant
– 544 MW load-following capacity; 163 MW peaking capacity
– Expected to be in-service late 2009
Renewable Opportunities
– Wind energy
– 145 MW currently on-line
– Additional 70 MW scheduled to be completed 4Q 2008

*includes efficiency and capacity factor improvements (see slide 9 in the Appendix)

10
September 2-4, 2008

Maximize Generation Value
Appropriate hedging
– Coal, coal transportation, nuclear fuel, and emission allowance positions
significantly closed for 2008-2010 forecasted generation
– Rising total fuel costs of approx. $200M in 2008
– Primarily coal transportation and surcharges
– Similar increase projected in 2009
– Eastern coal, other non-coal fossil, nuclear fuel

“Fuel Flex” expands margins and fuel choices
– Blend coal to match market conditions on near real-time basis
– Maximize revenues when power prices are high
– Minimize fuel costs when power prices are low

11
September 2-4, 2008

Effectively Hedge Commodity Exposures
Strategic investment in Bull
Mountain mine operation located
in eastern Montana
Estimated annual output of
12 million to 14 million tons
and reserves of approximately
440 million tons
Equity investment of $125M;
45% interest in joint venture
15-year coal agreement
Concurrent rail agreements

12
September 2-4, 2008

Effectively Hedge Commodity Exposures
Bull Mountain Strategic Advantages

FES secures long-term coal supply
– Delivery of up to 10M tons annually at
competitive prices (starting in late 2009)
– Closes FirstEnergy coal position through 2013
– Increased fuel optionality
Higher heat content vs. Powder River Basin
– 10,300 BTU vs. 8,800 BTU, resulting in higher
production at FirstEnergy generating facilities
– Avoided derates of approximately 170 to 200 MW
Environmental advantages
– 50% lower sulfur and ash content than eastern coal
– Lower mercury content
– Lower CO2 emissions per MW
Opportunity to resell tonnage not used at FirstEnergy facilities
Total FirstEnergy annual coal requirement = 22-25 million tons

13
September 2-4, 2008

FirstEnergy is an Attractive Risk/Reward Opportunity

Managing transition to competitive markets (OH & PA)
Maximizing generation value
Earnings and cash flow growth from competitive business
Rigorous focus on fundamentals, execution and operational excellence
Strong and stable utilities
Financial flexibility for the future

2009 2010 2011

Bottom Line: Maximize benefits to shareholders

14
September 2-4, 2008

Corporate Profile

16
September 2-4, 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
– 37% nuclear; 63% fossil/other (2007 output MWh)
Approx. $13B in annual revenues and more than $33B in assets
Approx. $22B market capitalization
Investment grade credit ratings PA
OH NJ

17
September 2-4, 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 546,000 3,300
Jersey Central Power & Light 1,087,000 3,200
Total 4,490,000 36,100
* Per 2007 10-K

18
September 2-4, 2008

Generation

19
September 2-4, 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
* As of April 18, 2008. Does not reflect the Fremont plant

20
September 2-4, 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

21
September 2-4, 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.

22
September 2-4, 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 130 100 230
Peaking unit uprates 16 0 16
Nuclear baseload uprates 152 93 245
Efficiency and capacity factor improvements 149* 129** 278
Total MW additions 447 322 769
*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

23
September 2-4, 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 renewable
PA 18% by 2020 Forecasted
strategy today 70 MW 180 GWh
In-service 2008

Total: 215 MW 564 GWh

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

24
September 2-4, 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
– Calpine construction costs exceeded $300M
– FirstEnergy estimated cost to complete is approximately $208M
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

25
September 2-4, 2008

Fossil Operating Performance
2007 Highlights 2008 Highlights and 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

26
September 2-4, 2008

Nuclear Operating Performance
2007 Highlights 2008 Highlights and 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

27
September 2-4, 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

28
September 2-4, 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


29
September 2-4, 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

30
September 2-4, 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

31
September 2-4, 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

32
September 2-4, 2008

Environmental Strategy

33
September 2-4, 2008

Our Generation Fleet is Well-Positioned for the Future

Fleet Emission Control Status
August 2008 2010F
Capacity (MW) Fleet % Capacity (MW) Fleet %

Non-Emitting 4,596 34% 4,653 32%
Coal Controlled
2,626 19% 5,293 36%
(SO2/NOx – full control)
Natural Gas 1,197 9% 1,904 13%
8,419 62% 11,850 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

34
September 2-4, 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

35
September 2-4, 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

36
September 2-4, 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

37
September 2-4, 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

38
September 2-4, 2008

Commodity Operations

39
September 2-4, 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
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Total Needed Tons Total Covered Tons

As of June 30, 2008

40
September 2-4, 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 June 30, 2008

41
September 2-4, 2008

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

The Right Fuel
at the
Right Time

42
September 2-4, 2008

Energy Delivery

43
September 2-4, 2008

FirstEnergy Utilities
Strong and Stable Cash Flows

Large and balanced sales mix
– Approximately 1/3 residential, 1/3 commercial, 1/3 industrial
T&D infrastructure being upgraded to enhance system reliability
and customer service
Distribution outage duration reduced by 31% over past two years
Constructive regulatory environments
– Achieve timely and full recovery of costs
– Distribution rate case pending for all three Ohio utilities
– Ohio utilities requested resolution of distribution rates in ESP

44
September 2-4, 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

45
September 2-4, 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

46
September 2-4, 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

47
September 2-4, 2008

Regulatory / Legislative Matters

49
September 2-4, 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
2010 – CEI2
“g + RSC”
Toledo Edison

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

CTC thru 20103
Met-Ed
POLR rates Pass thru
No restriction
thru 2010 PJM costs
CTC thru 20093
Penelec

JCP&L BGS Supply No restriction MTC thru 2018

1 CEI fixed through April 2009.
2 Proposed waiver of CEI’s RTC beginning Jan. 1, 2009 as part of ESP.
3 NUG recovery thru 2020.

50
September 2-4, 2008

Transitioning Generation to Market Prices
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 filed ESP and MRO with the PUCO for generation pricing effective
Jan. 2009

51
September 2-4, 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;
effective July 31, 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 may only approve the ESP if it finds it is more favorable in the
aggregate as compared to the expected results from an MRO.
– Bill also contains advanced and renewable energy standards and energy efficiency
– Requires annual progress toward 2025 goal for renewable energy resources
– Requires energy efficiency programs to achieve annual progress toward 2025 goal of
cumulative energy usage reduction of 22%
– On July 31, 2008 the Ohio utilities simultaneously filed an ESP and MRO with
the PUCO

52
September 2-4, 2008

Ohio Regulatory Update
ESP Components (as filed)
Year Generation Charge Phase In Credit Deferral*
2009 $75.00/MWh ($7.50)/MWh $429M
2010 $80.00/MWh ($8.50)/MWh $488M
2011 $85.00/MWh ($9.50)/MWh $553M

Component Amount
Deferred Fuel Cost Rider $0.34/MWh Not to exceed 25 yrs, eff. 1/1/09

Non-Distribution Uncollectible Rider $0.40/MWh Effective 1/1/09

FES Commitment/Capacity Additions 1,000 MW Between 1/1/07 and 12/31/11

Environmental Remediation/Reclamation $15M/yr $15M per yr. for 3 yrs.

*Estimate; not including carrying charges
Two options for financing of deferral amounts and carrying charges:
• Company financing
• Securitization transactions
Recovery may not exceed 10 years

Note: ESP Filing in Case No. 08-935-EL-SSO and docketed with the PUCO

53
September 2-4, 2008


Generation charge will be fixed, with limited exceptions,
including:
– Fuel transportation cost surcharges in excess of $30M in 2009, $20M in
2010, $10M in 2011
– 2011 increase in fuel costs (vs. 2010), excluding certain fuel components
including emission allowances, fuel handling, disposal, lime, urea and
ammonia
– Planning reserve margin costs incurred annually between May 1
and Sept. 30
– Costs incurred for purchase of capacity by FES if owned generation is
insufficient
– New renewable requirements, taxes, or new environmental laws or
interpretations of existing laws in excess of $50M during the plan period

54
September 2-4, 2008


Component Amount
$150M 1
Distribution Rate Increase OE/TE effective 1/1/09; CEI 5/1/09
Allowed Rate of Return on Equity 10.50%
CEI Distribution Deferral $25M Costs 1/1/09 through 5/1/09

$2.00/MWh2
Delivery Service Improvement Rider 1/1/09 through 12/31/11
CEI RTC Write-Off $485M 2008 GAAP earnings ($1.01/share)
Deferred Transmission Rider $43.9M Effective 1/1/09 for 2 yrs.
Energy Delivery Capital Investment $1B 1/1/09 through 12/31/13
Energy Efficiency/DSM Commitment Up to$5M/yr 1/1/09 through 12/31/13
Economic Development Commitment Up to $5M/yr 1/1/09 through 12/31/13
AMI Pilot Commitment Up to $1M During Plan

1$75M OE; $34.5M CEI; $40.5M TE, rates stable until Jan. 1, 2014
2May be adjusted annually (+/- 15%) based on SAIDI performance

55
September 2-4, 2008

Other ESP Provisions (as filed)

Transmission Rider
– Recovery of all MISO, ancillary and congestion costs; reconcilable
Deferred Distribution Cost Recovery Rider
– Includes Jan.-April 2009 CEI deferral, post-date certain distribution costs,
and deferred transition taxes and unrecovered balances of line
extension deferrals
Storm Damage and Distribution Enhancement Rider
– Storm damage expenses in excess of $13.9M annually
– Line extension cost recovery
– Depreciation, tax and carrying charges on capital investments to
improve reliability

56
September 2-4, 2008

Other ESP Provisions (as filed)

Economic Development Rider
– Promotes gradualism, recognizes efficiency, mitigates overall bill impact to
customers through credits and charges
Reasonable Arrangements Rider
– Mechanism to administer certain tariff discounts pursuant to PUCO
proposed rules for customers committing to energy efficiency
improvements
Demand Side Management (DSM)/Energy Efficiency Rider
– Recovers costs associated with energy efficiency, peak load reduction and
DSM programs
Delta Revenue Recovery Rider
– Recovers the difference in revenues from applicable rate schedule
resulting from reasonable arrangements and special discounts

57
September 2-4, 2008

MRO Procurement Process (as filed)

Suppliers bid to provide energy, capacity, transmission service,
transmission ancillaries
Competitive Bid Process (CBP) with descending clock
bidding format
Slice of system approach/100 MW tranches
– Supply procured on a total basis
– Voltage and seasonal factors used to convert winning bid price to
retail rates
PUCO selects least cost bid winner(s)
Required renewable resources met through an RFP separate from
the CBP under the MRO

Note: MRO Filing in Case No. 08-936-EL-SSO and docketed with the PUCO

58
September 2-4, 2008

MRO Procurement Process (as filed)

59
September 2-4, 2008

Short-Term ESP Overview (as filed)

Option provides flexibility and benefits
– Customers obtain early price certainty for Jan. 1, 2009
– Base generation rate of 7.75 cents/kWh, with 1.0 cent/kWh phase-in credit
– PUCO gains additional time to consider longer-term ESP
– Provides for more orderly CBP if the MRO is selected
Severable by the PUCO
– Acceptance of the longer-term ESP or MRO
– PUCO inaction on ESP by Mar. 5, 2009

Nov. 14, 2008 Jan. 1, 2009 – May 1, 2009

PUCO Approval Required Short-Term ESP Window

60
September 2-4, 2008

Detailed Timeline

ESP/MRO PUCO ESP Procedural Schedule
8/18/08 – Technical Conference
10/29/08 – PUCO MRO Order Required
9/4/08 – Motions to Intervene
11/14/08 – Short-Term ESP Decision
9/15/08 – Intervenor Testimony
12/10/08 – PUCO ESP Order Requested
9/19/08 – Discovery Due
12/26/08 – PUCO ESP Order Required
9/22/08 – PUCO Staff Testimony
1/1/09 – ESP or MRO rates effective
10/2/08 – Evidentiary Hearing(s)
OR
1/1/09 – 5/1/09 – Short-Term ESP in
effect, if implemented

New generation prices under the ESP, MRO or Short-
Term ESP effective January 1, 2009

61
September 2-4, 2008

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)
– Ohio Companies requested resolution of distribution rates in ESP

62
September 2-4, 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

63
September 2-4, 2008

FirstEnergy Utilities
Ohio Distribution Rate Cases
Company
Requested Increase in Revenues ($ Millions) PUCO Brief
Filing
To be effective 1/09 for OE & TE 1/09; 5/09 for CEI

Traditional distribution costs $212 $71 – $89
Recovery of costs deferred under prior rate plans 120 46
Total requested increase to quot;distributionquot; revenues $332 $117 – $135

Key PUCO Brief Differences

Matters to be considered in other cases ($115)*
ROE @ 10 to 11% (vs. Co. @ 11.75%) ($35) – ($16)
Other issues (net) ($65)
* $52M related to expenses in distribution case amount, $63M related to recovery of costs deferred for fuel and post date certain

Ohio Companies requested resolution of distribution rates in ESP
ESP also requested 10.5% ROE

64
September 2-4, 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 Sept. 29, 2008
– Ohio Companies requested resolution of 2006-2007 fuel deferral issue
in ESP

65
September 2-4, 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

Transmission service charge (TSC)
– The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PPUC) approved the annual
updates to the TSC rider for the period June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2009
– PPUC investigating reasonableness of Met-Ed’s TSC; hearings scheduled in
Jan. 2009
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

66
September 2-4, 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)

67
September 2-4, 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
held in late June
– Public hearings and comment period held through July
– Expect final plan in 3rd or 4th quarter of 2008
JCP&L focus: Peak demand management and cost recovery

68
September 2-4, 2008

Financial Matters

69
September 2-4, 2008

Projected 2008 – 2012 Capital Expenditures*

2009F – 2012F
2008F
($ millions)
Average
Energy Delivery $730 $730
Nuclear 132 259
Fossil 395 210
Corporate/ Other 173 66
Subtotal without AQC $1,430 $1,265
Total with AQC $2,079

($ 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 plus Fremont construction expenditures

70
September 2-4, 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 $395* $210*
– 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 $1,430 $1,265
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 $2,079 $1,433

* Per 2007 10-K plus Fremont construction expenditures
** AQC annual expenditures include $500M (2009), $156M (2010), $11M (2011), $4M (2012)

71
September 2-4, 2008

Acquired Additional Equity Interest in Beaver
Valley 2 and Perry
On May 30, 2008 Nuclear Generation Corp. (NGC) purchased
56.8 MW of lessor equity interests in the Perry Plant
Between June 2, 2008, and June 9, 2008 NGC acquired ownership
of an additional 202 MW of lessor equity interest in Beaver Valley
Unit 2 (BV2)
NGC exercised early purchase options under certain existing
leases originally entered into in 1987
The previous lessors continue to lease these MWs under the
respective sale and leaseback arrangements and the related
lease debt remains outstanding

72
September 2-4, 2008

2008 Non-GAAP Earnings Per Share Guidance
Reconciliation of GAAP to Non-GAAP

As of Aug. 1, 2008

2008 EPS
Basic EPS (GAAP basis) $4.27 – $4.37
Excluding Special Items*:
Gain on Sale of Non-Core Assets (0.06)
Litigation Settlement (0.03)
Trust Securities Impairment 0.07
Basic EPS (Non-GAAP basis) $4.25 – $4.35

* Excludes possible write-off of $485 million of CEI’s estimated unrecoverable transition costs under the proposed ESP, which if recognized, would be
categorized as a Special Item ($1.01 per share).

73
September 2-4, 2008

Achieving Targeted Growth
Major Earnings Drivers 2009 – 2011

Distribution rate case in OH effective 2009

Increased generation prices in OH in 2009

Market generation prices in PA in 2011

Asset mining / realizing full potential of generation assets

Further operational enhancements

74
September 2-4, 2008

Achieving Targeted Growth (continued)
Major Earnings Drivers 2009 – 2011

Declining margin from OH transition plans

Impact of expiring Met-Ed/Penelec third-party power
contract in 2009

Increasing fuel and purchased power costs

Increasing O&M costs

Higher depreciation expenses (non-cash)

75
September 2-4, 2008

first energy Lehman Con9/03/08

first energy Lehman Con9/03/08

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (12)

Similar to first energy Lehman Con9/03/08

Similar to first energy Lehman Con9/03/08 (20)

More from finance21

More from finance21 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

first energy Lehman Con9/03/08