Questions still remain in the 2019 corruption scandal that rocked the Ohio Statehouse, like, did former FirstEnergy executives misuse ratepayer funds during the $60 million bribery scheme?
Testimony over the course of three weeks in June may help the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio answer those questions.
But, critics said it'll be up to the same commission that once enabled the corrupt behavior.
During the hearings, attorneys for consumer groups and utility companies questioned a dozen witnesses that worked with FirstEnergy or audited the utility company's spending.
"We hope, at the end of the day, the PUCO will agree with us and levy the appropriate forfeitures and other penalties on First Energy that they so richly deserve," said Ohio Consumers' Counsel attorney John Varanese, who questioned witnesses during the hearings.
Varanese said the company should pay daily fines of tens of thousands of dollars.
"This was an unprecedented, unprecedented event in Ohio's regulatory history where FirstEnergy captured both the PUCO and the general assembly leadership here and bought them off to get bailouts for their nuclear power plants," he said.
The company stated it’s made internal changes since the corruption was revealed. FirstEnergy agreed to pay millions of dollars in state and federal fines and admitted its wrongdoing.
Varanese said it's clear money from customers’ electric bills helped fund the scheme.
The PUCO allowed FirstEnergy to tack on a rider known as a Distribution Modernization Rider (DMR) as an extra charge to each electric bill, supposedly to pay to modernize the grid.
The favors included approving vague language about how the new rider could be used.
"The original decision authorizing rider DMR didn't really put any conditions or restrictions on the use of funds. Only that it being directly or indirectly beneficial to the grid modernization," said Paul Corey with auditing firm Oxford Advisors.
The PUCO hired him to determine if FirstEnergy was using the money for grid modernization and if it should be renewed.
Corey found the money went into a pool along with other funds.
"So, we were trying to determine what happened after the money was put into the regulated money pool. And it was never entirely clear," Corey said.
Corey said FirstEnergy only provided monthly balances and never provided the daily balances he requested. Corey also said he tried to track the funds after they went into the money pool, but couldn't.
Corey told the attorneys he was amazed that the supposedly earmarked funds became untraceable in the money pool.
But, Corey said when he included the information and other potentially negative things for FirstEnergy in his reports, PUCO staff told him to remove the sections.
“Did you have discussions with staff regarding this recommendation?" an attorney asked Corey.
"Yes, they told us to delete it," he replied.
"Did you agree with that recommendation to delete it?" the attorney asked.
"Did I agree with it? No, but we were working on behalf of staff and the commission, so we did," Corey replied.
"Did staff give you any reason why they felt it was necessary to delete it?" the attorney asked during the June 27 hearing.
“We were told it was beyond the scope of the rider DMR review," Corey replied.
"In your opinion, Mr. Corey, did you believe it was out in the scope of the review?" the attorney asked.
"No," Corey replied.
Testimony showed the rider was used to increase dividend payments to shareholders.
Corey confirmed the payments averaged $150 million a year in the few years before the rider, but the payments increased to $375 million a year after the PUCO approved the rider.
Corey said he was also told to remove this from reports.
The Ohio Supreme Court later deemed the rider unconstitutional, but didn’t refund the $546 million collected from rate payers. Corey didn’t identify who at the PUCO instructed him to remove things from his reports, but indicated the staff members may have been acting on behalf of chairman Randazzo.
"It was just my understanding that, you know, staff had met with former Chairman Randazzo on the report, but I don't have any direct information on that other than the staff had internal meetings, and we were told...make the changes to the report," Corey said.
Randazzo died by suicide last year while he was facing federal and state charges. He had pleaded not guilty.
The Ohio Consumers' Counsel argues the PUCO's audit processes are deeply flawed if PUCO staff could impact an alleged independent audit.
"OCC has repeatedly questioned the PUCO’s audit process, emphasizing how draft, non-public audit reports shared solely with utilities can lead to compromised results from a so-called independent auditor," a statement from the consumer watchdogs states. "The PUCO has nonetheless defended its long-standing audit practices of having its staff manage the audits and sharing the unfiled, non-public reports with the utility being audited. But the public deserves better."
Attorneys have a month to submit more information to the PUCO before the commissioners consider a decision.
The PUCO has made some leadership and policy changes since the scandal. But the OCC is still concerned about the organization's transparency. The PUCO refused to stream the evidentiary hearings, not ruling on an OCC motion made a couple of days after the hearings started, until after the hearings ended.
WOSU asked for a live stream a week before the proceedings started.
“Looking past the timeliness of that request, we will note that we have never live streamed a commission evidentiary hearing before for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, the physical setup and technological limitations of our hearing rooms,” the PUCO hearing judge said.
The hearing was held in the same space the PUCO livestreamed meetings are held in.
“Even if it were possible, requesting us to oversee the process of live streaming would certainly delay these proceedings given our specific technological acumen," the hearing judge said.
IT workers handle the streaming set up for other PUCO hearings.
She also said the meetings weren't streamed because "our hearings are open to the public" and “we've had various members of the media reporting on and again recording portions of the hearing throughout the last three weeks.”
The hearings were in downtown Columbus, miles away from the center of FirstEnergy’s coverage area.
Google searches show few articles covered the content of the hearings and no outlets appear to have provided continued coverage of the hearings.
