For more information

(PDF)

Previous coverage





March 3, 2010:

Feb. 25, 2010:

Feb. 22, 2010:

Jan. 16, 2010:

Despite denials by FirstEnergy Corp., documents show the utility did indeed promise owners of all-electric homes that they would receive discounted rates forever.

Those and other documents obtained by The Plain Dealer reveal a vigorous marketing campaign by Ohio Edison and the Illuminating Co. to persuade developers to build all-electric homes and then to discourage owners from switching to gas when they had a chance.

"This rate will be guaranteed for you as long as you wish to utilize it," an Ohio Edison salesman wrote to a Canfield resident in 1988, confirming a new heat pump rate.

FirstEnergy's representatives have denied for weeks that the company or its predecessors ever guaranteed permanently discounted rates to developers or homeowners.

FirstEnergy's assertions have continued in the face of widespread protest from thousands of the more than 100,000 families whose bills have soared since the utility eliminated the discounts last year.

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio this week ordered FirstEnergy to restore the discounts by March 17 on an emergency basis while a permanent discount is negotiated.

FirstEnergy spokeswoman Ellen Raines said it was no secret that the utilities marketed all-electric homes. But she declined to comment specifically on any of the documents.

"This is now the subject of litigation," she said, referring to a lawsuit by state Sen. Tim Grendell on behalf of the homeowners. "It's not appropriate for me to discuss it."

Grendell said he has many documents showing that FirstEnergy promised permanent discounts. Documents obtained from Grendell and other sources include:

A two-page letter from The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. in 1986 to owners of all-electric homes. CEI feared that Columbia Gas of Ohio was soliciting the homeowners to switch to gas. The letter argued that the annual cost of electric heat was "virtually identical" with gas and that converting to gas appliances would, including interest on a five-year loan, cost a homeowner up to $6,000.

A 1996 contract with Bob Schmitt Homes, a North Ridgeville contractor who has built more than 3,500 all-electric homes over more than 30 years, often in partnership with a FirstEnergy company.

The company is building two all-electric homes in North Ridgeville because there are no gaslines in that neighborhood. But 400 homes in an adjacent development will be heated by gas, the company said.

In the 1996 contract signed by Ohio Edison regional manager C.E. Jones, Ohio Edison agreed to give the company up to $59,150, including advertising costs and $350 per home, up to 135 homes.

Schmitt Homes in turn agreed to reimburse Ohio Edison $350 for each house built if its workers installed a non-electric appliance of any kind, or if the company failed to build at least 100 homes.

A March 13, 2000, letter to Bob Schmitt, principal of Bob Schmitt Homes, offering up to $44,000 cash per year for every 100 homes built. The proposal included extra cash directly to homeowners if they installed geothermal systems, which extract heat from the earth.

"I am excited about continuing the working relationship that was started between our companies in the 1970s and has continued into the new millennium, account executive Michael Challender wrote. "Project Assistance is good for both companies, and our customers benefit by having lower energy costs, perhaps the lowest in the state."

Challender made the offer even as FirstEnergy attorneys were preparing plans to "transition" into deregulation, as the state's 1999 law demanded. Deregulation, which became a reality finally in 2009, was the key to stripping away the discounts.

But FirstEnergy never told Bob Schmitt Homes about what was coming, said Kevin Corcoran, vice president and general counsel for the developer.

Corcoran said he first heard about the end of discounts in 2006, when he read a Plain Dealer article.

"They were still leading us down the path," he said. "Then FirstEnergy notified customers after the PUCO ruling. Why didn't they tell us before-hand? Didn't they want public comment?"