---
ticker: FE
company: FirstEnergy Corp.
filing_type: 10-K
year_current: 2026
year_prior: 2025
risks_added: 0
risks_removed: 1
risks_modified: 2
risks_unchanged: 3
source: SEC EDGAR
url: https://riskdiff.com/fe/2026-vs-2025/
markdown_url: https://riskdiff.com/fe/2026-vs-2025/index.md
generated: 2026-05-10
---

# FirstEnergy Corp.: 10-K Risk Factor Changes 2026 vs 2025

> Source: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (EDGAR)  
> Generated: 2026-05-10  
> All data extracted directly from official filings. No hallucinated content.

> **[AI-Generated Summary]** The paragraph below was produced by a language
> model and may contain errors. All other content on this page is deterministically
> extracted from the original SEC filing.

> FirstEnergy Corp. consolidated its strategic initiatives risk with its regulatory risk in 2026, replacing the standalone "Risks Associated with the Execution of Our Strategic Initiatives" disclosure with a combined risk factor addressing both strategic execution and distribution/transmission regulation. The company modified its reputation and securities litigation risk factor, suggesting changes in how these interconnected risks are characterized. These modifications reflect three unchanged risk factors alongside the structural consolidation, indicating a shift toward integrated risk presentation rather than substantive expansion of FirstEnergy's risk profile.

---

## Summary

| Status | Count |
|--------|-------|
| New risks added | 0 |
| Risks removed | 1 |
| Risks modified | 2 |
| Unchanged | 3 |

---

## No Match in Current: Risks Associated with the Execution of Our Strategic Initiatives

*This section from the 2025 filing does not have a high-confidence textual match in 2026. It may have been removed, merged, or substantially reworded.*

If our cost saving initiatives do not achieve the expected benefits, there could be negative impacts to FirstEnergy's business, results of operations and financial condition. FirstEnergy is engaged in an ongoing effort to create a culture of continuous improvement to strategically reduce our operating expenditures and continually reinvest in a more diverse capital program in support of our long-term strategy. FirstEnergy leverages opportunities to reduce costs - such as filling only critical positions, implementing our facility optimization plans, and exploring other additional, sustainable opportunities, such as reducing contractor spend. There can be no assurance that implementation of our continuous improvement culture will allow us to realize the anticipated benefits to our business, results of operations and financial condition in a timely manner, if at all. Our ability to achieve the continued benefits from our cost saving initiatives is subject to many estimates and assumptions as well as our ability to hire, recruit and retain an appropriately qualified workforce and implement a culture of continuous improvement. FirstEnergy could experience unexpected delays and business disruptions resulting from supporting these initiatives, decreased productivity, and higher than anticipated costs, any of which may impair our ability to reduce operating expenditures and to achieve anticipated results or otherwise harm FirstEnergy's business, results of operations and financial condition.

---

## Modified: Risks Associated with the Execution of Our Strategic Initiatives and the Regulation of Our Distribution and Transmission Businesses

**Key changes:**

- Added sentence: "If our cost saving initiatives do not achieve the expected benefits, there could be negative impacts to FirstEnergy's business, results of operations and financial condition."
- Added sentence: "FirstEnergy is engaged in an ongoing effort to create a culture of continuous improvement to strategically reduce our operating expenditures and continually reinvest in a more diverse capital program in support of our long-term strategy."
- Added sentence: "FirstEnergy leverages opportunities to reduce costs - such as filling only critical positions, implementing our facility optimization plans, deploying advanced technology, including but not limited to artificial intelligence, and exploring other additional, sustainable opportunities, such as reducing contractor spend."
- Added sentence: "There can be no assurance that implementation of our continuous improvement culture will allow us to realize the anticipated benefits to our business, results of operations and financial condition in a timely manner, if at all."
- Added sentence: "Our ability to achieve the continued benefits from our cost saving initiatives is subject to many estimates and assumptions as well as our ability to hire, recruit and retain an appropriately qualified workforce and implement a culture of continuous improvement."

**Prior (2025):**

Our ability to grow our distribution and transmission businesses is subject to numerous risks and events, many of which are outside of our control. Our ability to capitalize on investment opportunities available to our transmission business depends, in part, on successful recovery of our transmission investments. Factors that may affect rate recovery of our transmission investments include: (1) FERC's timely approval of rates to recover such investments; (2) whether the investments are included in PJM's Regional Transmission Expansion Plan; (3) FERC's evolving policies with respect to incentive rates for transmission assets; (4) FERC's evolving policies with respect to the calculation of the base ROE component of transmission rates; (5) consideration and potential impact of the objections of those who oppose such investments and their recovery; and (6) timely development, construction, and operation of the new facilities. Our ability to capitalize on investment opportunities available to our distribution business depends, in part, on any future distribution rate cases or other filings seeking cost recovery for distribution system enhancements in the states where our Electric Companies operate, including maintaining the affordability of the rates charged to customers. Any denial of, or delay in, the approval of any future distribution or transmission rate requests could restrict us from fully recovering our cost of service, may impose risks on the distribution and transmission operations, and could have a material adverse effect on our regulatory strategy, results of operations and financial condition. State 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. 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. Federal 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. 12 12 12 12 12 12 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, and to determine whether FERC's existing policies on transmission rate incentives should be revised. 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. Complex 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. We could be subject to higher costs and/or penalties related to mandatory reliability standards set by NERC/FERC or changes in the rules of organized markets, which could have an adverse effect on our financial condition. Owners, operators, and users of the bulk electric system are subject to mandatory reliability standards promulgated by NERC and approved by FERC. The standards are based on the functions that need to be performed to ensure that the bulk electric system operates reliably. NERC, RFC and FERC can be expected to continue to refine existing reliability standards as well as develop and adopt new reliability standards. Compliance with modified or new reliability standards may subject us to higher operating costs and/or increased investments. If we were found not to be in compliance with the mandatory reliability standards, we could be subject to sanctions, including substantial monetary penalties. FERC has authority to impose penalties up to and including $1.5 million per day for failure to comply with these mandatory electric reliability standards. In addition, PJM may direct our transmission-owning affiliates to build new transmission facilities to meet PJM's reliability requirements or to provide new or expanded transmission service under the PJM Tariff. We may be allocated a portion of the cost of transmission facilities built by others due to changes in RTO transmission rate design. We may be required to expand our transmission system according to decisions made by an RTO rather than our own internal planning processes. Various proposals and proceedings before FERC may cause transmission rates to change from time to time. In addition, RTOs have been developing rules associated with the allocation and methodology of assigning costs associated with improved transmission reliability, reduced transmission congestion and firm transmission rights that may have a financial impact on us. As a member of PJM, which is an RTO, we are subject to certain additional risks, including those associated with the allocation among members of losses caused by unreimbursed defaults of other participants in PJM's market, as well as those associated with complaint cases filed against PJM that may seek refunds of revenues previously earned by its members.

**Current (2026):**

If our cost saving initiatives do not achieve the expected benefits, there could be negative impacts to FirstEnergy's business, results of operations and financial condition. FirstEnergy is engaged in an ongoing effort to create a culture of continuous improvement to strategically reduce our operating expenditures and continually reinvest in a more diverse capital program in support of our long-term strategy. FirstEnergy leverages opportunities to reduce costs - such as filling only critical positions, implementing our facility optimization plans, deploying advanced technology, including but not limited to artificial intelligence, and exploring other additional, sustainable opportunities, such as reducing contractor spend. There can be no assurance that implementation of our continuous improvement culture will allow us to realize the anticipated benefits to our business, results of operations and financial condition in a timely manner, if at all. Our ability to achieve the continued benefits from our cost saving initiatives is subject to many estimates and assumptions as well as our ability to hire, recruit and retain an appropriately qualified workforce and implement a culture of continuous improvement. FirstEnergy could experience unexpected delays and business disruptions resulting from supporting these initiatives, decreased productivity, and higher than anticipated costs, any of which may impair our ability to reduce operating expenditures and to achieve anticipated results or otherwise harm FirstEnergy's business, results of operations and financial condition. Our ability to grow our distribution and transmission businesses is subject to numerous risks and events, many of which are outside of our control. The success of our growth strategy will depend, in part, on the successful growth of revenue resulting from our transmission investments in line with our expectations. Factors that may affect our revenue growth may include: (1) FERC's timely approval of rates to recover such investments; (2) whether investments are included in PJM's RTEP; (3) FERC's evolving policies with respect to incentive rates for transmission investment assets, the calculation of the base ROE component of transmission rates, and the interconnection of AI data centers and transmission network upgrades supporting such large loads; (4) FERC's potentially-evolving policies regarding whether certain classes of network transmission upgrade costs can be capitalized as part of transmission rates and whether such costs will be direct charged to the connecting customer; (5) consideration and potential impact of the objections of those who oppose such investments and their recovery; and (6) timely development, construction, and operation of the new facilities. Our ability to capitalize on investment opportunities available to our distribution business depends, in part, on any future distribution rate cases or other filings seeking cost recovery for distribution system enhancements in the states where our Electric Companies operate, including maintaining the affordability of the rates charged to customers. Any denial of, or delay in, the approval of any future distribution or transmission rate requests could restrict us from fully recovering our cost of service, may impose risks on the distribution and transmission operations, and could have a material adverse effect on our regulatory strategy, results of operations and financial condition. State 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 11 11 11 11 11 11 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. Federal 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. External 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 12 12 12 12 12 12 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. Complex 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. We could be subject to higher costs and/or penalties related to mandatory reliability standards set by NERC, FERC, and RFC or changes in the rules of organized markets, which could have an adverse effect on our financial condition. Our operations are subjected to audit by FERC, NERC and RFC, which may conduct routine or special audits and issue requests designed to ensure compliance with applicable rules, regulations, policies and procedures. Among other rules, regulations, policies and procedures, owners, operators, and users of the bulk electric system are subject to mandatory reliability standards promulgated by NERC and approved by FERC. The standards are based on the functions that need to be performed to ensure that the bulk electric system operates reliably. NERC, RFC and FERC continue to refine existing reliability standards as well as develop and adopt new reliability standards. The reliability standards address operation, planning, and security of the bulk electricity system, including requirements with respect to real-time transmission operations, emergency operations, vegetation management, critical infrastructure protection, and personnel training. Compliance with modified or new reliability standards may subject us to higher operating costs and/or increased capital expenditure. If we were found not to be in compliance with one or more of the mandatory reliability standards, we and/or our subsidiaries could be subject to sanctions, including substantial monetary penalties. For example, FERC has the authority under the FPA to impose penalties up to and including $1.5 million per day, subject thereafter to annual adjustments for inflation, for failure to comply with these mandatory reliability standards. Potential non-monetary sanctions include imposing limitations on the violator's activities or operations. In addition, PJM may direct our transmission-owning affiliates to build new transmission facilities to meet PJM's reliability requirements or to provide new or expanded transmission service under the PJM Tariff. We may be allocated a portion of the cost of transmission facilities built by others due to changes in RTO transmission rate design. We may be required to expand our transmission system according to decisions made by an RTO rather than our own internal planning processes. Various proposals and proceedings before FERC may cause transmission rates to change from time to time. In addition, RTOs have been developing rules associated with the allocation and methodology of assigning costs associated with improved transmission reliability, reduced transmission congestion and firm transmission rights that may have a financial impact on us. As a member of PJM, which is an RTO, we are subject to certain additional risks, including those associated with the allocation among members of losses caused by unreimbursed defaults of other participants in PJM's market, as well as those associated with complaint cases filed against PJM that may seek refunds of revenues previously earned by its members.

---

## Modified: Risks Associated with Damage to Our Reputation and Securities Class-Action Litigation

**Key changes:**

- Reworded sentence: "Securities class-action litigation against us could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition, results of operations, our ability to access capital, liquidity or cash flows."
- Reworded sentence: "Attorney's Office related to the conduct set forth in the DPA's statement of facts, including the January 17, 2025 indictment against two former FirstEnergy senior officers, described in "Outlook - Other Legal Proceeding - United States v."
- Added sentence: "On February 26, 2025, the U.S."
- Added sentence: "Attorney's Office filed a status report confirming these commitments."
- Reworded sentence: "Ohio of the investigation surrounding HB 6 in July 2020, certain of FE's stockholders and customers filed several lawsuits against us and certain current and former directors, officers and other employees, including the federal securities class action litigation In re FirstEnergy Corp."

**Prior (2025):**

HB 6-related investigations and litigation could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition, results of operations, our ability to access capital, liquidity or cash flows. On July 21, 2021, we entered into a three-year DPA with the U.S. Attorney's Office that, subject to court proceedings, resolves the previously disclosed U.S. Attorney's Office investigation into us relating to our lobbying and governmental affairs activities concerning HB 6. Under the DPA, we paid a $230 million monetary penalty in 2021 and agreed to the filing of a criminal information charging FirstEnergy with one count of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud. As of July 22, 2024, we successfully completed the obligations required within the three-year term of the DPA. Under the DPA, and until the conclusion of any related investigation, criminal prosecution and civil proceeding brought by the U.S. Attorney's Office, we have an obligation to continue (i) publishing quarterly a list of all payments to 501(c)(4) entities and all payments to entities known by us to be operating for the benefit of a public official, either directly or indirectly; (ii) not making any statements that contradict the DPA; (iii) notifying the U.S. Attorney's Office for the S.D. Ohio of any changes in FirstEnergy's corporate form; and (iv) cooperating with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the S.D. Ohio. In accordance with the DPA, these obligations will continue until the completion of any related investigation, criminal prosecution, and civil proceeding brought by the U.S. Attorney's Office related to the conduct set forth in the DPA's statement of facts, including the January 17, 2025 indictment against two former FirstEnergy senior officers, described below in "Outlook - Other Legal Proceeding - United States v. Larry Householder, et al." Within 30 days of those matters concluding, and FirstEnergy's successful completion of its remaining obligations, the U. S. Attorney's Office will dismiss the criminal information. If we are found to have breached the terms of the DPA, the U.S. Attorney's Office may elect to prosecute, or bring a civil action against, us for conduct alleged in the DPA or known to the government, which could result in fines or penalties and could have a material adverse impact on our reputation or relationships with regulatory and legislative authorities, customers and other stakeholders, as well as our consolidated financial statements. Failure to comply with the DPA, including alleged failures to comply with anti-corruption and anti-bribery laws, may also result in a breach of certain covenants contained in our credit agreements and could result in an event of default under such agreements, and we would not be able to access our credit facilities for additional borrowings and letters of credit during the existence of any such default. Following the announcement by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the S.D. Ohio of the investigation surrounding HB 6 in July 2020, certain of our stockholders and customers filed several lawsuits against us and certain current and former directors, officers and other employees, including the federal securities class action litigation In re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation (Federal District Court, S.D. Ohio). We believe that it is probable that FE will incur a loss in connection with the resolution of In re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation. Given the ongoing nature and complexity of such litigation, we cannot yet reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss that may arise from its resolution. However, if it is resolved against us substantial monetary damages could result and our reputation, business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or cash flows may be materially adversely affected. The litigation related to HB 6 could divert management's focus and have resulted in, and could continue to result in, substantial expenses, and the commitment of substantial corporate resources. The outcome, duration, scope, result or related costs of the in securities class action litigation In re: FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation discussed above, are inherently uncertain. Therefore, any of these risks could impact us significantly beyond expectations. See Note 15, "Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies" of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates." These matters are likely to continue to have an adverse impact on the trading prices of our securities, which could be material. See Note 15, "Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies," of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, for additional details on the government investigations and subsequent litigation surrounding HB 6. 10 10 10 10 10 10 The HB 6 related state regulatory investigations could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or cash flows. There are several ongoing HB 6 related state regulatory matters including, but not limited to, the below HB 6-related matters, each of which was stayed for a third time by the PUCO on August 23, 2023, at the request of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, for a period of an additional six months. The stay on the following matters was lifted on February 26, 2024: •On September 8, 2020, the OCC filed motions in the Ohio Companies' corporate separation audit and DMR audit dockets, requesting the PUCO to open an investigation and management audit, hire an independent auditor, and require FirstEnergy to show it did not improperly use money collected from consumers or violate any utility regulatory laws, rules or orders in its activities regarding HB 6. On February 26, 2024, this proceeding was consolidated with the expanded DCR rider audit proceeding described below and on November 22, 2024, the administrative law judge ordered that the bifurcated portion of the corporate separation audit, discussed further below, be consolidated with the already-consolidated DMR audit and expanded DCR rider audit proceeding. Evidentiary hearings are scheduled to begin May 13, 2025; •On September 15, 2020, the PUCO opened a new proceeding to review the political and charitable spending by the Ohio Companies in support of HB 6 and the subsequent referendum effort. On September 30, 2024, the third-party auditor's report was filed. See "Outlook - State Regulation - Ohio" below for additional information regarding the auditor's findings. Comments have been filed on the audit report and remain pending with the PUCO; •On December 30, 2020, the PUCO directed PUCO staff to solicit a third-party auditor and conduct a full review of the DMR to ensure funds collected from customers through the DMR were only used for the purposes established in ESP IV. The auditor's report was filed on January 14, 2022, and the parties submitted final comments and responses in the second quarter 2022. See "Outlook - State Regulation - Ohio" below for additional information regarding the auditor's findings. On February 26, 2024, this proceeding was consolidated with the expanded DCR rider audit proceeding described below and on November 22, 2024, the administrative law judge ordered that the bifurcated portion of the corporate separation audit, discussed further below, be consolidated with the already-consolidated DMR audit and expanded DCR rider audit proceeding. Evidentiary hearings are scheduled to begin May 13, 2025; and •On March 10, 2021, the PUCO expanded the scope of an ongoing annual audit of the Ohio Companies' Rider DCR for 2020 to include a review of certain transactions that were either improperly classified, misallocated, or lacked supporting documentation, and to determine whether funds collected from customers were used to pay the vendors, and if so, whether or not the funds associated with those payments should be returned to customers through Rider DCR or through an alternative proceeding. On February 26, 2024, this proceeding was consolidated with the Rider DMR audit proceeding described above, and further lifted the stay of the portion of the investigation relating to an apparent nondisclosure of a side agreement. On November 22, 2024, the administrative law judge ordered that the bifurcated portion of the corporate separation audit be consolidated with the already-consolidated DMR audit and the expanded DCR rider audit proceeding. Evidentiary hearings are scheduled to begin May 13, 2025. See Note 14, "Regulatory Matters" of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates" for additional details on the state regulatory investigations surrounding HB 6. While FirstEnergy is committed to pursuing an open dialogue with stakeholders in an appropriate manner with respect to the numerous regulatory proceedings currently underway, FirstEnergy shareholders in particular are at risk of being adversely impacted because the rates our Electric Companies and Transmission Companies are allowed to charge may be decreased as a result of actions taken by a regulator to which our Electric Companies and Transmission Companies are subject to jurisdiction, whether as a result of the DPA, any failure to have complied with anti-corruption laws, or otherwise. We are unable to predict the adverse impacts of such regulatory matters, including with respect to rates, and, therefore, any of these risks could impact us significantly beyond expectations. Moreover, we are unable to predict the potential for any additional regulatory actions, any of which could exacerbate these risks or expose us to adverse outcomes in pending or future rate cases, and could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or cash flows. Damage to our reputation may arise from numerous sources making us vulnerable to negative customer perception, adverse regulatory outcomes, or other consequences, which could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. Our reputation is important. Damage to our reputation could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. Such damage may arise from numerous sources further discussed generally within these risk factors. Any damage to our reputation, either generally or as a result of the foregoing, may lead to negative customer perception, which may make it difficult for us to compete successfully for new opportunities, or could adversely impact our ability to launch new sophisticated technology-driven solutions to meet our customer expectations. A damaged reputation could further result in FERC, the state public utility commissions, and other regulatory and legislative authorities being less likely to view us in a favorable light and could negatively impact the rates we charge customers or otherwise cause us to be susceptible to unfavorable legislative and regulatory outcomes, as well as increased regulatory oversight and more stringent legislative or regulatory requirements. 11 11 11 11 11 11

**Current (2026):**

Securities class-action litigation against us could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition, results of operations, our ability to access capital, liquidity or cash flows. On July 21, 2021, FE entered into a three-year DPA with the U.S. Attorney's Office that, subject to court proceedings, resolves the previously disclosed U.S. Attorney's Office investigation into us relating to our lobbying and governmental affairs activities concerning HB 6. Under the DPA, we paid a $230 million monetary penalty in 2021 and agreed to the filing of a criminal information charging FirstEnergy with one count of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud. As of July 22, 2024, we successfully completed the obligations required within the three-year term of the DPA. Under the DPA, and until the conclusion of any related investigation, criminal prosecution and civil proceeding brought by the U.S. Attorney's Office, we have an obligation to continue (i) publishing quarterly a list of all payments to 501(c)(4) entities and all payments to entities known by us to be operating for the benefit of a public official, either directly or indirectly; (ii) not making any statements that contradict the DPA; (iii) notifying the U.S. Attorney's Office for the S.D. Ohio of any changes in FirstEnergy's corporate form; and (iv) cooperating with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the S.D. Ohio. In accordance with the DPA, these obligations will continue until the completion of any related investigation, criminal prosecution, and civil proceeding brought by the U.S. Attorney's Office related to the conduct set forth in the DPA's statement of facts, including the January 17, 2025 indictment against two former FirstEnergy senior officers, described in "Outlook - Other Legal Proceeding - United States v. Larry Householder, et al.," in Item 7., "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations". Within 30 days of those matters concluding, and FirstEnergy's successful completion of its remaining obligations, the U.S. Attorney's Office will dismiss the criminal information. On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Attorney's Office filed a status report confirming these commitments. If we are found to have breached the terms of the DPA, the U.S. Attorney's Office may elect to prosecute, or bring a civil action against, us for conduct alleged in the DPA or known to the government, which could result in fines or penalties and could have a material adverse impact on our reputation or relationships with regulatory and legislative authorities, customers and other stakeholders, as well as our consolidated financial statements. Failure to comply with the DPA, including alleged failures to comply with anti-corruption and anti-bribery laws, may also result in a breach of certain covenants contained in our credit agreements and could result in an event of default under such agreements, and we would not be able to access our credit facilities for additional borrowings and letters of credit during the existence of any such default. Following the announcement by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the S.D. Ohio of the investigation surrounding HB 6 in July 2020, certain of FE's stockholders and customers filed several lawsuits against us and certain current and former directors, officers and other employees, including the federal securities class action litigation In re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation (Federal District Court, S.D. Ohio). We believe that it is probable that FE will incur a loss in connection with the resolution of In re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation. Given the ongoing nature and complexity of such litigation, we cannot yet reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss that may arise from its resolution. However, if it is resolved against us substantial monetary damages could result and our reputation, business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or cash flows may be materially adversely affected. This securities class-action litigation could divert management's focus and have resulted in, and could continue to result in, substantial expenses, and the commitment of substantial corporate resources. The outcome, duration, scope, result or related costs of the securities class action litigation In re: FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation discussed above, are inherently uncertain. Therefore, any of these risks could impact us significantly beyond expectations. See Note 14, "Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies," of the Combined Notes to Financial Statements of the Registrants and "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates." 10 10 10 10 10 10 These matters are likely to continue to have an adverse impact on the trading prices of our securities, which could be material. See Note 14., "Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies," of the Combined Notes to Financial Statements of the Registrants, for additional details on the government investigations and subsequent litigation surrounding HB 6. Damage to our reputation may arise from numerous sources making us vulnerable to negative customer perception, adverse regulatory outcomes, or other consequences, which could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. Our reputation is important towards maintaining new and ongoing positive relationships with customers, regulators, investors, and other stakeholders. Damage to our reputation could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. Such damage may arise from numerous sources further discussed generally within these risk factors. Any damage to our reputation, either generally or as a result of, among other things, changes in our service reliability, our rate affordability or negative outcomes in the ongoing matters relating to HB 6, may lead to negative customer perception, which may make it difficult for us to compete successfully for new opportunities, or could adversely impact our ability to launch new sophisticated technology-driven solutions to meet our customer expectations. A damaged reputation could further result in FERC, the state public utility commissions, and other regulatory and legislative authorities being less likely to view us in a favorable light and could negatively impact the rates we charge customers or otherwise cause us to be susceptible to unfavorable legislative and regulatory outcomes, as well as increased regulatory oversight and more stringent legislative or regulatory requirements.

---

*Data sourced from SEC EDGAR. Last updated 2026-05-10.*