The Observation Deck

Clarification of Story in January 24 Edition
Date: Jan 24, 2017 5:18 PM

Good afternoon,

I’d like to provide some clarification to an article that appeared on The Lakewood Observer today. The piece by Matt Kuhns, “Renewable Energy Power-Up For Northeast Ohio,” contained some inaccuracies. As Matt acknowledged in his piece, the unregulated electricity industry is complex, and that complexity can lead to misunderstandings.

Foremost, FirstEnergy Corp is the parent company of 10 regulated electric utilities, a competitive generation business and transmission operations. FirstEnergy is not considering bankruptcy and was not the subject of the rumors referenced in the article.

Please change all references to FirstEnergy in the article to FirstEnergy Solutions. FirstEnergy Solutions is an unregulated subsidiary of FirstEnergy that comprises unregulated generation plants and a retail business that sells generation to customers. The contract to serve NOPEC was with FirstEnergy Solutions, not FirstEnergy.

I also would like to clarify the reference to “a campaign to raise and re-regulate electricity rates.” The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio already regulates electricity rates for FirstEnergy distribution utilities such as The Illuminating Company. Generation rates – or the rates customers pay for the electricity they use – are currently unregulated in Ohio, and these rates are what the article was referring to.

The company announced in November 2016 that we will thoughtfully move away from unregulated generation markets over the next 12 to 18 months. As part of the process, we are exploring a variety of strategic alternatives for plants operating in the unregulated marketplace as we accelerate FirstEnergy’s transformation into a fully regulated utility. These alternatives include converting generation to a regulated or regulated-like construct, seeking solutions for nuclear units that recognize their environmental benefits, exploring the sale of additional generation assets, or moving forward with additional deactivations. The strategic analysis remains underway.

I’m happy to speak with you further about these clarifications. I can be reached in the office all week.

Jennifer Young
Lead – Generation and Environmental Communications


.

Thanks for posting this, Jim. Good professional practices.

In my partial defense, I believe I see two actual clarifications to what I wrote—which absolutely should be noted—and only one inaccuracy, i.e. conflating FirstEnergy and FirstEnergy Solutions. As this was committed more than once, I acknowledge that I could be judged to have committed plural inaccuracies.

I do apologize for this. Possibly I may be able to make small amends by further clarifying what was not immediately obvious to me. I presume that all of Ms. Young's references to "FirstEnergy" by itself mean parent company "FirstEnergy Corp." FirstEnergy Solutions [Corp] is, I presume, only meant when both words are used (or by the initials FES which the company uses elsewhere in some instances). This might be obvious, but it did take me a moment.

If anyone wanted my suggestion, I think that even if "Our Electric Companies" does not actually include FirstEnergy Solutions, some sort of "see also:" note on that page might make visitors aware that there is an additional distinction to be made. https://www.firstenergycorp.com/our_ele ... _home.html

mjkuhns wrote:Thanks for posting this, Jim. Good professional practices.

MJK

We are making the corrections in the story, unless you would like to send in an amended version.

No one reads the Observer. Paper came out in print and online at 3pm, retraction and clarification sent at 5:28pm


.

Heh.

I should at least offer to help. I will take a second look very shortly.

Yes, accuracy in the details presented by the Observer is of paramount importance! Thanks for being on top of that JOB and Matt.

Now, concerning that "demo" picture on the front page... :shock:and