FirstEnergy (FE7) Risk Analysis
Risk Overview Q2, 2026
Risk Change Over Time
Risk Highlights Q2, 2026
Risk Word Cloud
Risk Factors Full Breakdown - Total Risks 45
- Regulation - Risk 1The EPA may conduct NSR investigations at FirstEnergy's electric generation facilities, which could result in the imposition of fines.
FirstEnergy may be subject to risks from changing or conflicting interpretations of existing laws and regulations, including, for example, the applicability of the EPA's NSR programs. Under the CAA, modification of FirstEnergy's electric generation facilities in a manner that results in increased emissions could subject FirstEnergy's existing electric generation facilities to the far more stringent new source standards applicable to new electric generation facilities. The EPA has historically taken the view that many companies, including many energy producers, have been modifying emissions sources in violation of NSR standards during work considered by the companies to be routine maintenance. The EPA has previously investigated alleged violations of the NSR standards at certain of our existing and former electric generation facilities. Regulatory requirements and enforcement priorities continue to change, but should the EPA investigate FirstEnergy's electric generation facilities in the future, it could, if violations were discovered, result in the imposition of fines.
- Regulation - Risk 2Complex and changing federal, state and local government regulations and actions, including those associated with rates, could have a negative impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
We are subject to comprehensive regulation by various federal, state and local regulatory agencies that significantly influence our operating environment. Changes in, or reinterpretations of, existing laws or regulations, or the imposition of new laws or regulations, by federal executive orders or otherwise, have in the past and could in the future require us to incur additional costs, which could be substantial, or change the way we conduct our business, and therefore could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations and financial condition.
- Regulation - Risk 3External pressures beyond our control may increase customer rates and, when combined with state and federal regulatory action to mitigate bill impacts, may impair our ability to earn a fair and equitable return on our investments and execute our strategy.
PJM's recent capacity auctions have been subject to a "price collar" that has resulted from all-time high generation capacity prices in recent auction outcomes. These all-time high capacity prices ultimately are passed through in retail rates and can result in material increases in retail customers' monthly electric utility bills. On January 16, 2026, the PJM board along with various federal and state officials, expressed interest in extending the price collar through mid-2030. In addition, the parties to the Statement of Principles suggested that PJM should conduct a "backstop" auction to procure additional generation capacity, with the costs to be allocated first to "new" data centers and second to existing PJM loads. If the PJM capacity auctions continue to clear at the auction cap, and if PJM conducts a "backstop" capacity auction that clears at a high price point, customer resistance to the resulting market driven increases on the generation portion of their bills could lead to increased pressure for state and federal utility regulators to limit the needed capital investment in transmission and distribution systems required for safe, reliable and resilient service to customers, which may impair our ability to earn a fair and equitable return on our investments and execute our strategy. Our investments in transmission and distribution infrastructure modernization, reliability improvements, environmental compliance and storm hardening may increase customer bills over time and the resulting higher electric bills, when combined with the external pressures discussed above, may place pressure on residential customers' affordability, particularly in portions of our service territory with lower median household income or high energy burdens and/or amongst those customers who have already seen significant retail bill increases. State and federal regulators may also adopt or modify policies intended to mitigate customer bill impacts – including disallowance or delayed recovery of certain capital investments or operating expenses, mandated bill assistance programs, changes to rate design, or restrictions on rate increases. Customer concerns regarding affordability may result in increased regulatory scrutiny, constraints on the size and timing of rate increases, expanded bill mitigation requirements, or disallowances, any of which could adversely affect our ability to recover costs or earn our authorized return on equity. In addition, sustained increases in customer bills may lead to reduced electricity usage through conservation, energy efficiency, or distributed generation, which could limit future load growth and revenues. Regulatory agencies may also require utilities to offset portions of rising costs related to grid modernization, resilience investments, environmental compliance, or rapidly evolving market conditions if they determine that such costs would unduly affect customer affordability. Any such actions could limit or delay our ability to recover costs or investments, earn a fair and equitable return, or maintain expected cash flows and could have an adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
- Regulation - Risk 4Federal rate regulation may delay or deny full recovery of costs and impose risks on our operations. Any denial or reduction of, or delay in cost recovery could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.
FERC policy currently permits recovery of prudently incurred costs associated with cost-of-service-based wholesale power rates and the expansion and updating of transmission infrastructure within its jurisdiction. FERC's policies on recovery of transmission costs continue to evolve, evidenced by ongoing proceedings to determine an appropriate ROE methodology to determine transmission ROEs, to determine whether FERC's existing policies on transmission rate incentives should be revised, and to determine whether certain classes of network transmission upgrade costs can be recovered in transmission rates and whether such costs will be direct charged to the connecting customer. If FERC were to adopt a different policy regarding recovery of transmission costs or if there is any resulting delay in cost recovery, our strategy of investing in transmission could be adversely affected. If FERC were to lower the rate of return it has authorized for FirstEnergy's cost-based wholesale power rates or transmission investments and facilities, it could reduce future earnings and cash flows, and adversely impact our financial condition. FERC, at the instruction of the U.S. Secretary of Energy, is also considering whether to develop regulations intended to speed interconnection of AI data centers and "hybrid" data center/electric generation facilities (collectively, "large loads") to the transmission system. Final regulations, if any, from FERC are expected in the second quarter of 2026. To the extent the new regulations promulgated by FERC do not permit transmission utilities to fully recover costs associated with transmission network upgrades required to serve new large loads, our strategy of investing in transmission could be adversely affected.
- Regulation - Risk 5State rate regulation may delay or deny full recovery of costs and impose risks on our operations. Any denial of or delay in cost recovery could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, liquidity, cash flows and financial condition.
The retail rates for each of the Electric Companies are set by each of its respective regulatory agency for utilities in the state in which it operates - in Maryland by the MDPSC, in New Jersey by the NJBPU, in Ohio by the PUCO, in Pennsylvania by the PPUC, in West Virginia by the WVPSC and in New York by the NYPSC – through traditional, cost-based regulated utility ratemaking. As a result, any of the Electric Companies may not be permitted to recover its costs and, even if it is able to do so, there may be a significant delay between the time it incurs such costs and the time it is allowed to recover them. Factors that may affect outcomes in the distribution rate cases include, but are not limited to: (i) the value of plant in service; (ii) authorized rate of return; (iii) capital structure (including hypothetical capital structures); (iv) depreciation rates; (v) the allocation of shared costs, including consolidated deferred income taxes and income taxes payable across the Electric Companies; (vi) regulatory approval of rate recovery mechanisms for capital investment spending programs; and (vii) the accuracy of forecasts used for ratemaking purposes in "future test year" cases. Evolving legislation and executive actions related to our rates enacted by individual states, such as Ohio Senate Bill 2 of 2025 and Executive Order No. 2 of 2026 issued by the New Jersey governor on January 20, 2026, may also affect outcomes in distribution rate cases or could create uncertainty around our rate strategy. FirstEnergy can provide no assurance that any base rate request filed by any of the Electric Companies will be granted in whole or in part. Any denial of, or delay in, any base rate request could restrict the applicable utility from fully recovering its costs of service, may impose risks on its operations, and may negatively impact such Electric Company's results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. In addition, to the extent that any of the Electric Companies seek an increase in rates, third-party pressure may be exerted on the applicable legislators and regulators to take steps to control rate increases, including through some form of rate increase moderation, reduction or freeze. Any related public discourse and debate, including with respect to the HB 6 litigation, can increase uncertainty associated with the regulatory process, the level of rates and revenues that are ultimately obtained, and the ability of the Electric Company to recover costs. Such uncertainty may restrict operational flexibility and resources, reduce liquidity and increase financing costs.
See a full breakdown of risk according to category and subcategory. The list starts with the category with the most risk. Click on subcategories to read relevant extracts from the most recent report.