The utility talks a good game on clean energy, but its plans are far different — and dirtier
Environmentalists assert that FirstEnergy’s rate proposal, affecting power plants such as the coal-fired W.H. Sammis plant in Stratton, Ohio, amounts to a bait and switch. photo:FIRSTENERGY
COLUMBUS — “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.”
— editorial, Dick Munson, Environmental Defense Fund and Trish Demeter, Ohio Environmental Council, Toledo Blade
link to full editorial
