Chuck Jones is having a hard time keeping his statements consistent. When FirstEnergy’s CEO is trying to convince Wall Street analysts to invest in his firm, he says “there’s just not that much risk” if FirstEnergy assumes the clean-up costs associated with toxic coal-ash pits or radioactive reactors. 

Yet when he presents testimony to federal regulators at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Jones admits that such environmental liabilities “could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.”

The flip-flop is relevant since a federal judge last month ruled that FirstEnergy could not use the bankruptcy of its subsidiary to evade its environmental responsibilities. Yet there’s a word for saying one thing to one person and the exact opposite to another. Is Jones’ nose growing?

When the Dictionary Matters

Pop wisdom holds that “a lie that is repeated a thousand times becomes truth.” FirstEnergy and its supporters repeat and repeat the false claim that H.B. 6 is not a bailout. Yet the dictionary suggests otherwise, defining bailout as “financial help to a corporation or country which otherwise would be on the brink of failure or bankruptcy.” In this case, FirstEnergy Solutions, which has filed for bankruptcy, wants Ohioans to provide it each and every year—in perpetuity—with several hundred millions of dollars to keep operating its old power plants that are no longer economic. Free-marketers may abandon their conservative principles with their repetitive mantras, but they can’t hide from the dictionary.

Benefits and Costs

FirstEnergy has never liked energy efficiency since it cuts into its sales, even as it saves its customers money. That’s why the utility and its supporters highlight the costs but ignore the benefits of waste-reducing measures. In their 2017 filings, however, Ohio utilities admitted that their efficiency programs saved each Ohioan, on average, $92.52 a year. 

Since H.B. 6 would eliminate that savings, FirstEnergy might claim the bailout legislation saves money, but simple math says otherwise. The legislation would impose a $30 charge on every Ohioan to subsidize uneconomic power plants, cut the $49.20 charge for efficiency and renewable-energy programs, as well as eliminate the $92.52 in consumer savings from those programs. The result: H.B. 6 would cost the average Buckeye $73.32 each and every year.

And that, Pinocchio, is the truth.