FINDINGS OF FACT
1. FirstEnergy recently acquired control of Mon Power and PE. Monongahela Power Company, et al., Case No. 10-0713-E-PC (Commission Order, December 16, 2010).
2. Certain FirstEnergy customers in West Virginia have received high bills which may be attributable to estimated OT average bills that may not have reasonably reflected historical usage and require further review.

1. Following the acquisition of Mon Power and PE in 2010, what changes, if any, to meter reading and customer billing has FirstEnergy implemented?
2. What data does FirstEnergy use to derive estimated or average bills?
3. To what extent has FirstEnergy reviewed or analyzed each current method of calculating estimated or averaged monthly bills of West Virginia customers after the acquisition of Mon Power and PE?
4. What was the effect of the severe storms in 2012 on how FirstEnergy calculated bills or its meter reading practices?
5. What is the total number of complaints received by First Energy from West Virginia customers about meter reading, estimated bills or average billing. Please provide a breakdown by complaint category.
6. What percentage of FirstEnergy customers in West Virginia had actual company employee meter readings (i) from one to five times per consecutive twelve month period, (ii) six times per consecutive twelve month period, (iii) more than six times per consecutive twelve month period over the last twenty-four consecutive months?
7. Did FirstEnergy maintain and incorporate historical billing data that pre-dated the merger into its calculation of estimated bills or average payment plans?
8. Describe in detail the manpower and equipment currently used to provide meter reading to Mon Power and PE customers and provide the same information for that activity prior to the FirstEnergy acquisition.
9. Describe in detail the manpower and equipment currently used to provide billing and customer service to Mon Power and PE customers and provide the same information for that activity prior to the FirstEnergy acquisition and after the FirstEnergy acquisition.
10. Describe the meter reading scheduling for Mon Power and PE, and describe the alternatives and options that are available to Mon Power and PE to reschedule or otherwise handle unexpected interruptions to normal meter reading schedules such as weather related incidents, unscheduled employee leave, transportation equipment failures or other such disruptive incidents.
11. Does FirstEnergy collect metrics regarding its customer service call center or other customer service contacts with ratepayers for any purpose including internal evaluations, planning and budgeting, or external reporting to other regulatory agencies? Provide a twenty-four month summary of each available customer service metric for all customers and separately for West Virginia customers along with a brief description of each metric.
12. What assistance does FirstEnergy provide to customers that receive large actual bills following a period of estimated bills?

The purpose of this general investigation is not to address individual customer bills directly. We recognize that considering the high level of formal and informal filings by individual customers to date, there may be a tendency for individuals to want to address their grievances in this proceeding. Each customer is entitled to specific evaluation of the particulars of individual billing and payment issues and such evaluation is best accomplished through the formal and informal review processes available for individual complaints. Customer-specific, formal and informal matters will continue to be resolved individually. This proceeding will focus on the practices, policies and procedures in place at Mon Power and PE and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses at a structural level.

We feel that the current billing problems are an unanticipated consequence of the company’s efforts to reduce expenses that can only be corrected by making sure that the company is being adequately funded to read meters with the frequency stipulated by the tariff.  This deficiency can only be remedied through a new base rate case. We also request that amounts necessary to read meters as required that were not spent by the company over the past two years be refunded to ratepayers, and that the Commission impose any and all fines, penalties and reprimands available under its authority consistent with its findings, among other relief measures.

The problems stem from a series of issues connected with several large storms and with FirstEnergy's acquisition of the utilities' former parent, Allegheny Energy in early 2011, according to company spokesman Todd Meyers.

Bills are based on alternate months of actual meter readings and estimates, Meyers said.

During storm response — including, since the acquisition, Hurricane Irene in August 2011, the derecho in June 2012 and superstorm Sandy in October 2012, as well as smaller storms — meter readers may be called off their routes to watch lines that have been reported down until line crews arrive. They return to reading meters on schedule, so the readings that are missed during those periods aren't made up and result in three estimates in a row — which can result in large true-up bills when those meters are read in the fourth month.

In addition, as FirstEnergy began transitioning from Allegheny's system in which meter readers conducted meter maintenance and other functions as well to its own system in which they only read meters, some staff in the Potomac Edison service area switched to other positions, creating a temporary staffing shortage in mid-2012, Meyers said.

And another phase of transition in early 2013 called "renumbering," in which routes were adjusted, also resulted in a one-time long billing cycle, he said — which, again, created problems primarily in the eastern panhandle.

But in lengthy opening remarks, Albert, a former utility company lawyer whose firm represents FirstEnergy, criticized what he said were inaccurate comments submitted to the PSC and reported by the media about the case. Albert did not provide any specific examples.

Later, he said, "There was an awful lot of testimony (this morning, in the public portion), everybody said we can save the world by energy efficiency and demand response."

As for Chairman Albert: Not to place too much meaning on a small word choice, he spoke of the effect of the proposed transaction at the beginning of the hearing using "will" rather than "would."

Dan Eggers - Credit Suisse: Just following up on Tony's comments and Leila's comments about Harrison. Can you just maybe help us understand how important it is you think at this point in time to move that asset over from a balance sheet perspective relative to a customer benefit perspective? And then given kind of the wide or the low bid made in the intervenor testimony, how important it is to take a lower price or accept a lower price to get this done relative to keep in at FES if the pricing doesn't makes sense?
James F. Pearson - SVP and CFO: I'll start off with that, Dan. Well, let me start off. I think the low price of the $565 million or whatever that's just a nonstarter. So, I'll leave that at that. From a balance sheet perspective, we think we are in pretty good shape by getting the FirstEnergy Corp. bond deal done where we upsize to $1.5 billion. We also feel that we're in very good position with the hydro asset sales. So, we feel real comfortable about that. And as you know, we plan to infuse equity from FirstEnergy down into Mon Power associated with this asset transfer. If the asset transfer doesn't go forward, we would likely infuse that equity that we have planned for Mon Power down into FES. So, I think we end up at a good position for the balance sheet there at FES.
Anthony J. Alexander - President and CEO: Dan, this is Tony. As I'm looking at this, I think, this is far more important to West Virginia and Mon Power in terms of providing them with a stable and long-term resource that they can rely on than it is at this point from a balance sheet standpoint at FES or at FirstEnergy.
Dan Eggers - Credit Suisse: But if it didn't transfer, you'd feel comfortable keeping that extra capacity at FES?
Anthony J. Alexander - President and CEO: Absolutely. It's a great asset. So that's not a consideration.

Credit Suisse noted, “We have liked FE shares over peers for some time, attracted to the large base of regulated utility earnings (73% of 2015) that to us better protected the rich 5.2% dividend yield as well as management's commitment to, and success in, finding ways to extract value from the generation business (FES) in spite of sustained weak power market conditions through the early adoption of Retail, aggressive O&M controls, and fleet management through plant closures and seasonal dispatch until unit economics improved. We still see FE striving to do these things but the ugly reality of the 2016/17 RPM auction results are hard to deny: poor discipline by incumbent generators in the face of depressed forwards and the crushing impact of newbuild capacity plus greater imports are all contributing to an oversupplied market that will inevitably leave energy and capacity prices weak. We are lowering FE to Neutral (from Outperform) - meaning performance in-line with peers - and a target of $40 (from $45) built from our sum-of-the-parts valuation methodology. We see downside from here in all of the Integrated power names as the long and uncertain path to a power market recovery forces investors to reconsider the multiples paid for commodity cyclical power generation assets.”

Shares of FirstEnergy Corp. took a hit on Tuesday after Dan Eggers, an analyst for Credit Suisse, downgraded the company's stock to “neutral” from “outperform.”

At around 1:45 p.m., FirstEnergy was trading below $39.50 a share, or a price that was down more than 7% from its close last Friday of $42.62 a share.

In issuing the downgrade, Credit Suisse cited “an oversupplied market that will inevitably leave energy and capacity prices weak.” Mr. Eggers reduced his price target for FirstEnergy to $40 from $45.