The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio approved $250 million in fines for FirstEnergy, which comes after a federal investigation in 2020 found the utility had bribed lawmakers to secure a bailout for its nuclear plants. (See Feds: FE Paid $61M in Bribes to Win Nuke Subsidy.)

The bribes went chiefly to state legislators including former House Speaker Larry Householder (R), but former PUCO Chair Sam Randazzo also was charged with taking bribes before he killed himself in 2024. (See Scandal-ridden Former PUCO Chair Sam Randazzo Found Dead.)

PUCO issued two separate orders, finding that FirstEnergy’s utilities in the state (Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., Ohio Edison and Toledo Edison) violated state law, PUCO regulations and orders, and ordered them to pay a combined $250.7 million in restitution to customers and civil forfeitures.

“The commission has remained steadfast in ensuring that we have followed the facts wherever they may lead,” PUCO Chair Jenifer French said in a statement. “Our hope is the events underlying these proceedings will remain a cautionary lesson of accountability and honesty in utility regulatory matters.”

FirstEnergy already paid a fine to the U.S. Treasury over the bribery allegations, and the $250 million resolves issues PUCO uncovered after it launched investigations into the utility after the federal probe became public.

PUCO found that the FirstEnergy utilities failed to show they adhered to a 2016 order it approved authorizing them to collect a “distribution modernization rider” to update their distribution grids. Instead, FirstEnergy took some of the money to subsidize its unregulated generation affiliate between 2017 and 2019. The company since has sold its unregulated generation.

The utilities will have to return $179.99 million over three billing cycles for that activity, which PUCO arrived at by tripling the $59.996 million the company spent in bribes to get House Bill 6 passed. The law provided a subsidy for the company’s nuclear plants.

“These funds represent an unnerving shadow over our regulatory role in this state and have harmed each and every consumer whose interests we aim to protect in proceedings before us,” PUCO said about the $60 million. “There have been many actions intervenors have called upon us to take in response to these events that lie outside of our authority to provide; however, when we do have the authority to order restitution for all Ohioans harmed by the companies’ actions discussed in these proceedings, we must do so in the interest of justice.”

FirstEnergy must refund an additional $6.64 million plus interest for some transactions it billed to customers but lacked supporting documentation or were misallocated to customers, as identified in an audit by PUCO.

The rest of the $250 million is due in the form of civil forfeitures after PUCO found FirstEnergy violated Ohio’s corporate separation laws when it entered into a consulting agreement with the Sustainability Funding Alliance in 2013. Regulated utilities were allocated costs for a consulting deal that benefited its generation affiliate, and the company owes $21.78 million in restitution.

The commission found FirstEnergy failed to disclose a side deal with the Industrial Energy Users-Ohio during a 2015 proceeding. The commission ordered the utility to pay a civil forfeiture of $18.93 million.

The last chunk is from a 2021 corporate separation audit, which found seven areas of violation between the company’s regulated and unregulated affiliates including a lack of a chief compliance officer and missing cost allocation information. FirstEnergy owes $23.36 million for that behavior, which PUCO said “contributed to the conduct giving rise to the HB 6 scandal.”

PUCO said FirstEnergy’s utilities have worked to fix their culture since the scandal and have new leadership that was not involved in the bribery, but the commission said it would remain vigilant to ensure compliance going forward.

“These proceedings were the first, and we trust the last, of their kind,” French said. “It is our responsibility and duty to impose appropriate remedies so as to ensure that they are.”