FEFirstEnergy

In December 2009, the EPA released its final “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for GHGs under the Clean Air Act,” concluding that concentrations of several key GHGs constitute an “endangerment” and may be regulated as “air pollutants” under the CAA and mandated measurement and reporting of GHG emissions from certain sources, including electric generating plants. Subsequently, the EPA released its final CPP regulations in August 2015 to reduce CO2 emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs and finalized separate regulations imposing CO2 emission limits for new, modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel-fired EGUs. Numerous states and private parties filed appeals and motions to stay the CPP with the D.C. Circuit in October 2015. On February 9, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the rule during the pendency of the challenges to the D.C. Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court. On March 28, 2017, an executive order, entitled “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,” instructed the EPA to review the CPP and related rules addressing GHG emissions and suspend, revise or rescind the rules if appropriate. On June 19, 2019, the EPA repealed the CPP and replaced it with the ACE rule that established guidelines for states to develop standards of performance to address GHG emissions from existing coal-fired generation. On January 19, 2021, the D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded the ACE rule declaring that the EPA was “arbitrary and capricious” in its rule making and, as such, the ACE rule is no longer in effect and all actions thus far taken by states to implement the federally mandated rule are now null and void. Vacating the ACE rule had the unintended effect of reinstating the CPP because the repeal of the CPP was a provision within the ACE rule. The D.C. Circuit decision was appealed by several states and interested parties, including West Virginia, arguing that the EPA did not have the authorization under Section 111(d) of the CAA to require “generation shifting” as a way to limit GHGs. On June 30, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency held that the method the EPA used to regulate GHGs (generation shifting) under Section 111(d) of the CAA (the CPP) was not authorized by Congress and remanded the rule to the EPA for further reconsideration. In response, on May 23, 2023, the EPA published a proposed rule pursuant to CAA Section 111 (b) and (d) in line with the decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency intended to reduce power sector GHG emissions (primarily CO2 emissions) from fossil fuel based EGUs. The On April 25, 2024, the EPA issued a final rule, which proposed we refer to as the GHG rule, that imposed stringent GHG emissions limitations based on fuel type and unit retirement date, was issued as final by the EPA on April 25, 2024. date. In May 2024, a group of 25 states, including West Virginia, filed a challenge to the rule in the D.C. Circuit. Also in May 2024, other utility groups, including the Midwest Ozone Group and Electric Generators for a Sensible Transition, both of which MP is a member, filed petitions for review of the GHG rule as well as motions to stay the rule in the D.C. Circuit. On July 19, 2024, the The D.C. Circuit denied subsequently granted a motion from the stay motions and on July 23 and 26, 2024 the aggrieved petitioners filed emergency stay applications to the U.S. Supreme Court. On October 16, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the stay applications. On December 6, 2024, oral arguments on the merits of the challenge were heard by the D.C. Circuit. On February 5, 2025, the Department of Justice filed an unopposed motion on behalf of EPA in the D.C. Circuit, seeking to hold placing the litigation in abeyance, and forego issuing its opinion, for a period abeyance until further order of 60 days while the new leadership at EPA evaluates the rule and determines how it wishes to proceed Court. On February 19, June 17, 2025, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA’s motion. Depending on EPA published a proposed rule to repeal the outcome GHG rule. The EPA is expected to issue a final rule repealing all or portions of any appeals, compliance with these standards could require additional capital expenditures or changes the GHG rule in operation at the Ft. Martin and Harrison power stations. February 2026.

•On May 31, 2024, the Ohio Companies filed their application for an increase in base distribution rates, based on a 2024 calendar year test period. The Ohio Companies requested a net increase in base distribution revenues of approximately $94 million with a return on equity of 10.8% and capital structures of 44% debt and 56% equity for CEI, 46% debt and 54% equity for OE, and 45% debt and 55% equity for TE, which reflects a roll-in of current riders such as DCR and AMI. The net increase represented a 1.5% average residential monthly bill increase. Key components of the base rate case filing include a proposal to change pension and OPEB recovery to the delayed recognition method and to implement a mechanism to establish a regulatory asset (or liability) to recover (or refund) net differences between the amount of pension and OPEB expense requested in the proceeding and the actual amount each year using this method. Additionally, the Ohio Companies requested recovery of certain incurred costs, including the impact of major storms, a program to convert streetlights to LEDs, and others. On June 14, 2024, the Ohio Companies filed supporting testimony and on July 31, 2024, filed an update with an adjusted net increase of base distribution revenues of approximately $190 million and to incorporate incorporated matters in the rate case as directed by the PUCO’s ESP V order. On December 18, 2024, the PUCO issued an order approving the Ohio Companies’ withdrawal of ESP V. On January 22, 2025, the PUCO approved the Ohio Companies’ revised ESP IV tariffs, effective February 1, 2025, at which time the Ohio Companies resumed operating under ESP IV. On January 27, 2025, the Ohio Companies notified the PUCO of their intention to update their application for an increase in base distribution rates to remove ESP V related provisions from the base rate case. The On November 19, 2025, the PUCO staff hired a third party auditor to assist issued an order in the review of the Ohio Companies’ base rate case filing lifting the rate freeze and on February 21, 2025, PUCO staff and the third party auditor each filed their reports. The auditor’s report recommended adjustments which would result in approving a net increase of the Ohio Companies’ in base distribution revenues of the Ohio Companies of approximately $8 million $34 million, with a return on equity of 9.63% and a hypothetical capital structures structure of 48.8% debt and 51.2% equity for each all three Ohio Companies, which reflects a roll-in of current riders such as DCR and AMI. The PUCO authorized continuance of Rider DCR with a cap increase commensurate with capital investments through January 31, 2025, and approved the Ohio Companies’ proposal to change pension and OPEB recovery to the delayed recognition method. Additionally, the order authorizes recovery of certain deferred costs for storm restoration, operations and maintenance, and energy efficiency. As a result of the order, the Ohio Companies recognized a $352 million pre-tax impairment charge related to the disallowance from future recovery of certain previously capitalized amounts. On November 26, 2025, the Ohio Companies filed proposed compliance tariffs. On December 19, 2025, the Ohio Companies and other parties filed applications for rehearing and on December 29, 2025, the Ohio Companies filed a memorandum against intervenors’ applications for rehearing. On January 7, 2026, the PUCO issued an entry granting rehearing in order to determine whether its November 19, 2025 base rate case opinion and order should be affirmed, abrogated, or modified on rehearing. On January 9, 2026, the Ohio Companies filed an expedited motion for ruling on the proposed compliance tariffs and on February 4, 2026, PUCO staff issued a letter recommending that most of the Ohio Companies. PUCO staff’s report takes limited positions on the auditor’s finding and recommendations and makes additional findings. Companies’ proposed compliance tariffs be approved. The Ohio Companies plan cannot predict the outcome of the rehearing, but do not expect material changes to respond and file supplemental testimony by March 24, 2025. the November 2025 order.

For We rely on complex information technology systems to operate our generation, transmission and distribution networks and to store sensitive business, employee and customer data. Increasingly sophisticated cyber-attacks, ransomware, and other security breaches—whether targeting us or third parties with whom we do business—could disrupt operations, compromise confidential information, and result in significant financial, legal, and reputational harm. Cybersecurity threats, including those that exploit advances in technologies such as artificial intelligence, continue to grow in frequency and sophistication, and the security controls we implement may not fully prevent or detect all such threats or incidents. Emerging artificial intelligence technologies may be used to develop new hacking tools, obscure malicious activities, exploit vulnerabilities, and increase the difficulty of these reasons, any detecting threats. Despite ongoing investments in cybersecurity, we cannot guarantee prevention or timely detection of all threats, which continue to evolve and may be amplified by interconnected systems. A successful attack or breach could lead to service interruptions, regulatory penalties, litigation, remediation costs, and loss of customer trust. Any such cyber incident could result in significant lost revenue, the inability to conduct critical business functions and serve customers for a significant period of time, the loss of confidential, sensitive and proprietary information, including but not limited to personal information of our customers, employees, suppliers, vendors and other third parties, the use of significant management resources, legal claims or proceedings, regulatory penalties, significant remediation costs, increased regulation, increased capital costs, increased insurance costs, increased protection costs for enhanced cyber security cybersecurity systems or personnel, and/or damage to our reputation, all of which could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and reputation.