{"id":2312770,"date":"2024-06-27T06:00:00","date_gmt":"2024-06-27T11:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vxartnews.com\/?post_type=newspack_nl_cpt&p=2312770"},"modified":"2024-06-26T21:28:22","modified_gmt":"2024-06-27T02:28:22","slug":"hb-6-updates-ohio-regulators-continue-piecemeal-review","status":"publish","type":"newspack_nl_cpt","link":"https:\/\/vxartnews.com\/newsletter\/hb-6-updates-ohio-regulators-continue-piecemeal-review\/","title":{"rendered":"HB 6 Updates: Ohio regulators continue piecemeal review"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n\n\n
This monthly newsletter provides updates on Ohio\u2019s ongoing utility corruption scandal.<\/em> Was this forwarded to you? Click here<\/a> to subscribe.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n Ohio utility regulators will continue to consider four FirstEnergy cases related to HB 6 separately, despite requests by the utility, customer advocates, and others to combine the cases. Meanwhile, intervenors say the timeline set in two of the cases puts them at a disadvantage as they struggle to keep up with several hundred thousand pages of discovery documents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Other recent developments in Ohio\u2019s ongoing utility corruption scandal include: <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio is sticking with a piecemeal approach to four HB 6-related cases despite requests earlier this month from the company and challengers asking for different degrees of consolidation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n FirstEnergy wanted issues in three HB 6 cases to be considered together<\/a> next year, and would have split a fourth case over whether the company improperly used ratepayer money to subsidize affiliated businesses, including FirstEnergy Solutions\u2019 unregulated coal and nuclear plant operations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Office of the Ohio Consumers\u2019 Counsel, Ohio Manufacturers\u2019 Association Energy Group and several other parties urged the PUCO to consolidate all four HB 6 cases<\/a>. In addition to the corporate separation case, one<\/a> case requires FirstEnergy\u2019s utilities to show ratepayer money was not used for charitable or political purposes, and the other two deal with the company\u2019s use of funds from two riders. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Regulators stayed all four cases<\/a> in mid-2022 after a request from the federal prosecutor\u2019s office. Administrative Law Judge Jacky St. John ruled last week<\/a> that the commission would not order further consolidation beyond its combination of the two rider cases when the stay was lifted in late February<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe Commission is vested with broad discretion to manage its dockets,\u201d she wrote, adding that more delay was not warranted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Critics see the decision not to combine the cases as a missed opportunity for a big-picture review<\/a> of FirstEnergy\u2019s operations and governance in the wake of HB 6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI don\u2019t understand the logic,\u201d said Ashley Brown, a former PUCO commissioner. \u201cIt\u2019s hard to find any public policy or private interest not to consolidate.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Multiple cases also require duplicative efforts and increase legal costs. \u201cThe commission is making us try HB 6 cases multiple times,\u201d said Kim Bojko, an attorney for the Ohio Manufacturers\u2019 Association Energy Group. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The PUCO \u201cseems like it\u2019s still piecemealing it and kicking some of the can down the road, while trying to fast-track the rest,\u201d said Dave Anderson, policy and communications manager for the Energy and Policy Institute. He noted the commission\u2019s limited approach<\/a> to addressing the HB 6 case began under former PUCO chair Sam Randazzo, who died from an apparent suicide this spring after criminal indictments in federal and state courts, plus charges of legal ethics violations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Read more:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The PUCO set schedules in its June 21 orders which call for testimony in the rider cases to be filed in early August<\/a>, with an evidentiary hearing set to start later that month. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Testimony in the corporate separation case<\/a> must be filed in September, with a hearing to start in October. The PUCO also said it would move ahead<\/a> in that case without an additional audit on the HB 6-related issues. A 2021 report<\/a> by Daymark Energy Advisors found no major violations of corporate separation, but noted the company hadn\u2019t gotten numerous documents<\/a> for the time period relevant to HB 6. <\/p>\n\n\n\n An independent audit<\/a> still has not been completed in the political and charitable spending case. That case doesn\u2019t have a hearing date yet. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Several intervenors have raised concerns about the pace, noting that it\u2019s still unclear when pre-hearing fact-finding will wrap up. The commission put that process on hold for a year and a half after federal prosecutors asked for a pause in state regulators\u2019 investigations as they pursued criminal cases related to HB 6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n FirstEnergy still has not produced all the documents parties in the four cases asked for nearly three years ago, because the PUCO didn\u2019t require the company to comply with earlier document requests when it stayed the cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From February through mid-June of this year, FirstEnergy produced roughly 725,000 pages of documents<\/a>. \u201cWe just got another 500 pages last week,\u201d with more still to come, Bojko said. Yet now she and other parties will have to file witnesses\u2019 testimony in roughly six weeks without knowing whether they\u2019ll have all the documents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt\u2019s punitive,\u201d Bojko said, adding that lawyers for intervening parties are still scrambling to try to review the materials they\u2019ve recently gotten. In her view, factors that frustrate intervenors\u2019 ability to prepare their cases will work to FirstEnergy\u2019s advantage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Maureen Willis, agency director for the Office of the Ohio Consumers\u2019 Counsel, said the office is evaluating the PUCO\u2019s approach to the cases. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cOCC will continue to advocate for a fair process that allows all the facts to come out,\u201d Willis said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n FirstEnergy spokesperson Jennifer Young declined to comment due to the ongoing nature of the proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Read more:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Newly revealed documents show Gov. DeWine played a larger role in soliciting money from FirstEnergy executives than was previously known.<\/p>\n\n\n\n FirstEnergy and its affiliates gave roughly $4 million to dark money groups supporting DeWine and Husted\u2019s 2018 campaigns. Less than a month before the election, DeWine texted<\/a> Chuck Jones, then CEO of FirstEnergy, to set up a call. Three days later, Mike Dowling, then a FirstEnergy vice president, texted<\/a> Jones to let DeWine know $500,000 was going to a dark money group called State Solutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Other texts<\/a> recently obtained by journalists show Husted trading statements about Ohio energy policy with Dowling in the summer of 2018. Documents produced earlier show Husted also performed \u201cbattlefield triage<\/a>\u201d to assure the appointment of Randazzo to chair the PUCO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n DeWine claimed he didn\u2019t remember<\/a> the call. Spokesperson Dan Tierney told the Vxartnews the texts \u201call document legal campaign fundraising and independent expenditures,\u201d which have been previously reported. \u201cThe Governor follows all applicable campaign finance laws,\u201d he added. Husted spokesperson Hayley Carducci did not respond to Vxartnews\u2019s request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The newly produced documents don\u2019t show a bribe or quid pro quo, and neither DeWine nor Husted has been named as a defendant in any criminal or civil cases relating to HB 6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the timing so close to the election raises questions, Anderson said, because DeWine\u2019s campaign staff likely knew FirstEnergy executives and the company\u2019s political action committee would already have reached their limits for direct campaign contributions. Under federal campaign finance law, candidates are not supposed to coordinate fundraising or other activities with groups that make so-called independent expenditures in political races.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Read more:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dowling, the former FirstEnergy vice president, listed both DeWine and Husted as potential witnesses in a June 18 filing<\/a> in the state of Ohio\u2019s criminal case against him, Jones and two companies that were controlled by Randazzo. The two also have received subpoenas in civil cases filed by FirstEnergy shareholders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Others on Dowling\u2019s witness list include former American Electric Power executives Nicholas Akins and Tom Froehle. AEP holds the largest interest among Ohio electric utilities in the two 1950s coal plants that ratepayers continue to subsidize as a result of HB 6. An estimate by RunnerStone for the Ohio Manufacturers\u2019 Association found Ohioans will pay nearly $1 billion<\/a> for those subsidies through 2030.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Jones was also named as a defendant in the case against Dowling, along with Randazzo and two companies he controlled before his death. The state is still pursuing charges against those companies, said Steve Irwin, press secretary for Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Read more:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder wants to add an argument to his appeal of a criminal conviction in federal court last year. A June 11 filing<\/a> argues Judge Timothy Black erred in instructing Householder not to talk about his ongoing testimony while he was still under oath during an overnight break on March 1 last year. Householder\u2019s lawyers did not object to the instruction, and the judge told Householder he could otherwise talk with his attorneys.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The government has objected<\/a> to allowing the extra argument, first raised months after Householder\u2019s initial brief of more than 16,000 words was filed in late February. Even if the court doesn\u2019t allow the extra argument, a June 21 filing<\/a> said the government still needs another four weeks to file its response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Briefing in lobbyist Matt Borges\u2019 appeal from his criminal conviction in last year\u2019s federal trial should wrap up by the end of this month, unless his lawyers ask for more time to reply to the federal government\u2019s brief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Householder is currently serving a 20-year sentence, and Borges is serving a five-year sentence. Their appeals are pending before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Also: Intervenors say a fast-tracked timeline puts them at a disadvantage as they struggle to keep up with several hundred thousand pages of discovery documents now arriving. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5619879,"featured_media":2312073,"template":"","meta":{"newspack_ads_suppress_ads":false,"newspack_popups_has_disabled_popups":false,"disable_auto_ads":false,"newspack_featured_image_position":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[21139,20110],"tags":[22302,20220,23178,20892,20048,23177,21111,22357],"coauthors":[21966],"yoast_head":"\n
\n\n\n\n\n
Piecemeal approach continues at PUCO<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
A \u2018punitive\u2019 schedule<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Spotlight on DeWine and Husted<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
On the witness list<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Householder and Borges appeals<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n