Area residents protested vociferously against FirstEnergy Corp.’s request to increase electric distribution rates and called on the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to deny it.
“There are many people — if you you just go north of here, two blocks up — who, I can tell you, can barely afford to put the food on their table,” Mike Kookoothe, a longtime Toledo resident, said addressing the commission Monday. “That [increase] is a lot to someone who doesn’t have enough.”
Mr. Kookoothe spoke during a PUCO public hearing regarding FirstEnergy’s applications to increase distribution rates. About 60 people attended the two-hour event at One Government Center. The purpose of the meeting was to gather public feedback, event organizers said.
“We need to hold these [FirstEnergy] people accountable from day one,” Mr. Kookoothe said. “We know what they did in the past ... when the corruption within [the company] was in the hundreds of millions of dollars. So let’s get a real start representing the people of this state and city.”
He and several area residents claimed that the rate increase is an attempt to pass the “HB6” scandal fallout costs to customers, referring to the House Bill 6 scandal that led to the conviction of former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder for a bribery scheme with FirstEnergy.
In 2024, FirstEnergy Corp. struck a deal to pay $20 million to avoid prosecution for its admitted role in fueling a $61 million bribery scheme that has already led to the imprisonment of Householder as well as criminal charges against two of the company’s former executives.
Others, including Norman Zemmelman of Ottawa Hills and Janice Flahiff of Toledo, expressed similar concerns.
“Customers should not be liable for energy costs from the HB6 fallout,” Ms. Flahiff said.
Speaking on the sidelines at the Monday hearing, Hannah Catlett, the utility’s spokesman, denied allegations that the rate increase reflects an attempt to pass the costs of previous mismanagement and corruption to consumers.
“When you pay your electric bill, part of what you’re paying for is for maintenance and upgrades to the electric grid,” Ms. Catlett said. “So we are working to deliver safe and reliable service to our customers that they need and deserve. And this rate plan that we have laid out includes the ability to continue making investments in the electric system that are important to delivering power.”
In a follow-up written statement to The Blade, Ms. Catlett said the company recognizes “that any increase in customer bills can create concern” and that the company doesn’t “take that lightly.”
“As energy demands grow and severe weather becomes more frequent, investing in advanced technologies is essential to meet future needs while continuing to work hard to keep customer bills as low as possible,” she said. “... Again, this rate review request does not pass on costs related to HB6.”
Speaking at the outset of the meeting, Commissioner Pete Gerken called on PUCO to represent the utility consumer, as opposed to utility companies, and emphasized that the Lucas County Commissioners had repeatedly condemned the rate increase.
On April 8, the Toledo City Council joined in the commissioners’ opposition against FirstEnergy’s request to increase electric distribution rates and asked the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to deny it.
FirstEnergy asked the council to approve a $190 million annual rate increase that would force more than 300,000 customers in Toledo and the surrounding area to pay more for the service. The increase could raise electric bills $1.56 per month for Toledo Edison customers, but consumer advocates say the proposal doesn’t match up with FirstEnergy’s increasing revenues.
An independent audit commissioned by the PUCO found that FirstEnergy’s revenue projections are overstated by nearly $35 million. The audit recommended a $27 million decrease in Toledo Edison’s revenue, which could lower the average consumer’s monthly electric bill by $5.17.
An analysis of the company’s financial reports submitted by the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel in response to that audit also states that FirstEnergy’s revenues do not warrant an increase and that the company’s electric distribution rates should decrease.
U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D., Toledo), who also spoke Monday, demanded that PUCO holds “a full forensic audit” of FirstEnergy “going back to 1980 that I think PUCO should finance.
“There must be justice for ratepayers,” Ms. Kaptur said, “and I’m here tonight to say I’m willing to help you achieve that for our region in the form of financial reimbursement to our region’s ratepayers.”
On May 5, PUCO plans to hold an evidentiary hearing on the proposal rate increase in Columbus.
First Published April 15, 2025, 11:20 a.m.
