FirstEnergy Corp.: 10-K Risk Factor Changes

Our aspirations and disclosures related to EESG matters expose us to risks that could adversely affect our reputation and performance. We have published statements concerning our EESG goals and aspirations and, in February 2024, we published a Climate Position and Strategy that included an update on our previously-announced GHG emission goals. We are targeting Scope 1 carbon neutrality by 2050, which for us includes emission from coal generation, SF6 leaks from transmission and distribution equipment, and our mobile fleet (i.e., vehicles). These statements reflect our current plans and aspirations and are not guarantees that we will be able to achieve them. Our failure to adequately update, accomplish or accurately track and report on these goals on a timely basis, or at all, could adversely affect our reputation, financial performance and growth, and expose us to increased scrutiny from the investment community, special interest groups and enforcement authorities. Conversely, certain “anti-environmental, social and governance” sentiment among some individuals and government institutions pose the risk that we may face increasing scrutiny, reputational risk, or lawsuits from these parties regarding our EESG initiatives. Our ability to achieve any EESG objective is subject to our ability to make operational changes and is conditioned upon numerous risks, many of which are outside of our control. Examples of such risks include the evolving regulatory requirements in the jurisdictions in which we operate, the prevalence of certain EESG standards or disclosures, the evolving laws applicable to environmental, social and governance matters, and the availability of funds to invest in EESG initiatives in times where we are seeking to reduce costs. Standards for tracking and reporting EESG matters continue to evolve. Our selection of voluntary disclosure frameworks and standards, and the interpretation or application of those frameworks and standards, may change from time to time or differ from those of others. Methodologies for reporting EESG data may be updated and previously reported EESG data may be adjusted to reflect improvement in availability and quality of third-party data, changing assumptions, changes in the nature and scope of our operations and other changes in circumstances. Our processes and controls for reporting EESG matters across our operations and supply chain are evolving along with multiple disparate standards for identifying, measuring, and reporting EESG metrics, including EESG-related disclosures that may be required by the SEC, European and other regulators, and such standards may change over time, which could result in significant revisions to our current goals, reported progress in achieving such goals, or ability to achieve such goals in the future. If our EESG practices do not meet evolving investor or other stakeholder expectations and standards, then our reputation or our attractiveness as an investment, business partner, acquiror, service provider or employer could be negatively impacted. We have coal-fired generation capacity, which exposes us to risk from regulations relating to coal, GHGs and CCRs, which could lead to increased costs or the need to spend significant resources to defend allegations of violation. We own and maintain coal-fired generating plants located in West Virginia. Historically, coal-fired generation has greater exposure to the costs of complying with federal, state and local environmental statutes, rules and regulations relating to air emissions, including GHGs and CCR disposal, than other types of electric generation facilities. To the extent that changes in government policies limit or restrict the usage of coal as a source of fuel in generating electricity or alternate fuels, such as 18 18 18 18 18 18 natural gas, or displace coal on a competitive basis, our business and results of operations could be adversely affected. These legal requirements and any future initiatives could impose substantial additional costs and, in the case of GHG requirements, could raise uncertainty about the future viability of fossil fuels, particularly coal, as an energy source for new and existing electric generation facilities and could require our coal-fired generation to curtail generation or cease to generate. Failure to comply with any such existing or future legal requirements may also result in the assessment of fines and penalties. Significant resources also may be expended to defend against allegations of violations of any such requirements. Concerns about GHG emissions and the potential risks associated with climate change have led to increased regulation and other actions that could impact our businesses. Federal and various regional and state authorities regulate GHG emissions, including CO2 emissions and have created financial incentives to reduce them. In 2022, FirstEnergy operated businesses that had total CO2 emissions of approximately 16.5 million metric tons. For existing power generation plants, CO2 emissions data are either obtained directly from plant continuous emission monitoring systems or calculated from actual fuel heat inputs and fuel type CO2 emission factors. This estimate is based on a number of projections and assumptions that may prove to be incorrect, such as the forecasted dispatch, anticipated plant efficiency, fuel type, CO2 emissions rates and our subsidiaries’ achieving completion of such construction and development projects. While actual emissions may vary substantially, the projects under construction or development when completed will increase emissions of our portfolio and therefore could increase the risks associated with regulation of GHG emissions. In 2010, the EPA adopted regulations pertaining to GHG emissions that require new and existing sources of GHG emissions to potentially obtain new source review permits from the EPA prior to construction or modification. In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such permitting would only be required if such sources also must obtain a new source review permit for increases in other regulated pollutants. For further discussion of the regulation of GHG emissions, see Item 1.—Business—Environmental Matters – Climate Change, above. The Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s Paris Agreement established a long-term goal of keeping the increase in global average temperature well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels. We anticipate that the Paris Agreement will continue the trend toward efforts to decarbonize the global economy and to further limit GHG emissions. Furthermore, the SEC has proposed climate-related disclosure rules that have not yet been enacted as of the date of this report, and certain states have begun to pass their own laws related to GHG emissions. The impact of GHG regulation on our operations will depend on a number of factors, including the degree and timing of GHG emissions reductions required under any such legislation or regulation, the cost of emissions reduction equipment and the price and availability of offsets, the extent to which market based compliance options are available, the extent to which our subsidiaries would be entitled to receive GHG emissions allowances without having to purchase them in an auction or on the open market and the impact of such legislation or regulation on the ability of our subsidiaries to recover costs incurred through rate increases or otherwise. The costs of compliance could be substantial. We have a minority ownership stake in a coal mine that requires governmental permits and approvals to operate, and a failure of the coal mine to renew and maintain such permits and approvals may adversely affect our results of operations and cash flow. FEV currently holds a 33-1/3% equity ownership in Global Holding, the holding company for a joint venture in the Signal Peak mining and coal transportation operations with coal sales predominantly in international markets. The viability of our investment depends upon several factors beyond our control, including, but not limited to: Signal Peak’s ability to renew and maintain governmental permits and approvals and remain in compliance with federal, state, and local safety and environmental statutes, rules, and regulations affecting the coal mining industry. Failure by Signal Peak to renew and maintain necessary permits and approvals, and to comply with any such statutes, rules and regulations, may impair its operations and the ability to generate cash flows necessary for Global Holding to pay future dividends and contribute to FirstEnergy’s earnings. Signal Peak operates a single underground coal mine in south-central Montana and must obtain numerous governmental permits and approvals that impose strict conditions and obligations relating to, among other things, various environmental and safety matters in connection with its mining and coal transportation operations. The rules applicable to these permits and approvals are complex and can change over time. Regulatory authorities exercise considerable discretion in the timing and scope of permit issuance. In addition, the public has the right to comment on permit applications and otherwise participate in the permitting process, including through court intervention. Limitations on Signal Peak’s ability to conduct its mining operations due to its inability to obtain or renew necessary permits or similar approvals could materially reduce or even halt production at the mine resulting in an adverse effect on our balance sheet, results of operations and cash flow. Signal Peak is currently a party to litigation that is challenging the validity of its permit to expand its mine into adjacent leased federal coal reserves. After receiving initial approval in 2015 from the OSMRE to expand the mine, environmental non-governmental organizations filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Montana the same year challenging OSMRE’s environmental assessment, which was a finding of no significant impact, and the expansion approval. The District Court affirmed OSMRE’s conclusions. In April 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed the District Court’s ruling affirming the expansion approval and remanded the case back to the District Court. On February 10, 2023, the District Court vacated the permit issued by OSMRE, which restricts Signal Peak’s ability to mine federal coal until OSMRE completes an environmental impact statement and reissues the permit. While the District Court’s ruling is not expected to materially impede Signal Peak’s 19 19 19 19 19 19 ability to conduct its mining operations over the next 12-24 months, the inability to successfully obtain the permit from OSMRE would prohibit Signal Peak from mining those adjacent leased federal coal reserves and could further adversely impact Signal Peak from efficiently and economically conducting its mining operations thus reducing its production, cash flow and profitability. Costs of compliance with environmental laws are significant, and the cost of compliance with new environmental laws, including limitations on GHG emissions related to climate change, could adversely affect our cash flows and financial condition. Our operations are subject to extensive federal, state and local environmental statutes, rules and regulations. Compliance with these legal requirements requires us to incur costs for, among other things, installation and operation of pollution control equipment, emissions monitoring and fees, remediation and permitting at our facilities. These expenditures have been significant in the past and may increase in the future. We may be forced to shut down other facilities or change their operating status, either temporarily or permanently, if we are unable to comply with these or other existing or new environmental requirements, or if the expenditures required to comply with such requirements are unreasonable. Moreover, new environmental laws or regulations including, but not limited to GHG emissions, Clean Water Act effluent limitations imposing more stringent water discharge regulations, or other changes to existing environmental laws or regulations may materially increase our costs of compliance or accelerate the timing of capital expenditures or other capital-like investments. Our compliance strategy, including but not limited to, our assumptions regarding estimated compliance costs, although reasonably based on available information, may not successfully address future relevant standards and interpretations. If we fail to comply with environmental laws and regulations or new interpretations of longstanding requirements, even if caused by factors beyond our control, that failure could result in the assessment of civil or criminal liability and fines. In addition, any alleged violation of environmental laws and regulations may require us to expend significant resources to defend against any such alleged violations. Due to the uncertainty of control technologies available to reduce GHG emissions, any legal obligation that requires substantial reductions of GHG emissions could result in substantial additional costs, adversely affecting cash flows and profitability, and raise uncertainty about the future viability of fossil fuels, particularly coal, as an energy source for new and existing electric generation facilities. The EPA may conduct NSR investigations at our generating plants, which could result in the imposition of fines. We 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 our generation facilities in a manner that results in increased emissions could subject our existing generation facilities to the far more stringent new source standards applicable to new generation facilities. The EPA has 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 generating facilities. Should the EPA investigate our generating plants in the future, it could, if violations were discovered, result in the imposition of fines. We are or may be subject to environmental liabilities, including costs of remediation of environmental contamination at current or formerly owned facilities, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. We may be subject to liability under environmental laws for the costs of remediating environmental contamination of property now or formerly owned or operated by us and of property contaminated by hazardous substances that we may have generated regardless of whether the liabilities arose before, during or after the time we owned or operated the facilities. We are currently involved in a number of proceedings relating to sites where hazardous substances have been released and we may be subject to additional proceedings in the future. We also have current or previous ownership interests in sites associated with the production of gas and the production and delivery of electricity for which we may be liable for additional costs related to investigation, remediation and monitoring of these sites. Remediation activities associated with our former MGP operations are one source of such costs. Citizen groups or others may bring litigation over environmental issues including claims of various types, such as property damage, personal injury, and citizen challenges to compliance decisions on the enforcement of environmental requirements, such as opacity and other air quality standards, which could subject us to penalties, injunctive relief and the cost of litigation. We cannot predict the amount and timing of all future expenditures (including the potential or magnitude of fines or penalties) related to such environmental matters, although we expect that they could be material. In addition, there can be no assurance that any liabilities, losses or expenditures we may incur related to such environmental liabilities or contamination will be covered under any applicable insurance policies or that the amount of insurance will be adequate. In some cases, a third party who has acquired assets including operating and deactivated nuclear power stations from us has assumed the liability we may otherwise have for environmental matters related to the transferred property. If the transferee fails to discharge the assumed liability or disputes its responsibility, a regulatory authority or injured person could attempt to hold us responsible, and our remedies against the transferee may be limited by the financial resources of the transferee. We could be exposed to private rights of action relating to environmental matters seeking damages under various state and federal law theories which could have an adverse impact on our results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and business operations. 20 20 20 20 20 20 Private individuals may seek to enforce environmental laws and regulations against us and could allege personal injury, property damages or other relief. For example, claims have been made against certain energy companies alleging that CO2 emissions from power generating facilities constitute a public nuisance under federal and/or state common law. While FirstEnergy is not a party to this litigation, it, and/or one of its subsidiaries, could be named in other actions making similar allegations. An unfavorable ruling in any such case could result in the need to make modifications to our coal-fired generation or reduce emissions, suspend operations or pay money damages or penalties. Adverse rulings in these or other types of actions could have an adverse impact on our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition and could significantly impact our business operations. Transition risks associated with climate change, including those related to regulatory mandates could negatively impact our financial results. Where federal or state legislation mandates the use of renewable fuel sources, such as wind and solar and such legislation does not also provide for adequate cost recovery of our revenue requirements, it could result in significant changes in our business, including material increases in renewable energy credit purchase costs, purchased power costs and capital investments, as such costs are spread over reduced sales volumes. Such mandatory renewable portfolio requirements may have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. A number of regulatory and legislative bodies have introduced requirements and/or incentives to reduce peak demand and energy consumption. Such conservation programs have previously resulted in and could result in further load reduction and adversely impact our financial results in different ways. We currently have energy efficiency riders in place in certain of our states to recover the cost of these programs either at or near a current recovery time frame in the states where we operate. In our regulated operations, energy conservation could negatively impact us depending on the regulatory treatment of the associated impacts. Should we be required to invest in conservation measures that result in reduced sales from effective conservation, regulatory lag in adjusting rates for the impact of these measures could have a negative financial impact. In the past, we have been adversely impacted by reduced electric usage due in part to energy conservation efforts such as the use of efficient lighting products such as compact fluorescent lights, halogens and light emitting diodes. We are unable to determine what impact, if any, future conservation activities will have on our financial condition or results of operations. Additionally, failure to meet regulatory or legislative requirements to reduce energy consumption or otherwise increase energy efficiency could result in penalties that could adversely affect our financial results. Financial and reputational risks associated with owning coal-fired generation and a minority-interest in a coal mine may have an adverse impact on our business operations, financial condition and cash flows. MP's fleet consists of 3,093 MWs of coal-fired generation and FEV holds a 33-1/3% equity ownership in Global Holding, the holding company for a joint venture in the Signal Peak mining and coal transportation operations with international coal sales. Certain members of the investment community have adopted investment policies promoting the divestment of, or otherwise limiting new investments in, coal-fired generation and coal mining. The impact of such efforts may adversely affect the demand for and price of our common stock and impact our and MP's access to the capital and financial markets. Further, certain insurance companies have established policies limiting coal-related underwriting and investment. Consequently, these policies aimed at coal-fired generation could have a material adverse impact on our reputation, business operations, financial condition, and cash flows. The Physical Risks Associated with Climate Change May Have an Adverse Impact on Our Business Operations, Financial Condition and Cash Flows. Physical risks of climate change, such as more frequent or more extreme weather events, changes in temperature and precipitation patterns, and other related phenomena, could affect some, or all, of our operations. Severe weather or other natural disasters could be destructive, which could result in increased costs, including supply chain costs. An extreme weather event within the Utilities' service areas can also directly affect their capital assets, causing disruption in service to customers due to downed wires and poles or damage to other operating equipment. Further, as extreme weather conditions increase system stress, we may incur costs relating to additional system backup or service interruptions, and in some instances, we may be unable to recover such costs. For all of these reasons, these physical risks could have an adverse financial impact on our business operations, financial condition and cash flows. Climate change poses other financial risks as well. To the extent weather conditions are affected by climate change, customers’ energy use could increase or decrease depending on the duration and magnitude of the changes. Increased energy use due to weather changes may require us to invest in additional system assets and purchase additional power. Additionally, decreased energy use due to weather changes may affect our financial condition through decreased revenues, margins or earnings.

We Have Coal-Fired Generation Capacity, Which Exposes Us to Risk from Regulations Relating to Coal, GHGs and CCRs and Could Lead to Increased Costs or the Need to Spend Significant Resources to Defend Allegations of Violation Historically, coal-fired generation has greater exposure to the costs of complying with federal, state and local environmental statutes, rules and regulations relating to air emissions, including GHGs and CCR disposal, than other types of electric generation facilities. These legal requirements and any future initiatives could impose substantial additional costs and, in the case of GHG requirements, could raise uncertainty about the future viability of fossil fuels, particularly coal, as an energy source for new and existing electric generation facilities and could require our coal-fired generation to curtail generation or cease to generate. Failure to comply with any such existing or future legal requirements may also result in the assessment of fines and penalties. Significant resources also may be expended to defend against allegations of violations of any such requirements. We Have a Minority Ownership Stake in a Coal Mine That Requires Governmental Permits and Approvals to Operate and a Failure of the Coal Mine to Renew and Maintain Such Permits and Approvals May Adversely Affect Our Results of Operations and Cash Flow FEV currently holds a 33-1/3% equity ownership in Global Holding, the holding company for a joint venture in the Signal Peak mining and coal transportation operations with coal sales predominantly in international markets. The viability of our investment depends upon several factors beyond our control, including, but not limited to: Signal Peak’s ability to renew and maintain governmental permits and approvals and remain in compliance with federal, state, and local safety and environmental statutes, rules, and regulations affecting the coal mining industry. Failure by Signal Peak to renew and maintain necessary permits and approvals, and to comply with any such statutes, rules and regulations, may impair its operations and the ability to generate cash flows necessary for Global Holding to pay future dividends and contribute to FirstEnergy’s earnings. Signal Peak operates a single underground coal mine in south-central Montana and must obtain numerous governmental permits and approvals that impose strict conditions and obligations relating to, among other things, various environmental and safety matters in connection with its mining and coal transportation operations. The rules applicable to these permits and approvals are complex and can change over time. Regulatory authorities exercise considerable discretion in the timing and scope of permit issuance. In addition, the public has the right to comment on permit applications and otherwise participate in the permitting process, including through court intervention. Limitations on Signal Peak’s ability to conduct its mining operations due to its inability to obtain or renew necessary permits or similar approvals could materially reduce or even halt production at the mine resulting in an adverse effect on our balance sheet, results of operations and cash flow. Signal Peak is currently a party to litigation that is challenging the validity of its permit to expand its mine into adjacent leased federal coal reserves. After receiving initial approval in 2015 from the OSMRE to expand the mine, environmental non-governmental organizations filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Montana the same year challenging OSMRE’s environmental assessment, which was a finding of no significant impact, and the expansion approval. The District Court affirmed OSMRE’s conclusions, and the environmental non-governmental organizations appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In April 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed the District Court’s ruling affirming the expansion approval and remanded the case back to the District Court. On February 10, 2023, the District Court vacated the permit issued by OSMRE, which would restrict Signal Peak’s ability to mine federal coal until OSMRE completes an environmental impact statement and reissues the permit. While the District Court’s ruling is not expected to materially impede Signal Peak’s ability to conduct its mining operations over the next 12-24 months, the inability to successfully obtain the permit from OSMRE would prohibit Signal Peak from mining those adjacent leased federal coal reserves and could further adversely impact Signal Peak from efficiently and economically conducting its mining operations thus reducing its production, cash flow and profitability. Costs of Compliance with Environmental Laws are Significant, and the Cost of Compliance with New Environmental Laws, Including Limitations on GHG Emissions Related to Climate Change, Could Adversely Affect Our Cash Flows and Financial Condition Our operations are subject to extensive federal, state and local environmental statutes, rules and regulations. Compliance with these legal requirements requires us to incur costs for, among other things, installation and operation of pollution control 17 17 17 17 17 17 equipment, emissions monitoring and fees, remediation and permitting at our facilities. These expenditures have been significant in the past and may increase in the future. We may be forced to shut down other facilities or change their operating status, either temporarily or permanently, if we are unable to comply with these or other existing or new environmental requirements, or if the expenditures required to comply with such requirements are unreasonable. Moreover, new environmental laws or regulations including, but not limited to GHG Emissions, CWA effluent limitations imposing more stringent water discharge regulations, or other changes to existing environmental laws or regulations may materially increase our costs of compliance or accelerate the timing of capital expenditures or other capital-like investments. Our compliance strategy, including but not limited to, our assumptions regarding estimated compliance costs, although reasonably based on available information, may not successfully address future relevant standards and interpretations. If we fail to comply with environmental laws and regulations or new interpretations of longstanding requirements, even if caused by factors beyond our control, that failure could result in the assessment of civil or criminal liability and fines. In addition, any alleged violation of environmental laws and regulations may require us to expend significant resources to defend against any such alleged violations. Due to the uncertainty of control technologies available to reduce GHG emissions, any legal obligation that requires substantial reductions of GHG emissions could result in substantial additional costs, adversely affecting cash flows and profitability, and raise uncertainty about the future viability of fossil fuels, particularly coal, as an energy source for new and existing electric generation facilities. The EPA is Conducting NSR Investigations at Generating Plants that We Currently or Formerly Owned, Which Could Result in the Imposition of Fines We 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 our existing and former generation facilities in a manner that results in increased emissions could subject our existing generation facilities to the far more stringent new source standards applicable to new generation facilities. The EPA has 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 investigated alleged violations of the NSR standards at certain of our existing and former generating facilities. We intend to vigorously pursue and defend our position, but we are unable to predict their outcomes, which could include the possible imposition of fines. We Are or May Be Subject to Environmental Liabilities, Including Costs of Remediation of Environmental Contamination at Current or Formerly Owned Facilities, Which Could Have a Material Adverse Effect on Our Results of Operations and Financial Condition We may be subject to liability under environmental laws for the costs of remediating environmental contamination of property now or formerly owned or operated by us and of property contaminated by hazardous substances that we may have generated regardless of whether the liabilities arose before, during or after the time we owned or operated the facilities. We are currently involved in a number of proceedings relating to sites where hazardous substances have been released and we may be subject to additional proceedings in the future. We also have current or previous ownership interests in sites associated with the production of gas and the production and delivery of electricity for which we may be liable for additional costs related to investigation, remediation and monitoring of these sites. Remediation activities associated with our former MGP operations are one source of such costs. Citizen groups or others may bring litigation over environmental issues including claims of various types, such as property damage, personal injury, and citizen challenges to compliance decisions on the enforcement of environmental requirements, such as opacity and other air quality standards, which could subject us to penalties, injunctive relief and the cost of litigation. We cannot predict the amount and timing of all future expenditures (including the potential or magnitude of fines or penalties) related to such environmental matters, although we expect that they could be material. In addition, there can be no assurance that any liabilities, losses or expenditures we may incur related to such environmental liabilities or contamination will be covered under any applicable insurance policies or that the amount of insurance will be adequate. In some cases, a third party who has acquired assets including operating and deactivated nuclear power stations from us has assumed the liability we may otherwise have for environmental matters related to the transferred property. If the transferee fails to discharge the assumed liability or disputes its responsibility, a regulatory authority or injured person could attempt to hold us responsible, and our remedies against the transferee may be limited by the financial resources of the transferee. We Could be Exposed to Private Rights of Action Relating to Environmental Matters Seeking Damages Under Various State and Federal Law Theories Which Could Have an Adverse Impact on Our Results of Operations, Financial Condition, Cash Flows and Business Operations Private individuals may seek to enforce environmental laws and regulations against us and could allege personal injury, property damages or other relief. For example, claims have been made against certain energy companies alleging that CO2 emissions from power generating facilities constitute a public nuisance under federal and/or state common law. While FirstEnergy is not a party to this litigation, it, and/or one of its subsidiaries, could be named in other actions making similar allegations. An unfavorable ruling in any such case could result in the need to make modifications to our coal-fired generation or reduce emissions, suspend operations or pay money damages or penalties. Adverse rulings in these or other types of actions could 18 18 18 18 18 18 have an adverse impact on our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition and could significantly impact our business operations. We Are and May Become Subject to Legal Claims Arising from the Presence of Asbestos or Other Regulated Substances at Some of Our Facilities that May Have an Adverse Impact on Our Business Operations, Financial Condition and Cash Flows We have been named as a defendant in pending asbestos litigations involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, in several states. The majority of these claims arise out of alleged past exposures by contractors (and in Pennsylvania, former employees) at both currently and formerly owned electric generation plants. In addition, asbestos and other regulated substances are, and may continue to be, present at currently owned facilities where suitable alternative materials are not available. We believe that any remaining asbestos at our facilities is contained and properly identified in accordance with applicable governmental regulations, including OSHA. The continued presence of asbestos and other regulated substances at these facilities, however, could result in additional actions being brought against us. This is further complicated by the fact that many diseases, such as mesothelioma and cancer, have long latency periods in which the disease process develops, thus making it impossible to accurately predict the types and numbers of such claims in the near future. While insurance coverages exist for many of these pending asbestos litigations, others have no such coverages, resulting in FirstEnergy being responsible for all defense expenditures, as well as any settlements or verdict payouts.

The inability to close the FET minority equity interest sale to Brookfield announced in February 2023 may have material adverse effects on our cash flows, liquidity and financial condition. On February 2, 2023, FE, along with FET, entered into the FET P&SA II with Brookfield and the Brookfield Guarantors, pursuant to which FE agreed to sell to Brookfield at the closing, and Brookfield agreed to purchase from FE, an incremental 30% equity interest in FET for a purchase price of $3.5 billion. The majority of the purchase price is expected to be paid in cash upon closing, and the remainder will be payable by the issuance of secured promissory notes, which is expected to be repaid by the end of 2024. As a result of the consummation of the transaction, Brookfield’s interest in FET will increase from 19.9% to 49.9%, while FE will retain the remaining 50.1% ownership interests of FET. The transaction is subject to customary closing conditions, including approval from the PPUC The FET Minority Equity Interest Sale is expected to close by the end of the first quarter of 2024. Upon closing, FET will continue to be consolidated in FirstEnergy’s financial statements. This transaction involves various inherent risks, such as our ability to obtain the necessary regulatory and other approvals; the timing of and conditions imposed upon us by regulators in connection with such approvals; and our ability to realize the benefits expected from the transaction. In addition, various factors, including prevailing market conditions, could negatively impact the benefits we receive from this transaction. Our failure to consummate this transaction in a timely manner, including satisfying all closing conditions, could have material adverse effects on our cash flows, liquidity and financial condition.

The Inability to Close the FET Minority Equity Interest Sale to Brookfield Announced in February 2023 May Have Material Adverse Effects on Our Cash Flows, Liquidity and Financial Condition As previously disclosed, on November 6, 2021, FirstEnergy, along with FET, entered into the FET P&SA I, with Brookfield and Brookfield Guarantors pursuant to which FET agreed to issue and sell to Brookfield at the closing, and Brookfield agreed to purchase from FET, certain newly issued membership interests of FET, such that Brookfield would own 19.9% of the issued and outstanding membership interests of FET, for a purchase price of $2.375 billion. The transaction closed on May 31, 2022. On February 2, 2023, FE, along with FET, entered into the FET P&SA II with Brookfield and the Brookfield Guarantors, pursuant to which FE agreed to sell to Brookfield at the closing, and Brookfield agreed to purchase from FE, an incremental 30% equity interest in FET for a purchase price of $3.5 billion. The purchase price will be payable in part by the issuance of a promissory note expected to be in the principal amount of $1.75 billion. The remaining $1.75 billion of the purchase price will be payable in cash at the closing. As a result of the consummation of the transaction, Brookfield’s interest in FET will increase from 19.9% to 49.9%, while FE will retain the remaining 50.1% ownership interests of FET. The transaction is subject to customary closing conditions, including approval from the FERC and certain state utility commissions, and completion of review by the CFIUS. In addition, pursuant to the FET P&SA II, FirstEnergy has agreed to make the necessary filings with the applicable regulatory authorities for the PA Consolidation. The FET Minority Equity Interest Sale is expected to close by early 2024. Upon closing, FET will continue to be consolidated in FirstEnergy’s GAAP financial statements. This transaction involves various inherent risks, such as our ability to obtain the necessary regulatory and third-party approvals; the timing of and conditions imposed upon us by regulators in connection with such approvals; and our ability to realize the benefits expected from the transaction. In addition, various factors, including prevailing market conditions, could negatively impact the benefits we receive from this transaction. Our failure to consummate this transaction in a timely manner, including satisfying all closing conditions, could have material adverse effects on our cash flows, liquidity and financial condition. The Consolidation of our Pennsylvania Companies May Not be Completed in a Timely Manner or at All, We May Not Be Able to Obtain the Approvals Required to Complete the PA Consolidation or Such Approvals May Contain Material Restrictions or Conditions Which May Make It Undesirable to Complete the PA Consolidation, and We Could Face Litigation Concerning the PA Consolidation, Whether or Not the PA Consolidation is Consummated The PA Consolidation, including applicable asset sales is subject to numerous conditions, including the approval of NYPSC, PPUC and FERC, which may not approve one or more of the contemplated steps in the PA Consolidation, or such approvals may impose conditions on the completion, or require changes to the terms of the PA Consolidation, including restrictions on the business, operations or financial performance of the resulting operating company, which could be adverse to FirstEnergy’s interests. These conditions or changes could also delay or increase the cost of the PA Consolidation or limit the net income or financial prospects of the resulting operating company. Our inability to complete the PA Consolidation in a timely manner, or at all, including applicable asset sales, could hinder our ability to close the FET Minority Equity Interest Sale to Brookfield and could negatively affect our share price, as well as our future business and financial results. In addition, the work required to complete the PA Consolidation may place a significant burden on management and internal resources. Management's attention and other company resources may be focused on the PA Consolidation instead of on day-to-day management activities, including pursuing other opportunities beneficial to FirstEnergy.