Meghan Geiger Beringer - Director-Investor Relations Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director James F. Pearson - Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer Leila L. Vespoli - Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer Donald R. Schneider - President, FirstEnergy Solutions (FES), FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.

Jonathan Philip Arnold - Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Paul Patterson - Glenrock Associates LLC Shahriar Pourreza - Guggenheim Securities LLC Neel Mitra - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc. Brian J. Chin - Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Julien Dumoulin-Smith - UBS Securities LLC Kevin Prior - Evercore Group LLC Christopher J. Turnure - JPMorgan Securities LLC Stephen Calder Byrd - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Ashar Hasan Khan - Visium Asset Management LP Angie Storozynski - Macquarie Capital (USA), Inc. Anthony C. Crowdell - Jefferies LLC Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs & Co. Praful Mehta - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker)

Greetings, and welcome to the FirstEnergy Corp.'s First Quarter 2016 Earnings Conference Call. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. A brief question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Ms. Meghan Beringer, Director, Investor Relations for FirstEnergy Corp. Thank you. You may begin.

Thank you, Donna, and good morning. Welcome to FirstEnergy's first quarter earnings call. Today, we will make various forward-looking statements regarding revenues, earnings, performance, strategies and prospects. These statements are based on current expectations and are subject to risks and uncertainties. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated by such statements can be found on the Investors section of our website under the Earnings Information link and in our SEC filings. We will also discuss certain non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP financial measures are also available on the website. Please note that we have also provided a slide presentation that will follow this morning's discussions. If you are currently on the Investor page of our website or plan to visit at a later time, you'll notice that we have redesigned the site to provide a more user-friendly experience, particularly on mobile devices. Also based on your feedback, we created an Investor Materials section located on the Investor menu for easier access to information that you must frequently use. As for today's call, those who are participating include Chuck Jones, President and Chief Executive Officer; Jim Pearson, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Leila Vespoli, Executive Vice President, Markets and Chief Legal Officer; Donny Schneider, President of FirstEnergy Solutions; Jon Taylor, Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer; Steve Staub, Vice President and Treasurer; and Irene Prezelj, Vice President, Investor Relations. Now I'd like to turn the call over to Chuck Jones. Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Thanks, Meghan. Good morning everyone. Thanks for joining us. We're off to a strong start in 2016 and I'm pleased to share this update with you today. Yesterday afternoon, we reported solid operating earnings of $0.80 per share, which is…

Thank you. The floor is now open for questions. Our first question is coming from Jonathan Arnold of Deutsche Bank. Please proceed with your question.

Good morning guys. Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Good morning. James F. Pearson - Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer: Good morning. Leila L. Vespoli - Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer: Good morning.

Could you give us a sense of what the drivers for the rate increase – the rate request in Pennsylvania and New Jersey are? I hear the comment that your rates are going to be – and it'll bring rates up to the average. But just what the big drivers are? And then maybe a sense of where the ROEs are tracking in the – to its various jurisdictions as you make these filings? James F. Pearson - Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer: Jonathan, this is Jim. Let me take a shot at it and then I'll let Leila get into more detail if we need. First off, we're going to have an increase in our rate base. So, that will be part of it. We also have increased depreciation expense associated with our investments. We're also rolling in the DISC rider as part of this increase. We have smart meters and also there has been a decrease in sales, so that's going to be part of the driver there. So, those are primarily the major drivers. As I would say that there was not a defined ROE last year in the Pennsylvania case. So, it's hard to say if we're tracking to that. But, overall, I'd say our earnings in Pennsylvania are doing well, but because of these significant investments as well as the decrease in sales and the DISC rider, that is leading to the increase. And Leila, I don't know if you have anything to add to that? Leila L. Vespoli - Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer: Just one further point of clarification with respect to the – on the depreciation comment, and we're actually proposing a changed methodology in depreciation that's just driving some of that change.

Is that just in Pennsylvania or in both? Leila L. Vespoli - Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer: Correct. Correct.

Okay. Is that a meaningful piece of it or just one of many? Leila L. Vespoli - Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer: With regard to depreciation, it's roughly $31 million of the change.

Okay. All right. Thanks. So it sounds like, in general, this is not about returns. It's more about investments and the other things you listed. James F. Pearson - Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer: That's correct, Jonathan. Okay. Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: And Jonathan I have said all along that as we continue to move this company more towards a regulated model and we prepare for growth in our T&D operations, you're going to see more and more rate increases or rate cases in order to accommodate that growth.

So fair enough. I think I had a 6% number mentioned for New Jersey. Did you provide a percentage on the Pennsylvania jurisdictions? James F. Pearson - Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer: It's – I think that's included in the Appendix Jonathan and when we break down all four of the Pennsylvania companies you have that rate increase.

Right, we'll see that, and thank you. And then one final thing, you commented that you're going to wait until you have clarity from FERC on giving Q2 guidance. But more broadly if, let's say, FERC doesn't act ahead of the upcoming auction and maybe there's a longer delay there, how should we think about this in the context of when you might have an Analyst Day and a broader update to the outlook? Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Well, I think that our game plan is to wait and see what FERC does. If it drags on too long, then my expectation is we'll give you a guidance for 2016 without the ESP baked into it. That would be our plan. I don't expect that this is going to drag on a long time. There's a lot of speculation out there that they'll make a decision before the May RPM. That doesn't bother me so much if they don't because a lot of the opponent's cases suggesting that we're going to do something inappropriate in how we bid these units. And once they see how we bid these units, then I think that would diffuse a lot of that argument. So if it waits until after the RPM, that wouldn't bother me too much. But beyond that, I think if it continues to go on and we are going to give you guidance for 2016 without the ESP.

So we should probably anticipate by early summer, you'll be doing that then in any event? Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Yes.

Okay, great. Thank you, guys.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from Paul Patterson of Glenrock Associates. Please proceed with your question.

Good morning, guys. Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Hi, Paul. James F. Pearson - Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer: Good morning.

Just a sort of follow-up on Jonathan's question and your answer, should we – it seems to suggest that perhaps your bidding behavior would be the same with or without the PPA. Is that an accurate or that there wouldn't be that big of a difference, how should we think about that? Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Well, we're not going to talk about our bidding behavior. But I think it is something that FERC can look at. If they just look at how we bid our West Virginia plants in the last RFP or actually in – since capacity performance, they could see a very good indication of how we bid units on the regulated side. We haven't disclosed that bidding behavior and we don't plan to. But my point is this. I don't think that – I think there's a lot of rhetoric going on about how these PPAs might affect the capacity market. It's nothing, but rhetoric. This PPA has no impact on the PJM market whatsoever.

Okay. And then, in terms of your expectation that they will probably take action before the auction, which is coming right up, is that with respect to all three cases or – excuse me – to the both cases for you, or one in particular? Leila L. Vespoli - Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer: Hi, Paul, this is Leila. Given the high profile, I guess my view on this would be that they would be looking at both these cases before the Base Residual Auction. Just to give clarity, from the way I view the world, if you think about the affiliate waiver case, if I'm the chairman, he looks at things from a legalistic standpoint. I kind of view things that same way. And so I have a case in front of me where there's strong precedence not to look behind the screen if you were to what the states are doing. He has – in the initial 2008 waiver, there was a claim by Nopak that non-bypassable charges should be looked at and should cause him to say that there're not – not all the customers – that there are captive customers. They chose not to make that finding. So to go against this and grant the complaint, he would have to go against legal precedent. I don't see him doing that and I think he would want to get that out of the way and that's tied to Mon Power complaint because fundamentally they're kind of looking to address, call it the same issue. And if you look at the Mon Power complaint, there are a lot of parties with – that wait in with a lot of different potential remedies. And I don't think they're going to fall prey to the hyperbole, especially out there by Dynegy that there is a burning platform that there is imminent danger. If they're going to want to act and give clarity and take their time and look at this. So from my standpoint, I think they're going to want to act on the waiver, I think they are going to deny the complaint because I think it's – to do otherwise would be inconsistent with past precedent. They can take care of the issues supposedly involved in that complaint, in the Mon Power complaint, but they can do so in a very thoughtful way by addressing it through the stakeholder process what they are used to dealing with it and taking care of it in the next – for the next BRA auction in 2017.

Okay. Great. Leila L. Vespoli - Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer: I just wanted to give clarity to the market in that regard.

That makes sense. And then just finally, I apologize if I missed this. The $0.09 charge – regarding the regulatory charge, what was that associated with? James F. Pearson - Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer: The regulatory charge, that was primarily the commitment we made under the ESP, and that's associated with some energy efficiency commitments, as well as some low income and some economic development.

And it's a one-timer? James F. Pearson - Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer: It's a one-timer. Since we committed to make those payments, so we're required to recognize that at the time of the commitment. It is a liability to us.

Thanks so much. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from Shahriar Pourreza of Guggenheim Partners. Please proceed with your question

Good morning. Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Hi, Shahriar.

Could we just write-off just a couple of policy questions, here? Can we touch on what we're hearing a little bit on Chairman Porter's potential resignation? The timing is a little bit suspect and it's a crucial period. Could we get some clarity there? Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Well, I will give you my comments. I think that Chairman Porter showed outstanding leadership during the time he was at the Commission. You know, he got a very important docket moved forward. Hate to see him go, but as you know how it goes. When job opportunities present themselves, you don't get to pick the timing of them. So he called me the other day and we had a good conversation, and I don't think you should read anything into it other than what was said.

Got it. Okay, that's helpful. And then maybe a question directed to Leila. So the Supreme Court ruling in Maryland obviously net-net most saw it as a negative, but obviously some of the Justices gave some guidance around what would be from a legal standpoint possible. They clearly drew some distinctions between Maryland and New Jersey versus what you're proposing in Ohio. So I'd like to get maybe your opinion here on what you thought of the Supreme Court ruling. Leila L. Vespoli - Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer: So net-net, I actually think it's quite positive. So you may recall the Maryland case was out there when we first constructed the PPA. So we knew we were kind of threading the needle with regard to that, and I think that the Supreme Court's decision confirms that we did a good job of that. The decision in and of itself does not negatively impact it. In fact, if you look at one of the footnotes, they go into a long detailed description of the traditional bilateral contract, which mirrors directly our PPA. So from a structure standpoint, if you think about it, through that footnote, they signaled that the structure of the PPA is something that is out there in the market and that they feel comfortable with. So structurally, I think it meets the test. And then if you go back to the EPSA case, albeit (33:57) they made a statement that insulating retail customers from price fluctuations is something that fell under state authority. So if what the Commission's purpose was was appropriate per EPSA and the structure is appropriate per the Hughes decision, I think again those two together present us a very strong case with regard to any Federal District Court case that might be brought our way.

Got it. So it's just fair to say that if something if you get a negative outcome at FERC and this does gets taken up by the Supreme Court, it's a pretty good standing. Leila L. Vespoli - Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer: I think it's an excellent standing. Thank you.

Excellent. Okay good. And just one last question, Chuck, on, sort of, having had an update on the equity. But if FERC decides to take up this case, and this, sort of, gets drawn out a little bit, how should we, sort of, think about your equity needs? Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: I think you should think about it the way I have been answering it for the last year-and-a-half. And that is we can't make a determination until we have all of these answers, and I don't expect that it's going to be a lengthy FERC process. So – and my position from the beginning has been – it's our obligation to structure this company and operate it in a way where we could get our credit issues behind us without having to use equity to do that. We're talking to you about a lot of growth opportunities on the regulated distribution and transmission side. Assuming we get successfully done with MAIT, that opens up more transmission investment. And I'm not going to be embarrassed to tell you we want to use equity to help grow this company going forward. But the amount and the timing – I'm not ready to discuss.

Excellent. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from Neel Mitra of Tudor, Pickering. Please proceed with your question. Neel Mitra - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc.: Hi. Good morning. Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Good morning. Neel Mitra - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc.: I had a general question on the distribution strategy going forward. With lower sales growth, is the strategy to continue to file regular rate cases to compensate you for the increased spend or, in some jurisdictions are you looking to implement some sort of formula rate plans like you are with the DISC mechanism in Pennsylvania? Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Well, I would answer that we have five different distribution strategies. We serve in five states. They all have different regulatory treatments. Under the Ohio ESP, we have an extension of the DCR through the term. We also have a new treatment for smart grid and smart meter type investments. So there is a different regulatory strategy in Ohio than in Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, we've got the LTIP and the DISC. And, obviously, we're filing for rate cases there and in New Jersey. In West Virginia, we had a case last year where, if we get to a position where we need another case, we'll file it. And in Maryland, quite frankly, the growth in load has been commensurate with our investments. And there has been no need to file a case there. So I think it's five different strategies. Overall, though, I would tell you the strategy is to start making the investments needed to improve the service to our customers beyond where we're at, to provide more security to the distribution network, and, basically, make investments to serve our…

Thank you. Our next question is coming from Brian Chin of Merrill Lynch. Please proceed with your question. Brian J. Chin - Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.: Good morning. Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Good morning. Leila L. Vespoli - Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer: Hey, Brian. Good morning. Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Good morning. Brian how are you doing? Brian J. Chin - Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.: Very good. Very good. I just wanted to follow-up on the early equity issuance question just in a little bit more specific way. Can you provide your latest thoughts on timing or amount with regards to equity issuance just for Transmission purposes? And particularly if FERC is going to be delaying its response to the PPA question, does it make sense to potentially separate your equity issuance for transmission and not make that contingent on timing for FERC? Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Well, so I've talked about in my comments the fact that we're halfway through energizing the future; we've invested $2.4 billion in our Transmission over the last two years with no equity. And during a time that we were working to kind of strengthen our cash flows in order to improve our credit metrics. We've got two more years of that program at about $1 billion a year. I don't see any equity needed to fund that Transmission growth. Going forward, if we plan to expand our Transmission investment program or expand significantly what we're doing in the distribution, then any equity needs would be associated with increased investment in T&D. So, I answered the same way we're not prepared to say what that amount is, but I don't think you need to be worried about energizing the future being taken off-track in any case. Brian J. Chin - Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.: Very good. Thanks. That's all I've got.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from Julien Dumoulin-Smith of UBS. Please proceed with your question.

Hi. Good morning. Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Hey, Julien. Leila L. Vespoli - Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer: Good morning.

Hey. So, following up perhaps where we started on the rate cases, can you remind us where we stand on earned ROEs in kind of a trailing basis for 2015? Just I suppose speaking to the rate case filing itself for whatever you have out there, both New Jersey and Pennsylvania. And perhaps on a prospective basis, the purpose for the case, at least New Jersey, seems to be recovering O&M, and then separately Pennsylvania seems principally driven by the implementation of the DISC and spending investments there, is that kind of good (42:21) them respectively? James F. Pearson - Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer: Julien, this is Jim. I would say that in Pennsylvania, it's primarily driven by somewhat the decrease in the load. It's part of the DISC filing that we have. There's also additional investments that we've made there. We've got a very large smart meter implementation program going on over there. So that's primarily what's driving that in Pennsylvania. You're also able to file on the forward-looking test year. When I look at New Jersey, it's primarily driven by a significant amount of investment that we've made since the last test year in New Jersey, and that was 2011. And as we said in our remarks since July of 2012, we've had a significant amount of capital investment. And why we say partway through 2012, because in the test year New Jersey you're allowed to claim in-service amounts for six months after the in-service date. So we've had a significant amount of investment in New Jersey, so that's what's driving that. Again, as far as our overall return on equity within each of the states, I would say that we're probably tracking right around where we should, based on the last rate proceedings. However, as you know, in Pennsylvania, they did not publish what the ROE was in the settlement. Leila L. Vespoli - Executive Vice President, Markets & Chief Legal Officer: Julien, this is Leila. The only thing that I would add when you're thinking about Pennsylvania, think about aggressive energy efficiency measures and no lost distribution recovery. So when Jim was talking about the lower revenue, those factors play into that.

Got it. And then, turning to the equity piece of the equation, just to be clear on setting expectations, we shouldn't expect to hear from you on equity until you get a definitive decision to either reject or accept the waiver – well, not the waiver, but the decision outright from FERC, and no action from the credit rating agencies correspondingly until that's well (44:46). Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Correct. I would say, yes.

Okay, great. Thank you, guys.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from Greg Gordon of Evercore ISI. Please proceed with your question.

Hi. This is actually Kevin. Other than the PPA, are there any other uncertainties or hurdles that would prevent you from giving guidance in the early summer? Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: No.

Okay. And if the FERC was to uphold the contracts, but it ended up going to the Ohio Supreme Court, would you still plan to implement the contracts on June 1, or would it then be delayed? Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: We plan to implement them on June 1.

No matter what challenges there. Okay. That's all I have. Thanks.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from the Chris Turnure of JPMorgan. Please proceed with your question.

Good morning. I was wondering if we could talk a little bit about the supply side of the business. And ex the PPA, if you just look at the performance over the past couple of quarters, I think specifically, excluding the change in capacity prices and excluding the change in the volume. You've had a pretty noticeable improvement there, despite decline in commodity prices. Maybe you could just flush that out a little bit more and give us a color there. Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: So, I'll start and then I'll let Donny add to it. During 2015, we talked with you about our cash flow improvement program. Much of that was focused on the Competitive business. And much of that was focused on getting our Competitive business to the point where it continues to be cash flow positive and it has no need for any cash from the parent through 2018 at current energy prices as we know them. So part of that was also targeted at the FFO from the Generation business. So we reduced O&M expenditures, which contributed to some of what you're seeing there. So that's kind of from an operational perspective, the thing that Jim Lash and his Generation team have done to improve the competitiveness of that business. I will let Donny talk a little bit about the Commodity side. Donald R. Schneider - President, FirstEnergy Solutions (FES), FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.: Yes, I'd just add, obviously we have taken a position starting after the polar vortex in 2014 to derisk the business and to move away from weather sensitive load. You'll recall in the first quarter of 2015 we had what's been referred to as the Siberian Express and while it was not nearly as significant of an impact to FES as the polar vortex, it's still have some impact. I'm happy to report this past quarter, although we had very mild weather, the fact that we have much less weather sensitive load, are results were pretty much in line with our expectations from a sales perspective. Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Donny and his team are doing a fantastic job running the business too. Back in February when we had Mansfield off for two weeks, the entire plant off, there were several seller side notes that suggested that, meant that load was down and we're going to have a bad quarter. In reality, that's part of how we're dispatching is those units differently. So we don't run them when we can't make money with them. So I talked in my remarks about that save this fuel. So Donny is doing a great job at looking at every day, every hour, how do we maximize that business under some very difficult economic times.

Okay. I mean, to that point is there anything that we should think about historically that's forced you to run units that were uneconomic, such as mandatory take-or-pay coal contracts or something of that nature that would be rolling off this year or in the future, to kind of provided a tailwind for your numbers all else equal or I might barking up the wrong tree there? Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Go ahead Donny. Donald R. Schneider - President, FirstEnergy Solutions (FES), FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.: Yeah. I mean, we've had coal contracts in place for a lot of years. It gives us significant flexibility. This isn't really something new for us. I think the degree is much greater now, but you'll recall back in – I believe it was 2012 – around August 2012, we took the entire Sammis Plant down and kept it offline through December. So it's not really new. I think the difference is with the weak – incredibly weak forward day ahead market that we are seeing, it calls in more economic dispatch than perhaps what we had seen in the past.

Okay, great. And then shifting gears to transmission again, the rejection by New Jersey of your utility status for that MAIT request would seem on the surface to be a significant setback. But your comments have indicated that you're going to continue to push forward, and you think it's very important. Could you maybe characterize how important the New Jersey part of MAIT program is to the overall transmission spend kind of levels going forward and growth going forward, and the timing now that you have had this setback, if it's been adjusted at all in New Jersey (50:18)? Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Yes. So, first I would say, I think MAIT is very important to our customers in New Jersey. And we have to do a better job of helping the BPU understand why it is important. We've done that in our latest filing and will continue to work with them to get it across the finish line. If we don't, then we'll look at options to implement MAIT in Pennsylvania potentially. But as far as your real question in terms of how does it affect or transmission investment strategy, we've got two more years of energizing the future. We've got projects beyond that inside ATSI and TrAILCo that we can continue to move forward with. I don't see MAIT been crucial at all to our transmission investment strategy. I see it as a way to implement that transmission investment strategy in a way where we can lower the cost of capital and do it in a way that's better for customers and create more transparency for our investors. That's how I see it.

Great. Thanks, Chuck.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from Stephen Byrd of Morgan Stanley. Please proceed with your question. Stephen Calder Byrd - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Hi. Good morning. Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Good morning, Stephen. Stephen Calder Byrd - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Most of my questions have been addressed. I just wanted to focus on the Pennsylvania revenue request. When I look at the Appendix, it looks like the customer bill impacts can be relatively significant. I think one of the jurisdictions, it's about 18%, if I'm reading the page correctly. Is there a way to phase that out in order to otherwise lessen the overall bill impact, and are there other precedents we can look to in Pennsylvania in terms of just how to think about that, that it looks like a fairly sizeable rate impact? James F. Pearson - Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer: Stephen, this is Jim. I would say that, as we said earlier in our comments and Chuck said, it is that this will bring the average residential bill in Pennsylvania up to – about what's average within the state. You'll recall we went a number of years without increasing our rates in the State of Pennsylvania. It's also being offset by a – from a customer perspective, it's being offset by a reduction in their overall energy component of the bill. So, I don't view this as something it's going to be what would be described as a rate shock issue. As far as your earlier request, no I don't – we don't see any mechanism out there where we would phase this in. This is just a normal type of request that we would have. And again as Leila pointed out earlier, there is very stringent energy efficiency requirements in the State of Pennsylvania, which is decreasing the usage. So we're required to go in and file for these rates. So that's the way we're looking at it. Stephen Calder Byrd - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Understood. And in terms of the magnitude of the benefit from lower energy costs, is there a way for us to get a sense for the magnitude of that benefit? Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: I think you could probably look at where wholesale power prices have gone over the last few years. And as Donny mentioned, wholesale power prices have fallen $3.00 already this year. So I think there was a period of time when around-the-clock power prices were in the $50-plus range, and if you look at the forwards out there right now, over the next three years, they're probably closer to the $30 range. Stephen Calder Byrd - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Understood. Great, thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from Ashar Khan of Visium. Please proceed with your question.

Good morning, and congrats. One thing I was just wanted to help in terms of trying to measure these rate cases in terms of earnings potential. Is there some way you could give us what the increase in kind of rate base would be from kind of like what you have in your numbers this year versus – because it's a forward test year next year, could you signify the increase in rate base for the two jurisdictions? Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: I will answer it at a high level, and if you want details, then I'll let Leila and Jim fill in. But as filed, in effect January of next year, the JCP&L case is about $0.20 a share and the Pennsylvania cases combined are about $0.40 a share.

Okay. That's very helpful. And that was my question. Thank you so much. Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Okay. Thanks Ashar.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from Angie Storozynski of Macquarie. Please proceed with your questions. Angie Storozynski - Macquarie Capital (USA), Inc.: Thank you. I have only one question. So when I look at the plans covered by the PPA, say, in 2016, can you tell us if the assets the plans have a positive EPS contribution without the PPA? Donald R. Schneider - President, FirstEnergy Solutions (FES), FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.: Angie, this is Donny. Let me make sure I understand your question. So you're asking if Sammis and Davis-Besse have a positive earnings contribution without the PPA? Angie Storozynski - Macquarie Capital (USA), Inc.: Yeah. So basically, when you showed us the EBITDA and then a bridge to net income or EPS, for SES – or CES without the PPAs, can you tell us the assets of those three plans or two plans that are covered by PPAs, so without the PPA would they have a positive EPS impact? Donald R. Schneider - President, FirstEnergy Solutions (FES), FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.: Yes. For 2016, Sammis and Davis-Besse would definitely both have positive earnings per share impact. Angie Storozynski - Macquarie Capital (USA), Inc.: How about 2017 or 2018 based on the current forwards on capacity payments? Donald R. Schneider - President, FirstEnergy Solutions (FES), FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.: I don't think we're giving any guidance on forward years, Angie. Angie Storozynski - Macquarie Capital (USA), Inc.: Because I mean, we are all struggling I think with the impact of your PPAs on your bottom line because we just don't know what's the offset from the current earnings power of these assets. That's why I am asking? Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: I understand you are struggling with it, and I understand that the estimates are all over the board for what this ESP means. And believe me, as soon as we can give you clarification, we plan to do that. Once we have an answer from FERC, we will tell you what the value of this company is going forward with the ESP. If we don't have an answer, then we're going to give you 2016 guidance without the ESP. And I apologize that we're leaving you hanging out there, but it's just too big a moving part for us to speculate on the outcome. Angie Storozynski - Macquarie Capital (USA), Inc.: Okay. I understand. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from Anthony Crowdell of Jefferies. Please proceed with your question.

Hey, good morning. Just – most of my questions have been answered. Just want to follow-up as the company is looking to transition more to a regulated utility, thoughts on maybe rate basing or getting some type of cost of severance return on Pleasants, on other power plants, particularly Pleasants or Mansfield? Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Well, first of all, we are a regulated utility. 90%-plus of our earnings today come from our regulated operations. What we're talking about is growth and investment inside that regulated utility. We filed our integrated resource plan with West Virginia. I think later this year, they'll start taking a look at it seriously, and it's up to the West Virginia Commission to decide would Pleasants be the appropriate solution. Obviously, we have a model in place already with Harrison, and we think that is something they ought to look at.

In Pennsylvania, is there a similar filing or similar thought process, or just West Virginia? Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Just West Virginia.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from Michael Lapides of Goldman Sachs. Please proceed with your question. Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Hey, guys. Real quick, do you ever put or can you discuss what you think the scale of the MAIT investment could be over a multi-year time? I mean, should we think about it similar to the size and scale of what ATSI and TrAIL have been? Now, I know lots of TrAIL was just one big project, but ATSI was a series of projects. Is it something that could be significantly smaller or significantly bigger? Just trying to get arms around how you're – I don't know how you are thinking about the size, scale and scope of MAIT could be? Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: So, first of all, let me clarify again. We've told you we have over $15 billion of Transmission projects that our teams already identified on our existing 24,000 miles of Transmission System. Those projects can be executed with or without MAIT. MAIT is a vehicle to improve the recovery mechanism from a transparency perspective for investors and lower the cost of capital to make those investments more efficient for customers. That's all MAIT is. It doesn't stop us from moving forward with the transmission investment program. As far as the scale of the program, we'll talk to you about that once we know the base of the company that we're operating on after we get a resolution on this ESP, because it's more driven by our capability of raising the cash and likely some equity to fund it. So we'll tell you about that once we know those answers. Michael Lapides - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Got it. Okay. I was just trying…

Thank you. We're showing time for one additional question today. Our last question will be coming from Praful Mehta of Citigroup. Please proceed with your questions.

Hi, Thank you. Most of... Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Good morning.

...my questions have been answered. Just quickly on strategic direction in M&A, I guess if the Ohio PPA goes one way or the other, does that change your view around how you think about M&A in general? There's clearly a lot of M&A that happened last year, it continues to be top of M&A this year. So, if you could just broadly – now that you're going more towards the regulated platform and clearly as you said, you are a regulated utility, how are you thinking about strategic direction in M&A in that context? Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Of all the things I've been thinking about a CEO the last 16 months, M&A is not high on that priority. That's how I would answer that. We're trying to strengthen the company that we know. We're a big company; we have 6 million customers to serve. We're going to do that the right way.

Fair enough. Thank you. Charles E. Jones - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Okay. Before we leave, I have one final announcement that I'd like to make. Many of you know Rey Jimenez, Rey has been part of our IR team at FirstEnergy since 1997, and he has decided that he would rather spend his time in retirement than talking to all of you in the future. So, he is going to be retiring after 39 years with the company. He will be in the office until early June and I'd encourage you – I know many of you have worked with him, to get a chance to wish him the best as we will for a healthy and happy retirement. So, just wanted to make that announcement. Thank you all again for your support and confidence, and we'll be talking to you again as soon as we have an answer from FERC.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation. This concludes today's teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. And have a wonderful day.