Washington, D. C. 20549

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT

                     PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
                         SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

       Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported) September 24, 2002

Commission       Registrant; State of Incorporation;          I.R.S. Employer
File Number       Address; and Telephone Number              Identification No.
-----------       -----------------------------              ------------------

333-21011       FIRSTENERGY CORP.                                34-1843785
                (An Ohio Corporation)
                76 South Main Street
                Akron, Ohio  44308
                Telephone (800)736-3402

1-2578          OHIO EDISON COMPANY                              34-0437786
                (An Ohio Corporation)
                76 South Main Street
                Akron, OH  44308
                Telephone (800)736-3402

                (An Ohio Corporation)
                c/o FirstEnergy Corp.
                76 South Main Street
                Akron, OH  44308
                Telephone (800)736-3402

1-3583          THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY                        34-4375005
                (An Ohio Corporation)
                c/o FirstEnergy Corp.
                76 South Main Street
                Akron, OH  44308
                Telephone (800)736-3402

1-3491          PENNSYLVANIA POWER COMPANY                       25-0718810
                (A Pennsylvania Corporation)
                c/o FirstEnergy Corp.
                76 South Main Street
                Akron, OH  44308
                Telephone (800)736-3402

1-3141          JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY             21-0485010
                (A New Jersey Corporation)
                c/o FirstEnergy Corp.
                76 South Main Street
                Akron, OH 44308
                Telephone (800)736-3402

1-446           METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY                      23-0870160
                (An Ohio Corporation)
                c/o FirstEnergy Corp.
                76 South Main Street
                Akron, OH  44308
                Telephone (800)736-3402

1-3522          PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY                    25-0718085
                (A Pennsylvania Corporation)
                2800 Pottsville Pike
                Reading, Pennsylvania 19640-0001
                Telephone (610)929-3601

Item 9.  Regulation FD Disclosure

          On  September  24,  2002,  FirstEnergy  Corp.  (Company)  updated  the
investment  community  on  activities  associated  with  efforts  to return  the
Davis-Besse  Nuclear Power Station to service in a safe and reliable  manner and
other matters.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) IMC 0350 Restart Process - September 17,
2002 Public Meeting

          The NRC's IMC 0350 panel held one of its  monthly  public  meetings on
the status of Davis-Besse's restart efforts in Oak Harbor, Ohio on September 17,
2002. At the meeting,  FirstEnergy  presented  its plan for testing  significant
plant  equipment and systems prior to restarting the  Davis-Besse  Nuclear Power
Station.  The  plan,  which  is one of the  Company's  original  restart  action
commitments  to the NRC,  also calls for  intensive  training  of key  personnel
involved in the start-up efforts.

          The plan  focuses on a variety of  activities  designed  to assure the
safety and reliability of plant equipment and the readiness of personnel  before
Davis-Besse goes back into operation. Some of those activities include:

           o    Testing the Reactor Coolant System, including components and
                piping exposed to full operational pressure, to confirm the new
                reactor head and other equipment meet high industry standards
                for safety and reliability
           o    Conducting a test of the  containment  vessel to assure its
                integrity  following  the resealing of the vessel and
                containment building
           o    Testing plant equipment that had maintenance and modifications
                performed so that good performance can be assured
           o    Ensuring that the operations staff is prepared to restart and
                operate the plant safely through comprehensive training
           o    Developing a restart procedure that identifies the sequence of
                critical steps, procedures and tests necessary to return the
                plant to service, and assuring oversight  by senior managers
                during the process

          Company  management  also  provided  the NRC panel  with the status of
other major  activities under way at the plant.  Those included:  replacement of
the reactor head;  restoration  of the  containment  building;  an update on the
Technical Root Cause report, including cracks found in the stainless steel liner
of the old  reactor  head;  progress  of  inspections  of 31 other  major  plant
systems;  and status of other  significant work, such as the modification of the
containment sump equipment and painting in the containment building.

          The report on the  replacement  of the reactor head noted that the old
reactor head had been removed from the  containment  building,  the new head had
been moved in and preparations  are under way to install the service  structure.
The old reactor  head was moved to a storage  area on site,  pending  removal of
three more samples for ongoing root cause research.

          Restoration  of the  containment  building  began last week.  The work
includes  welding the rebar back into place,  welding  shut the opening in the 1
1/2-inch  thick steel  containment  vessel and  replacing  the concrete in the 2
1/2-foot thick outer wall. Restoration is expected to be completed by the end of
the month.

          Company  managers  noted that while  there is much work to do,  steady
progress  is being made  toward  restart.  While  recognizing  that the NRC must
approve  restart after they are satisfied  with the technical  repairs and human
performance  changes,  the Company  outlined its schedule for the major  restart
milestones to be achieved. The Company's schedule could support restart and full
power ascension by year-end.


Management and Organizational Issues - September 18, 2002 Public Meeting

          The NRC also  held a  special  public  meeting  the  following  day on
September 18, 2002 at the  Davis-Besse  plant, to discuss the Company's plan for
resolving the human performance issues that contributed to the corrosion problem
on the reactor  head at  Davis-Besse.  Initiatives  in the  Company's  plan fall
broadly into three categories--organizational  changes; training; and changes in
programs, practices and policies.

          Developed  jointly by a team of outside and Company  nuclear  experts,
the plan focuses on nuclear safety and human performance  issues identified in a
previous management root cause report.  Addressing those problems is part of the
plant's  program  to  improve  performance  and  earn  approval  of the  NRC for
restarting  Davis-Besse.  The plan  calls for such  actions as  improving  plant
personnel focus on safety, stricter adherence to industry performance standards,
improving program implementation,  increasing effectiveness in making corrective
actions, and enhancing management oversight.

          In terms of  organizational  changes,  both the First  Energy  Nuclear
Operating Company (FENOC) and Davis-Besse  organizations  have been restructured
to enable more direct  oversight of programs and projects by senior  management.
Also, a new senior management team has been put into place at Davis-Besse,  with
emphasis on  specific  experience  and skills  needed to  strengthen  the safety
culture at the plant, as well as improve plant operations.

          Enhanced employee  communications  represents a significant  change in
policies and practices at Davis-Besse. Weekly meetings between senior management
and  employees  have been  established  to discuss  the status of plant  restart
activities,  as well as to give  employees a chance to ask questions  related to
plant operations.

          Other  initiatives   include  a  program  requiring   managers--senior
management through  supervisors--to  spend more time in the field overseeing the
implementation  of specific  projects and programs,  revamped  company and plant
policies  aimed at  assuring  the  proper  focus on safety  issues,  and  survey
employees   periodically  to  assess  improvements  in  the  safety  culture  at

          A number of  training  initiatives  or changes to  training  have been
created to address human performance issues. For example, mandatory training for
every employee and manager at Davis-Besse  will cover the evolution of the boric
acid  corrosion.  Also,  special  training has been created to improve  decision
making and adherence to technical standards, and all employees and managers will
undergo special safety-focus  training to make sure everyone understands the new
safety standards of Davis-Besse and FENOC.

          The NRC  commented  that the Company gave a  comprehensive  report and
appreciated  management's candor. The NRC also stated that the programs proposed
were comprehensive but that implementation will be the key.

Davis-Besse Restart Timing and Outage Cost Impact

          The Company  continues to believe that  replacement of the Davis-Besse
reactor vessel head and other ancillary  maintenance  work can be completed on a
schedule to support restart of the plant by year-end,  recognizing however, that
the NRC must approve  resumption  of  operations  at the unit under its IMC 0350
restart  process.  The NRC has stated that the management and human  performance
improvement plan would likely be the "pacing issue" for restart.

           The estimated incremental cost impacts for the identified work scope,
as previously communicated, are:


           o    $55 million to $75 million of mostly capital expenditures to
                replace the reactor vessel head
           o    $50 million to $70 million of mostly operation and maintenance
                (O&M)  expenditures for additional  maintenance,  including the
                acceleration of various programs/projects
           o    $10 million to $15 million per month for replacement power in
                the non-summer months
           o    $20 million per month for replacement power in the summer months
                of July and August

          The Company  continues  to believe  that its  estimates of the capital
cost of replacing  the reactor  vessel head and the cost of  replacement  energy
remain valid.  However,  the Company expects an increase in the anticipated cost
of the O&M work as the scope of maintenance projects has expanded, including the
accelerated maintenance projects that had been planned for future outages.

          The Company is currently  conducting a comprehensive  review of all of
its known O&M work  elements at the plant and expects an upward  revision to the
current estimate of $50 million to $70 million. It expects to complete this cost
review  in about  two  weeks  and will  make the  appropriate  disclosures  upon
completion of the review.

Davis-Besse Replacement Energy Status

          The  Company  is  fully  hedged  for  its  850  megawatts  of  on-peak
replacement energy supply for Davis-Besse  through the end of 2002, and although
it expects the plant will be ready to return to service before year-end,  it has
also made some on-peak power purchases during the early portion of 2003.

Updates on Other Company Items

Provider of Last Resort (PLR) Supply in Pennsylvania---In 2001, the Pennsylvania
Public Utility Commission approved a settlement agreement that allowed for the
merger of the two Pennsylvania utility subsidiaries of the former GPU, Inc. into

          One  of  the  settlement  terms  allows  Metropolitan  Edison  Company
(Met-Ed) and Pennsylvania  Electric Company  (Penelec) to assign all or any part
of  their  PLR  responsibility  to an  affiliate  company  of  FirstEnergy.  The
assignment  requires  that such  service be provided to Met-Ed's  and  Penelec's
customers  at the shopping  credit  tariff rate (i.e.,  at the fixed  generation
tariff rate that retail  customers  are currently  charged).  Met-Ed and Penelec
have  elected to make that  assignment  to their  unregulated  supply  affiliate
FirstEnergy Solutions (FES) through a wholesale power transaction.

          The initial term of the  assignment is from  September 1, 2002 through
December 31, 2002.  This  initial term will be  automatically  extended for each
succeeding  calendar  year unless any party (FES,  Met-Ed or Penelec)  elects to
cancel the assignment by November 1 of the preceding year.

          This is essentially a wholesale power transaction  between FES and the
two  regulated  companies  who will  continue  to be  responsible  for  billing,
collections and customer care activities. Under this assignment, FES assumes the
supply obligation for whatever portion of the PLR power supply requirements that
are not self-supplied by Met-Ed and Penelec.

          Met-Ed and Penelec will continue to have certain committed self-supply
arrangements  such as their  non-utility  generation  (NUG)  contracts and other
existing  power  contracts with third party  suppliers.  Met-Ed and Penelec will
each collect their full PLR tariff revenues from their retail customers,  deduct
revenue-based  taxes,  deduct the costs  related to their  committed  contracts,
deduct an amount  related to their existing  deferred  energy cost balances (see
discussion  below) and remit the balance of the  revenues  to FES to  compensate
them for the balance of the PLR supply that they are providing.


          This  assignment  could provide for the eventual full  amortization of
each company's  deferred energy cost balance (exclusive of the existing deferred
NUG cost  balance)  that  existed on  September 1, 2002 ($28 million for Met-Ed;
$106 million for Penelec). If FES retains the PLR assignment through 2010, which
is the end of the  generation  rate cap  period,  the  payment  mechanism  would
provide for the full  amortization of the September 1, 2002 deferred energy cost
balances  by 2010.  If this  assignment  were  terminated  prior  to  2010,  the
remaining unamortized costs would be subject to the recovery mechanism currently
established for Met-Ed and Penelec.

          As  mentioned  above,  the NUG  contracts  will remain with Met-Ed and
Penelec who will continue to own the contract power and will remain obligated to
continue to pay the NUGs at their contract rates. The cost  differences  between
the NUG contract rates and the shopping credit will continue to be deferred into
the NUG deferred cost balance for future recovery from retail customers.

          Met-Ed and Penelec will continue to apply deferred cost  accounting to
their PLR  energy  costs,  deferring  the  above-shopping  credit  NUG costs and
amortizing the existing  deferred  energy cost balance during the FES assignment
period.  FES will assume the PLR energy  supply  profit and loss risk  depending
upon its energy sourcing costs and the revenues that it receives from Met-Ed and

          The use of deferred  energy cost  accounting for Met-Ed and Penelec is
under appeal in the Pennsylvania courts.  Should the use of deferred energy cost
accounting be eventually disallowed by court decision,  the deferred energy cost
balance would be written off by Met-Ed and Penelec,  and not amortized  over the
remaining  generation rate cap period as would be the case through the wholesale
supply agreement with FES.

          This  arrangement  reduces  Met-Ed's  and  Penelec's  exposure to high
wholesale  power prices by providing  power at or below the shopping  credit for
their  uncommitted PLR energy costs during the term of the assignment to FES. In
turn, FES will have the opportunity to create a positive supply margin depending
upon its ability to secure attractively priced energy supply.

Cost Reduction Initiative---During the past five months, the Company has been
pursuing a cost-reduction initiative that has been primarily focused on the
corporate support services or "home office" areas of costs, including the
support services for its generating plants and energy delivery group. This
initiative is separate from the Company's merger-savings efforts, which have
been primarily focused on eliminating duplicative positions and achieving
synergies that resulted from the merger, particularly in field operations.

          This   cost-reduction   initiative,   which  has  identified  numerous
opportunities  to reduce the  Company's  cost  structure,  is expected to reduce
employment levels within  FirstEnergy by 710 positions when the program is fully
implemented by 2004. Specifically,  by next month, FirstEnergy will have severed
160 employees and will have permanently  eliminated 200 open positions.  Another
350 positions  will be  eliminated in 2003 and 2004.  When this program is fully
implemented,  the Company expects to save  approximately  $135 million per year.
Slightly more than  one-half of these  savings will be labor costs.  The Company
expects  to incur  about  $35  million  of  one-time  costs-to-achieve  with the
majority of costs being employee severance costs.

          The  reductions  to date have been  focused  on the  Company's  retail
marketing and generation  support areas. The future reductions will generally be
in administrative  positions,  including information technology,  accounting and
human resource  functions.  While the Company will incur some  severance  costs,
FirstEnergy is not offering any early  retirement  programs in conjunction  with
this program.

          The   earnings   impact  of  this   program,   exclusive  of  one-time
costs-to-achieve, is within the Company's current earnings guidance for 2002 and


          This Form 8-K includes forward-looking statements based on information
currently available to management.  Such statements are subject to certain risks
and uncertainties.  These statements  typically contain, but are not limited to,
the terms "anticipate", "potential", "expect", "believe", "estimate" and similar
words.  Actual  results  may  differ  materially  due to the speed and nature of
increased  competition  and  deregulation  in  the  electric  utility  industry,
economic or weather  conditions  affecting future sales and margins,  changes in
markets  for energy  services,  changing  energy and  commodity  market  prices,
legislative   and   regulatory   changes   (including   revised    environmental
requirements),  the availability  and cost of capital,  ability to accomplish or
realize  anticipated  benefits  from  strategic  initiatives  and other  similar



           Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, each Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by
the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

September 24, 2002

                                    FIRSTENERGY CORP.

                                  OHIO EDISON COMPANY

                                THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC
                                 ILLUMINATING COMPANY

                                THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY

                                PENNSYLVANIA POWER COMPANY

                           JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY

                               METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY

                              PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY

                                     Harvey L. Wagner
                                     Harvey L. Wagner
                                Vice President, Controller
                               and Chief Accounting Officer