But in lengthy opening remarks, Albert, a former utility company lawyer whose firm represents FirstEnergy, criticized what he said were inaccurate comments submitted to the PSC and reported by the media about the case. Albert did not provide any specific examples.

Later, he said, "There was an awful lot of testimony (this morning, in the public portion), everybody said we can save the world by energy efficiency and demand response."

As for Chairman Albert: Not to place too much meaning on a small word choice, he spoke of the effect of the proposed transaction at the beginning of the hearing using "will" rather than "would."

Dan Eggers - Credit Suisse: Just following up on Tony's comments and Leila's comments about Harrison. Can you just maybe help us understand how important it is you think at this point in time to move that asset over from a balance sheet perspective relative to a customer benefit perspective? And then given kind of the wide or the low bid made in the intervenor testimony, how important it is to take a lower price or accept a lower price to get this done relative to keep in at FES if the pricing doesn't makes sense?
James F. Pearson - SVP and CFO: I'll start off with that, Dan. Well, let me start off. I think the low price of the $565 million or whatever that's just a nonstarter. So, I'll leave that at that. From a balance sheet perspective, we think we are in pretty good shape by getting the FirstEnergy Corp. bond deal done where we upsize to $1.5 billion. We also feel that we're in very good position with the hydro asset sales. So, we feel real comfortable about that. And as you know, we plan to infuse equity from FirstEnergy down into Mon Power associated with this asset transfer. If the asset transfer doesn't go forward, we would likely infuse that equity that we have planned for Mon Power down into FES. So, I think we end up at a good position for the balance sheet there at FES.
Anthony J. Alexander - President and CEO: Dan, this is Tony. As I'm looking at this, I think, this is far more important to West Virginia and Mon Power in terms of providing them with a stable and long-term resource that they can rely on than it is at this point from a balance sheet standpoint at FES or at FirstEnergy.
Dan Eggers - Credit Suisse: But if it didn't transfer, you'd feel comfortable keeping that extra capacity at FES?
Anthony J. Alexander - President and CEO: Absolutely. It's a great asset. So that's not a consideration.

Credit Suisse noted, “We have liked FE shares over peers for some time, attracted to the large base of regulated utility earnings (73% of 2015) that to us better protected the rich 5.2% dividend yield as well as management's commitment to, and success in, finding ways to extract value from the generation business (FES) in spite of sustained weak power market conditions through the early adoption of Retail, aggressive O&M controls, and fleet management through plant closures and seasonal dispatch until unit economics improved. We still see FE striving to do these things but the ugly reality of the 2016/17 RPM auction results are hard to deny: poor discipline by incumbent generators in the face of depressed forwards and the crushing impact of newbuild capacity plus greater imports are all contributing to an oversupplied market that will inevitably leave energy and capacity prices weak. We are lowering FE to Neutral (from Outperform) - meaning performance in-line with peers - and a target of $40 (from $45) built from our sum-of-the-parts valuation methodology. We see downside from here in all of the Integrated power names as the long and uncertain path to a power market recovery forces investors to reconsider the multiples paid for commodity cyclical power generation assets.”

Shares of FirstEnergy Corp. took a hit on Tuesday after Dan Eggers, an analyst for Credit Suisse, downgraded the company's stock to “neutral” from “outperform.”

At around 1:45 p.m., FirstEnergy was trading below $39.50 a share, or a price that was down more than 7% from its close last Friday of $42.62 a share.

In issuing the downgrade, Credit Suisse cited “an oversupplied market that will inevitably leave energy and capacity prices weak.” Mr. Eggers reduced his price target for FirstEnergy to $40 from $45.

Haney, portrayed by veteran character actor and longtime Western film sidekick Pat Buttram with the distinctive, warbling voice, sold his family's ancient, dilapidated farm to Oliver when he and Lisa Douglas left New York City for rural Hooterville and their new life as farmers. In the process of the sale, Haney stripped the farm of everything of value down to the plumbing.
Haney had cheated the Douglases by charging them several times what the property was worth and saddling them with a dysfunctional farm. He continued to cheat them by initially selling the movable property associated with the farm to them one piece at a time. Douglas bought Haney's cow, tractor and plow, all of which were as useless as the farm.
He continued to come back with his farm truck converted into a peddler's truck stocked with worthless versions of items that Oliver had need of. He almost invariably succeeded in unloading the items on Oliver at inflated prices despite his past shady dealings with them. He often took a piece of junk and called it by some outlandish name, suggesting that it has some use that it clearly does not and that it's in some way valuable.
Haney would often turn up in his truck at the Douglas farm, minutes after they've realized they needed something, selling exactly that (even if it were very odd), complete with a pull-down sign on his truck advertising it. If turned down by Douglas, Haney would offer a variety of equally useless alternatives. Oliver once said "How come you always show up with exactly what I need?" And Haney turned it on him by saying "Well let me put it to you another way...how come you always need what I show up with?"

Dan Eggers - Credit Suisse: Just following up on Tony's comments and Leila's comments about Harrison. Can you just maybe help us understand how important it is you think at this point in time to move that asset over from a balance sheet perspective relative to a customer benefit perspective? And then given kind of the wide or the low bid made in the intervenor testimony, how important it is to take a lower price or accept a lower price to get this done relative to keep in at FES if the pricing doesn't makes sense?
James F. Pearson - SVP and CFO: I'll start off with that, Dan. Well, let me start off. I think the low price of the $565 million or whatever that's just a nonstarter. So, I'll leave that at that. From a balance sheet perspective, we think we are in pretty good shape by getting the FirstEnergy Corp. bond deal done where we upsize to $1.5 billion. We also feel that we're in very good position with the hydro asset sales. So, we feel real comfortable about that. And as you know, we plan to infuse equity from FirstEnergy down into Mon Power associated with this asset transfer. If the asset transfer doesn't go forward, we would likely infuse that equity that we have planned for Mon Power down into FES. So, I think we end up at a good position for the balance sheet there at FES.
Anthony J. Alexander - President and CEO: Dan, this is Tony. As I'm looking at this, I think, this is far more important to West Virginia and Mon Power in terms of providing them with a stable and long-term resource that they can rely on than it is at this point from a balance sheet standpoint at FES or at FirstEnergy.
Dan Eggers - Credit Suisse: But if it didn't transfer, you'd feel comfortable keeping that extra capacity at FES?
Anthony J. Alexander - President and CEO: Absolutely. It's a great asset. So that's not a consideration.