In-depth, underreported and high-impact journalism that promotes the public good

Former Ohio regulator linked to $4 million payoff directed agency to limit response to FirstEnergy corruption

Former PUCO Chair Sam Randazzo shaped agency responses to HB 6 scandal: โ€˜Proactiveโ€™ show-cause action followed only after bad publicity. Randazzo and others closely tracked legislative actions as well. 

This article is provided by Eye on Ohio, the nonprofit, nonpartisan Ohio Center for Journalism in partnership with the nonprofit Energy News Network. Please join the free mailing lists for Eye on Ohio or the Energy News Network, as this helps provide more public service reporting.

By Kathiann M. Kowalski

Newly produced documents show that Sam Randazzo, former chair of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, came up with the idea to let FirstEnergy show it didnโ€™t use ratepayer money for House Bill 6, the nuclear and coal bailout law at the heart of Ohioโ€™s largest corruption case.

The move was far short of a full investigation that consumer advocates have called for. And itโ€™s unclear whether the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio would have done anything at that point in September 2020 without bad publicity.

FirstEnergy was identified as โ€œCompany Aโ€ in the federal governmentโ€™s complaint against former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and others in July 2020. The complaint detailed how the company, its affiliates and others had funneled roughly $60 million to dark money groups to elect lawmakers friendly to Householder, pass the stateโ€™s nuclear and coal bailout law, and prevent a voter referendum on the law.

FirstEnergy later disclosed that it had paid $4 million to a company linked to Randazzo shortly before he became PUCO chair. The company admitted last summer that it made the payment with the expectation that Randazzo would act in FirstEnergyโ€™s interests with respect to HB 6 and other legislative and regulatory priorities. Randazzo is now a defendant in the state of Ohioโ€™s civil conspiracy case arising out of HB 6.

Seven weeks after the federal governmentโ€™s complaint became public, the PUCO still hadnโ€™t taken any action. The Office of the Ohio Consumersโ€™ Counsel asked the agency to order an independent investigation and management audit of FirstEnergyโ€™s utilities, corporate governance and activities relating to HB 6. The Consumersโ€™ Counsel also asked for an independent audit on an unlawful rider under which FirstEnergyโ€™s utilities had collected more than $450 million.

Randazzo sent a heads up about the consumersโ€™ counselโ€™s move to Gov. Mike DeWineโ€™s former chief of staff, Laurel Dawson, whose former firm and whose husband had done lobbying work for FirstEnergy.

โ€œThanks, Sam. Will be back in touch,โ€ Dawson replied on Sept. 9, 2020.

Even then, the PUCO didnโ€™t do anything until Matt Schilling, PUCOโ€™s public affairs director, sent several news clips to Randazzo and others on Sept. 15, 2020. โ€œPUCO needs to โ€˜connect the dots,โ€™โ€ said one editorial headline from the Sandusky Register.

โ€œSo, we need to do something to respond to OCCโ€™s request for an investigation,โ€ Randazzo said in a group email that afternoon. โ€œIt was/is my understanding that we were going to put out an AE [Attorney Examiner] entry requesting comments on OPCC [the Consumersโ€™ Counselโ€™s] request.โ€

โ€œJust thinking out loudโ€ฆsince this issue has grabbed media attention would it be better to have commissioners issue something asking for comments at our next meeting instead of an AE?โ€ asked Commissioner Beth Trombold in response. โ€œJust wondering if it would signal better that we are engaged.โ€

โ€œI donโ€™t care which path we take โ€ฆ I have a slight preference for doing something sooner,โ€ Randazzo responded. He went on to say that the PUCO already audited FirstEnergyโ€™s riders. โ€œMy point here is that we need to be proactiveโ€ฆโ€ PUCO Deputy Director Katherine Fleck then offered to put something together for commissioners and others, including Schilling, to review.

โ€œWe could, on our own initiative, issue a show cause order to FE [FirstEnergy] directing FE to demonstrate that no costs associated with HB 6 have been included in any riders or base rates,โ€ Randazzo wrote.

Senior utilities attorney examiner Gregory Price issued that order that afternoon. Heโ€™s also an attorney examiner in some of the PUCOโ€™s other limited-issue FirstEnergy cases relating to HB 6.

The PUCOโ€™s โ€œbaby stepโ€ response of letting FirstEnergy report on itself received criticism from several fronts. Lawmakers also asked questions when Randazzo testified before a House select committee on Sept. 16, 2020.

โ€œItโ€™s a case. Itโ€™s an investigation. What happens after that, as I hope you would expect of us, would be a function of what the evidence shows and what our legal authority is. And thatโ€™s as much as I can say about this,โ€ Randazzo said in answer to questions from Rep. David Leland, a Democrat from Columbus.

After FirstEnergy fired former CEO Charles Jones and other executives, the PUCO announced a corporate separation audit of FirstEnergy. But, Randazzo told Schilling on Nov. 5, โ€œCorporate separation requirements โ€ฆ are not designed to address politics or lobbying (coordinated or otherwise) except as cost allocation may be involved.โ€ PUCO staff later told bidders for that audit not to include any HB 6-related activities in their work.

On Nov. 16, 2020, FBI agents searched Randazzoโ€™s home. FirstEnergy disclosed later that week that it had paid $4 million to a company linked to Randazzo shortly before he became PUCO chair. Randazzo resigned on Nov. 20, 2020.

Behind the scenes

Legislative records released in December 2020 show that Randazzo played a significant behind-the-scenes role on House Bill 6 before it was passed.

And newly produced documents from the PUCO show Randazzo continued to play a significant role after the HB 6 scandal became public.

Among other things, Randazzo and others at the PUCO reviewed bills that called for a full repeal of HB 6 and provided an โ€œinternal document on the repeal legislationโ€ to advisors in DeWineโ€™s office.

That document may have been a version of a spreadsheet of โ€œRepeal HB 6 scenarios.โ€ The document outlined options such as repealing the nuclear subsidies, repealing those subsidies plus the coal plant bailout, and repealing those provisions as well as recession-proofing provisions for utilities. The spreadsheet also listed an option for no repeal, but with a fortified audit of the billโ€™s nuclear subsidies and tweaking of the subsidiesโ€™ timing.

None of the options included a full repeal of HB 6 or a repeal that would have undone its gut of Ohioโ€™s clean energy standards.

Price, a hearing examiner in the PUCOโ€™s ongoing FirstEnergy cases, was included on some of the emails about proposed repeal legislation in the summer of 2020. 

Additionally, a September 2020 comparison of select HB 6 nuclear provisions with a 2019 compromise bill was addressed to Randazzo and Price,
โ€œper your request.โ€ (The other bill would also have kept Ohioโ€™s clean energy standards and reform wind turbine setbacks that lawmakers tripled in 2014.)

Randazzo also sought comments and suggestions from Price and others on draft testimony for the Ohio Senate, including โ€œunwinding challengesโ€ of HB 6. And Randazzo also sought input after former PUCO Commissioner Ashley Brown wrote in a Sept. 4, 2020 editorial that the PUCO had previously called on Columbia Gas to replace its board of directors.

In addition, Price apparently attended some discussions on the bill before its enactment in 2019. Itโ€™s unclear why Price, a senior utilities attorney examiner, would have been included in those pre- and post-enactment communications. 

โ€œWhy he would be weighing in on what should or shouldnโ€™t be in legislation seems like a bit of a mystery,โ€ said Dave Anderson, policy and communications manager for the Energy and Policy Institute.

Price has made several rulings in the 17 months since September 2020, which has frustrated the Office of the Ohio Consumersโ€™ Counselโ€™s efforts to get full information from FirstEnergy in its HB 6 cases.

Ohio lawmakers didnโ€™t repeal HB 6โ€™s $1.1 billion in subsidies for FirstEnergy Solutionsโ€™ former nuclear plants (now owned by Energy Harbor) until late March 2021. Several other parts of HB 6 remain on the books, including its gut of the stateโ€™s clean energy standards and subsidies for two 1950s-era coal plants. Consumers have paid roughly $225 million for those subsidies since January 2020.

The 13 gigabytes of materials produced by the PUCO on Feb. 11 represent only part of the records turned over to the federal government in response to subpoenas released last year. The agencyโ€™s legal review of materials is ongoing and it plans to supplement its response to public records requests, said PUCO Deputy Legal Director Donald Leming.

Type of Work:

Investigative / Enterprise In-depth examination of a single subject requiring extensive research and resources.

News Based on facts, either observed and verified directly by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.

News Article Article pages that do not meet specifications for other Trust Project Type of Work labels and also do not fit within the general news category.

Areas of Expertise:

Accountability Journalism

Location Expertise:

Buckeye State

Phone Number:

(646) 397-7761


One response to “Former Ohio regulator linked to $4 million payoff directed agency to limit response to FirstEnergy corruption”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.