In a new advertising campaign, FirstEnergy Corp. portrays itself as a champion of clean energy. The timing is deliberate: The company has a proposal before Ohio regulators that would subsidize its old, dirty power plants — a deal that multiple sources conclude will end up costing FirstEnergy customers about $10 a month on their utility bills.
FirstEnergy claims the “switch is on” to a cleaner energy future. The reality is little more than a bait and switch.
The bailout request illuminates a utility clinging to the past. Because it doubled down on coal when natural gas and renewable energy were getting cheaper, FirstEnergy now loses money running several of its older, polluting power plants. The utility wants Ohioans to pick up the tab of rising costs of coal, so its executives and shareholders can continue to enjoy bonuses and dividends at the expense of our environment.
FirstEnergy’s website claims it will “tirelessly pursue new sources of clean, renewable energy and other opportunities to meet customers’ needs in an environmentally sound way.” As environmentalists, we would support these efforts — if FirstEnergy backed up its rhetoric with real commitments.
The utility points to its “commitment to environmental stewardship.” As part of its bait and switch, FirstEnergy proposes to get $4 billion in subsidies from Ohioans in its bailout plan in exchange for establishing “a goal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by at least 90 percent below 2005 levels by 2045.”
The operative word here is “goal.” The utility makes no enforceable promises, nor does it face any penalties if it misses that target.
FirstEnergy brags that it has spent a lot of money on pollution control equipment — failing to note that the federal Clean Air Act required it to do so. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had to take the utility to court to get it to cut its emissions of nitrogen oxide (which leads to smog), sulfur dioxide (which leads to acid rain), and mercury (a dangerous toxin that especially hurts children).
FirstEnergy must think its customers are gullible, or not paying attention, or both. Its environmental bait also includes a pledge to consider adding 100 megawatts of wind or solar power. Its requested switch is enough subsidies to keep operating 3,000 megawatts of uneconomic, costly power plants.
Despite its slick and expensive image-boosting advertisements, FirstEnergy has gone out of its way to block clean energy. It led the campaign in the Ohio General Assembly to overturn the state’s clean-energy and energy-efficiency standards.
It also has led lawsuits against demand response, an energy-saving tool that rewards customers who reduce their energy use when demand is high. In January, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld demand response, forcing FirstEnergy to abandon its legal challenge.
FirstEnergy’s environmental bait and switch makes us wonder about the utility’s other arguments for a bailout. It claims the subsidies it requests will save Ohioans money — yet the state’s own consumers’ counsel calculates that customers will end up paying FirstEnergy $4 billion.
The utility asserts that its uneconomic power plants must continue to operate or the lights might go out. But the entity responsible for keeping the electric grid operating says there's no concern about blackouts if these plants were to go offline. In fact, the operator suggests the proposed subsidies are the real threat to reliability, since they will lead to less investment in grid modernization.
FirstEnergy also argues that its offer is the best way to meet Ohio’s electricity demand. Yet several competitors have committed to providing the same amount of power, with less pollution and at a much lower cost to customers.
FirstEnergy has been tireless only in its efforts to saddle its customers with unnecessary costs. Its real goal is to keep polluting plants churning away by pressuring the legislature into maintaining the status quo, while the rest of the country moves ahead in the 21st century clean-energy era.
We hope the real switch at FirstEnergy will be toward an honest depiction of its rate proposal. Until then, the utility’s deceptive advertising is enough reason for the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to reject a FirstEnergy bailout.
Dick Munson is Midwest director of clean energy for the Environmental Defense Fund. Trish Demeter is managing director of energy and clean air programs for the Ohio Environmental Council.
First Published March 20, 2016, 4:00 a.m.