Don't be fooled. Know the facts about FirstEnergy's Bailout Plan.
No Images? Click here
 
   

It’s March – and that means crunch time when it comes to FirstEnergy’s bailout plea. Final briefs have been filed, and now it’s up to Ohio regulators whether they want their energy legacy to be in the hall of fame or the hall of shame. (Hall of fame = rejecting the deal.)

Or, as the free-market think tank R Street put it, “This is a test of whether Ohio will stand by competitive market principles or cave to corporate welfare and poor bureaucratic judgment.” We know which side of history we would want to be on.

You can always visit EDF’s FirstEnergy website for our newsletter archive and links to the latest news about FirstEnergy’s bailout.

 
 

FirstEnergy Can’t Strike Away the Truth

We’ve written about FirstEnergy’s troubling transparency record before. Multiple times. But it’s like the utility has an itch to hide the facts that it just can’t stop scratching.

In its latest attempts to muddle the truth, the whole truth, FirstEnergy has resorted to trying to strike its opponents’ arguments from the record. Because, you know, a democratic judicial system is all about cherry-picking evidence.

Midwest Energy News highlighted one of the items FirstEnergy doesn’t want to come to light: its past support of competition. The company previously welcomed deregulation, and the boost it provided to competition in the market, because it was in a position to gain from the move. Now that natural gas prices have plummeted and the tables have turned, FirstEnergy is seeking subsidies, i.e. propping up its unprofitable plants and undermining competition.

In regard to these strike requests, a FirstEnergy spokesperson deflected, saying, “I’d prefer to focus on how the plan will impact customers as opposed to legal strategy.”

Does that mean FirstEnergy is prepared to focus on how the plan will impact customers – by costing them $4 billion? Either way, it’s hard to glean the truth when your messenger isn’t transparent about not being transparent.

 
 

FirstEnergy Should Brush Up on Definition of ‘Diversity’

‘Fuel diversity’ is a term that’s been thrown around a lot recently, especially as an excuse for FirstEnergy’s bailout request. Striving for a diverse set of resources relies on the notion that if one generator – be it natural gas, nuclear, or whatever – isn’t available, you’ve got plenty of other options for back up. Sounds reasonable.

But all resources were not created equally. Some are expensive, inefficient, and outdated. Others are more affordable and don’t spew pollution into the air. Can you guess which category FirstEnergy’s plants fall into?

Furthermore, Ohio’s existing generation mix could hardly be considered diverse. Coal supplies 58 percent of the state’s electricity, natural gas 25 percent, nuclear 15 percent, and renewables only 2 percent. So when FirstEnergy is trying to save resources that already make up a whopping 73 percent of the state’s mix, how exactly is that guaranteeing diversity?

Let’s see what the grid operator, PJM Interconnection, has to say about FirstEnergy’s proposal:

  • “[It] will have no meaningful impact on the diversity of resources that serve Ohioans. ‘Fuel diversity’ as used by FirstEnergy means nothing more than inefficiently prolonging the life of aging, risky and undesirable units. Subsidizing resources with characteristics that the market does not value is not in the public interest.”

Unless! Maybe FirstEnergy was talking about diversity in terms of profitability. In that case, approving the bailout would ensure the state maintains both profitable and unprofitable power plants. Diversity achieved.