IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO ex rel. Dave Yost, Ohio
Attorney General,

Case No. _______________________

Plaintiff,
V.

JUDGE ________________________

FIRSTENERGY CORP.,
C/O CT Corporation System
4400 Easton Commons Way, Suite 125
Columbus, Ohio 43219,

COMPLAINT
ALLEGING
A
PATTERN OF CORRUPT ACTIVITY
and
APPLICATION
FOR
PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF PURSUANT TO R.C. 2923.34

FIRSTENERGY SERVICE COMPANY,
C/O CT Corporation System
4400 Easton Commons Way, Suite 125
Columbus, Ohio 43219,
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP.,
C/O CT Corporation System
4400 Easton Commons Way, Suite 125
Columbus, Ohio 43219,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ENERGY HARBOR CORP.,
C/O The Corporation Trust Company
Corporation Trust Center
120 Orange Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801,
LARRY HOUSEHOLDER
3825 Township Road 19
Glenford, Ohio 43739,
FRIENDS OF LARRY HOUSEHOLDER
207 N Market Street
Somerset, Ohio 43783,

1

 GENERATION NOW, INC.
C/O Treasurer D. Eric Lycan 155 East Main
Street, Suite 260
Lexington, Kentucky 40507,
JEFF LONGSTRETH
2248 Buckley Road
Upper Arlington, Ohio 43220,
JPL & ASSOCIATES, LLC
C/O Statutory Agent Jeff Longstreth
2248 Buckley Road
Upper Arlington, Ohio 43220,
CONSTANT CONTENT
C/O Statutory Agent Jeff Longstreth
2248 Buckley Road
Upper Arlington, Ohio 43220,
NEIL CLARK
155 E. Broad Street, Suite 2020
Columbus, Ohio 43215,
MATT BORGES
2753 Sherwood Road
Bexley, Ohio 43209,
17 CONSULTING GROUP LLC
C/O Statutory Agent, Matt Borges
2753 Sherwood Road
Bexley, Ohio 43209,
JUAN CESPEDES
1011 Delaware Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201
And
Other Enterprise Members, Named And
Unnamed,
Defendants.

2

 Plaintiff, the State of Ohio, by and through its Attorney General, Dave Yost, (hereinafter
“Ohio” or “the State”), upon personal knowledge as to its own acts and beliefs, and upon
information and belief as to all matters based upon the investigation of counsel and matters
within the public sphere, alleges as follows:
I.

INTRODUCTION:

In late 2016, FirstEnergy Corp. had a problem. The nuclear power generation plants it owned
through its subsidiary FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. (“FirstEnergy Solutions”) had turned from
assets to liabilities.
The high-cost nuclear plants had survived for most of their existence because government
regulation limited competition, and because of a lack of lower cost alternatives. That all
changed when inexpensive, plentiful natural gas arrived in what had become a deregulated
marketplace in 2001.
With FirstEnergy Corp. and FirstEnergy Solutions having no way to make their nucleargenerated power less expensive, the market would inevitably move away from nuclear power
and toward natural gas. Accustomed to operating in the regulatory world of government,
FirstEnergy Corp. turned there to find help from the ravages of the market.
Beginning in 2008, FirstEnergy Corp. was able pass the extra cost of nuclear power on to its
customers under a waiver of a federal government rule that would normally have prohibited it
from buying and then re-selling energy from its subsidiary, FirstEnergy Solutions. But on
April 27, 2016, the federal government rescinded that waiver -- and effectively ended
FirstEnergy Corp.’s ability to charge the costs of its expensive nuclear plants back to
ratepayers.
When help from the federal government vanished, FirstEnergy Corp. then turned to state
regulators for assistance. The utility ultimately won approval for a resurrected single supplier
deal by providing assurances that excess profits would be used to modernize its facilities.
Customers would continue to pay higher rates to prop up FirstEnergy Solutions’ operations.
FirstEnergy Corp.’s competitors, and groups representing consumers, businesses and the

3

 environment successfully challenged the surcharge in the Supreme Court of Ohio, again
eliminating government assistance for the utility.
FirstEnergy Corp. recognized that the future looked bleak for FirstEnergy Solutions.
FirstEnergy Corp. voluntarily took more than $6 billion in “write downs” on the value of its
nuclear generation plants, reporting the write down to its shareholders in November 2016.
FirstEnergy Corp. developed an idea for a third government-created refuge for its
uncompetitive nuclear plants: a new state law, or in the words of its CEO, a “Legislative
Solution.” Its first attempts to win passage of a Legislative Solution went nowhere in 2017 and
2018, but the once and future ruler of the Ohio House of Representatives would change that in
2019.
Larry Householder, the powerful Speaker of the Ohio House from almost two decades earlier,
had won back his seat representing Perry County in November 2016. As he took office in
January 2017, he was already plotting his path back to the Speaker’s dais.
To do so, he would need to fund a slate of primary election challengers for state representative
elections. “Team Householder,” as these candidates would become known, would be counted
on to support Householder’s eventual selection as Speaker. To get Team Householder elected,
Householder and his political operatives needed cash -- a lot of cash. FirstEnergy Corp. and
FirstEnergy Solutions had it, and were willing to spend it to gain a third government lifeline
for their nuclear operations.
So was formed what one of the Defendants would call "The Unholy Alliance." In some ways,
this was not so very different from how other Speakers have come to power. What set the
Unholy Alliance apart was how the money was routed to disguise its source -- and the expected
Legislative Solution as a reward.
The Unholy Alliance moved ever-larger amounts of money around in a shell game using
501(c)(4) entities and other co-conspirators designed to conceal the source of funds and to
circumvent Ohio's campaign finance laws and IRS requirements for 501(c)(4) nonprofits. The
vast majority of the money came from FirstEnergy Corp. and its subsidiary.

4

 By 2019, Householder, using the proceeds of the 501(c)(4) nonprofit as a virtually unlimited
source of campaign cash, recruited and funded challengers to the then-incumbent speaker’s
supporters. Unable to elicit enough support within his own caucus to unseat the incumbent,
Householder turned to members of the minority party who ultimately provided him with the
votes necessary to regain the Speaker’s gavel. With the power of the Speakership his, and the
continued financial backing of FirstEnergy Corp. and its subsidiary, Householder began efforts
to deliver the utility’s Legislative Solution.
In addition to its money, FirstEnergy Corp. provided the brains and technical expertise through
another one of its subsidiaries, FirstEnergy Service Company (“FirstEnergy Service”). Until
June of 2020 -- long after the Legislative Solution was passed into law -- FirstEnergy Service
would provide nuclear-owning FirstEnergy Solutions with legal, "ethical," financial and
"external affairs" support.
Three months after taking control of the legislative agenda, Speaker Householder was in a
position to put House Bill 6 (H.B. 6) -- the Legislative Solution that went nowhere in the
previous session -- on the House floor for a vote. This bill would provide more than a billion
dollars in bailout protection to FirstEnergy Solutions, which had since declared bankruptcy to
protect it from creditors, including costs associated with environmental cleanup requirements.
A public bailout of this magnitude would surely face criticism, meaning H.B. 6 needed public
support if it was going to pass. Within days of the bailout bill’s introduction, Generation Now,
Inc. (“Generation Now”) -- one of the entities first created to bring Householder to power -pumped $10 million into advertising and media services to put pressure on members of the
House of Representatives to support the bailout bill. Behind the scenes, legislators were being
pressured to support H.B. 6 or face future consequences from the Speaker. Aside from the
normal exertion of political pressure a speaker can apply, Householder also enjoyed absolute
control over the millions of dollars in the 501(c)(4). Team Householder candidates who
received this largess from Householder during their primary could certainly expect those
resources to be cut off, should they not decide to support the Legislative Solution. Once the
“House” was in order, attention -- and pressure -- shifted to the Senate.

5

 Generation Now would use an infusion of over $7 million in new money to fund advertising
and media services, applying pressure on members of the Senate to support the bailout bill.
But perhaps just as important, while the debate was raging over H.B. 6, the House and Senate
were in the middle of negotiating the state’s biennial budget, House Bill 166.
The House, which begins the appropriations process, had passed its version of the budget on
May 9, 2019. The Senate had passed its version on June 20, 2019 -- and it needed House
concurrence on its amendments, or a conference committee to iron out the differences. While
the biennial budget is typically completed by June 30th in odd numbered years, the Speaker
slammed the brakes on the entire state’s operating budget, exerting maximum pressure on the
Senate to take up H.B. 6.
The House and Senate both agreed to the conference committee report for the budget and
passed it on the same day, July 17, 2019. Notably, July 17, 2019 was the same day the Senate
passed H.B. 6 and sent it back to the House with amendments. The House passed the Senate's
version of H.B. 6 on July 23, 2019 and it was promptly signed into law by the Governor.
While the bailout was law, it was not yet secured. Almost immediately, forces mobilized to
put H.B. 6 to a statewide vote, called a referendum. However, a statewide vote would first
require challengers to get tens of thousands of voter signatures on a referendum petition.
The financial vehicle to defeat the petition process would be the same one used before:
Generation Now. Another $40 million would go toward sidelining signature collection
companies, and direct voter appeals opposing repealing H.B. 6. Ultimately, the Unholy
Alliance succeeded: challengers to the bailout bill failed to collect enough signatures and H.B.
6 became law.
Beginning on January 1, 2021, Ohio residents and businesses receiving energy bills will start
paying into the bailout.
The wrongful acts described below -- especially the rampant money laundering -- are
predicates establishing a corrupt enterprise under §2921.34 of the Ohio Revised Code, referred
to in this Complaint as the Unholy Alliance.

6

 Ohio has been wounded by these wrongful acts.
•

$1.3 billion will be taken from Ohio's rate-paying residential consumers and
businesses as the result of corrupt legislation.

•

Ohio's ability to govern itself has been harmed. Distrust between officials, elected
and appointed, is high. Ohio's citizens' trust in their government to act with an
ethical and honest conscience has eroded.

•

Ohio's reputation among the states as a stable, fair place to compete in business and
make investments has been damaged.

•

Ohio's environmental future has been damaged, because the costs for the ultimate
decommissioning of the nuclear plants are now secured by Energy Harbor, a
company with far smaller capitalization than FirstEnergy Corp. To the extent that
decommissioning and environmental repair costs exceed Energy Harbor’s ability
to pay, those costs will be borne by Ohio through its ratepayers or taxpayers -- a
scenario that already played out once in the FirstEnergy Solutions’ bankruptcy plan
that created Energy Harbor.

The criminal indictment handed up by the federal grand jury may provide a certain degree of
justice and recompense, but they cannot address the harm Ohio utility ratepayers still face as
they pay into a corporate bailout fund that was secured through fraud, deceit and intimidation.
Equally as important, the United States Attorney cannot undo the harm wrought upon Ohio’s
legislative process or prevent the recurrence of similar acts by members and associates of the
Enterprise who have not yet and may never be charged with a criminal offense.
In addition to retrospective relief, prospective relief is also appropriate. Without an order for
injunctive relief from this honorable Court, H.B. 6, which was the product of deceit, deception,
intimidation and graft will provide more than $1 billion in ratepayer-funded bailout money to
Energy Harbor as successor in interest and benefit to FirstEnergy Corp. and FirstEnergy
Solutions.

7

 Without an order, individuals and businesses that worked to undermine the people’s trust will
continue to conduct their version of “business as usual” -- and others will wonder whether
more than a billion dollars might perhaps be worth the chance of being caught and prosecuted.
Without an order, Householder and others will retain substantial financial resources that can
be used to influence Ohio politics. And, if curative action is not taken, the people and their
representatives will continue to labor under the shadow of Ohio’s version of Tammany Hall.
It is for these reasons that the Attorney General brings this lawsuit on behalf of the State of
Ohio and its people.
II.

PARTIES
A. PLAINTIFF:

1. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost brings this action for and on behalf of the sovereign
State of Ohio in his capacity as chief law officer for the State and on behalf of its citizens
in parens patriae to remedy a generalized harm to the people of the State of Ohio.
B. DEFENDANTS:
2. FIRSTENERGY CORP. is an Akron, Ohio-based public utility holding company.
FirstEnergy Corp. is the parent company of FirstEnergy Service Company and former
parent company of FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. FirstEnergy Corp. senior management,
including its then-President and CEO Charles Jones, also served as senior officers of
FirstEnergy Service Company. FirstEnergy Corp. directed and controlled the operation of
FirstEnergy Service Company through this shared leadership. FirstEnergy Corp. also
played an integral role in establishing and funding Partners for Progress, Inc., which is
described below.
3. FIRSTENERGY SERVICE COMPANY (“FIRSTENERGY SERVICE”) is an Ohio
corporation with its principal place of business in Akron, Ohio, and is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp. At all times relevant to this Complaint, FirstEnergy
Service provided administrative, management, financial, compliance, ethical, external
affairs, and political and regulatory advocacy services to FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. In
8

 re: FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP., et al., 18-50757(AMK), US District Court,
NDOH ED, 18-50757amk Doc 2721-1 at 50-51. Because of this relationship, FirstEnergy
Service is inextricably intertwined with FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. and the affairs of a
corrupt enterprise, which is referred to herein as “The Unholy Alliance.”
4. FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP. (“FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS”) was an
Akron, Ohio-based operator of two financially troubled nuclear power generation stations
located in the State of Ohio. FirstEnergy Solutions operated as a subsidiary of FirstEnergy
Corp. On March 31, 2018, FirstEnergy Solutions filed a voluntary petition for relief under
Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Northern District of Ohio. FirstEnergy Solutions continued to operate the two Ohio
nuclear plants throughout 2018 and 2019. On February 27, 2020, FirstEnergy Solutions
emerged from these bankruptcy proceedings as Energy Harbor Corp.
5. ENERGY HARBOR CORP. (“ENERGY HARBOR”) is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business in Akron, Ohio. Through bankruptcy proceedings, Energy
Harbor is successor in interest to the former FirstEnergy Solutions and its nuclear power
generation plants in Ohio. As successor in interest, Energy Harbor will be the direct
beneficiary of House Bill 6 and the resulting subsidies. Energy Harbor stands to receive
benefits in excess of $1.3 billion as the result of statutory changes contained in House Bill
6 of the 133rd Ohio General Assembly. Prior to FirstEnergy Solutions’ emergence from
bankruptcy as Energy Harbor, a number of key executives now within Energy Harbor held
similar positions within FirstEnergy Solutions.
6. LARRY HOUSEHOLDER (“HOUSEHOLDER”) is the elected representative for
Ohio’s 72nd House District. Householder served as Speaker of the Ohio House of
Representatives from January 7, 2019 until his removal from that position on July 30, 2020.
7. FRIENDS OF LARRY HOUSEHOLDER is an Ohio Candidate Committee which exists
to further the political interests and aspirations of Larry Householder. As of June 5, 2020,
Friends of Householder reported having $1,367,788.35 in available cash.

9

 8. GENERATION NOW, INC. (“GENERATION NOW”) is a 501(c)(4) non-profit entity
organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. Generation Now is registered with the
Ohio Secretary of State to do business as Generation Now Ohio, Inc. Generation Now
served as the clearinghouse for receiving and distributing money used in furtherance of the
affairs of the Enterprise. Jeff Longstreth, dba JPL & Associates LLC, served as the
President and Secretary of Generation Now.
9. JEFF LONGSTRETH (“LONGSTRETH”) is Larry Householder’s campaign and
political strategist and a resident of Franklin County, Ohio. Longstreth facilitated the flow
of funds between FirstEnergy Solutions, FirstEnergy Service, Partners for Progress, Inc.
and Generation Now, coordinated Enterprise activities and strategies and acted as a conduit
for the flow of money between Enterprise members and instrumentalities used to further
the affairs of the Enterprise.
10. JPL & ASSOCIATES LLC (“JPL & ASSOCIATES”) is an Ohio Limited Liability
Company located in Franklin County, Ohio. Jeff Longstreth is the statutory agent for JPL
& Associates. JPL & Associates received and disbursed funds used in furtherance of the
affairs of the Enterprise.
11. CONSTANT CONTENT CO. (“CONSTANT CONTENT”) is an Ohio Company that
received and disbursed funds used in furtherance of the affairs of the Enterprise. Jeff
Longstreth directs and controls the business activities of Constant Content.
12. NEIL CLARK (“CLARK”) is a career lobbyist who owns and operates Grant Street
Consultants, which is located in Columbus, Ohio. Clark served as a proxy for Enterprise
member Larry Householder, made decisions impacting the affairs of the Enterprise in
Householder's absence and served as an emissary for the Enterprise in its dealings with
legislators, candidates and signature collectors.
13. MATT BORGES (“BORGES”) is a registered Ohio lobbyist. Borges was contracted to
perform lobbying services on behalf of FirstEnergy Corp. and FirstEnergy Solutions.
Through strategy development and lobbying, Borges furthered the affairs of the Enterprise.

10

 Borges also acted as a conduit for the flow of money between Enterprise members and
instrumentalities.
14. 17 CONSULTING GROUP LLC (“17 CONSULTING GROUP”) is an Ohio Limited
Liability Company that received and disbursed funds used in furtherance of the affairs of
the Enterprise. Matt Borges directs and controls the business activities of 17 Consulting
Group.
15. JUAN CESPEDES (“CESPEDES”) is a registered Ohio lobbyist affiliated with The
Oxley Group, LLC. Throughout the course of the Enterprise, Cespedes was contracted to
perform lobbying services on behalf of FirstEnergy Solutions and later, its successor in
interest, Energy Harbor. In his role, Cespedes facilitated the flow of funds between
FirstEnergy Solutions, FirstEnergy Service, Partners for Progress, Inc. and Generation
Now. Also, in furtherance of Enterprise affairs, Cespedes coordinated Enterprise activities
and strategies and acted as a conduit for the flow of money between Enterprise members
and instrumentalities.
C. NON-DEFENDANT ENTITIES
16. PARTNERS FOR PROGRESS, INC. (“PARTNERS FOR PROGRESS”) is a
nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. Partners for
Progress, which was led by a lobbyist for FirstEnergy entities, was established to further
the policy and political interests of FirstEnergy Corp. and FirstEnergy Solutions.
FirstEnergy Corp. provided Partners for Progress with $5 million in seed money on its
establishment in 2017. For the next three years, Partners for Progress received and
disbursed tens of millions of dollars used to further the affairs of the Enterprise.
17. COALITION FOR GROWTH & OPPORTUNITY, INC. (“COALITION FOR
GROWTH & OPPORTUNITY”) is a 501(c)(4) non-profit entity organized under the
laws of the State of Delaware. Coalition for Growth & Opportunity, which operates in
Ohio, received and disbursed funds used in furtherance of the affairs of the Enterprise.

11

 18. HARDWORKING OHIOANS, INC. (“HARDWORKING OHIOANS”) is an Ohio
corporation that received and disbursed funds used in furtherance of the affairs of the
Enterprise.
19. GROWTH & OPPORTUNITY PAC, INC. (“GROWTH & OPPORTUNITY PAC”)
is a federally registered political action committee based in Lexington, Kentucky. Growth
& Opportunity PAC received and disbursed funds used in furtherance of the affairs of the
Enterprise. Eric Lycan, an attorney practicing in Lexington, Kentucky, is identified in
regulatory filings as the treasurer of Growth & Opportunity PAC and Coalition for Growth
and Opportunity.
20. OHIOANS FOR ENERGY SECURITY, LLC (“OHIOANS FOR ENERGY
SECURITY”) is an Ohio corporation that received and disbursed funds used in
furtherance of the affairs of the Enterprise.
21. FIRSTENERGY PAC FSL (“FIRSTENERGY PAC”) is an Ohio registered political
action committee funded by, and operated to further the interests of, FirstEnergy Corp. and
its subsidiaries. FirstEnergy PAC shares its address (76 South Main Street, Akron, Ohio
44308) with Defendant FirstEnergy Corp. Steven Staub, Vice President and Treasurer at
FirstEnergy Corp., serves as the Treasurer of FirstEnergy PAC. FirstEnergy PAC donated
over $290,000 to candidates for the Ohio legislature between January 1, 2017 and June 4,
2020.
III.

VENUE AND JURISDICTION

22. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to R.C. Section 2305.01, as the amount
in controversy exceeds $15,000.
23. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants as they conduct business in Ohio,
purposefully direct or directed their actions toward Ohio, and/or have the requisite
minimum contacts with Ohio necessary to constitutionally permit the Court to exercise
jurisdiction.

12

 24. Venue is proper in Franklin County pursuant to Civ. R. 3(B)(2), Civ. R. 3(B)(3) and Civ.
R. 3(B)(6).

IV.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND CAUSE OF ACTION

COUNT ONE: ENGAGING IN A PATTERN OF CORRUPT ACTIVITY
(R.C. 2923.32 and 2923.34)
25. From on or about January 1, 2017, the exact date being unknown and continuing thereafter
up to and including the date on which this Complaint was filed, Defendants
FIRSTENERGY CORP., FIRSTENERGY SERVICE COMPANY, FIRSTENERGY
SOLUTIONS CORP., ENERGY HARBOR CORP. as successor in interest and benefit
to FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP., LARRY HOUSEHOLDER, FRIENDS OF
LARRY HOUSEHOLDER, GENERATION NOW, INC., JEFF LONGSTRETH,
JPL & ASSOCIATES LLC, CONSTANT CONTENT CO., NEIL CLARK, MATT
BORGES, 17 CONSULTING GROUP LLC, JUAN CESPEDES, and others named
and unnamed whom the undersigned believes shall be identified through Discovery
(hereinafter " “Enterprise” or “Unholy Alliance”), engaged in conduct and relationships
which, together, constituted an Enterprise in fact as that term is defined in R.C. Section
2923.31. The Unholy Alliance and Enterprise are an interchangeable way to describe the
corruption of FirstEnergy Corp. and its subsidiaries and affiliates (collectively
“FirstEnergy”) and individuals like Larry Householder and others, a pattern of corruption
that continues to threaten the State of Ohio to this day.
26. From on or about January 1, 2017, the exact date being unknown and continuing thereafter
up to and including the date on which this Complaint was filed, the Enterprise and its
associates engaged in multiple acts of Corrupt Activity as defined in R.C. 2923.31, to wit:
Engaging in, attempting to engage in, conspiring to engage in, or soliciting, coercing, or
13

 intimidating another person to engage in conduct defined as "racketeering activity" under
the "Organized Crime Control Act of 1970," 84 Stat. 941, 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1)(B), (1)(C),
(1)(D), and (1)(E), as amended, those acts together constituting Corrupt Activity in
violation of R.C. 2923.24(E) & (I); Engaging in, attempting to engage in, conspiring to
engage in, or soliciting, coercing, or intimidating another person to engage in financial
transactions involving the proceeds of or in furtherance of unlawful or corrupt activity,
more commonly referred to as Money Laundering, violations of R.C. 1315.55; Engaging
in, attempting to engage in, conspiring to engage in, or soliciting, coercing, or intimidating
another person to engage in multiple instances of Extortion, violations of R.C. 2905.11;
Engaging in, attempting to engage in, conspiring to engage in, or soliciting, coercing, or
intimidating another person to engage in multiple instances of Bribery, violations of R.C.
2921.02; and, Engaging in, attempting to engage in, conspiring to engage in, or soliciting,
coercing, or intimidating another person to engage in instances of Tampering with
Evidence, violations of R.C. 2921.12;
27. From on or about January 1, 2017, the exact date being unknown and continuing thereafter
up to and including the date on which this Complaint was filed, in Franklin County, Ohio
and elsewhere in a manner invoking the jurisdiction and venue of Franklin County, Ohio,
in accordance with Rule of Civil Procedure 3(C) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure,
FIRSTENERGY CORP., FIRSTENERGY SERVICE COMPANY, FIRSTENERGY
SOLUTIONS CORP., ENERGY HARBOR CORP. as successor in benefit and interest
to FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP., LARRY HOUSEHOLDER, FRIENDS OF
LARRY HOUSEHOLDER, GENERATION NOW, INC., JEFF LONGSTRETH,
JPL & ASSOCIATES LLC, CONSTANT CONTENT CO., NEIL CLARK, MATT
BORGES, 17 CONSULTING GROUP LLC, JUAN CESPEDES, and others named
and unnamed did, knowingly, conduct and participate directly and indirectly in conduct of
such enterprise's affairs in a pattern of corrupt activity, as defined in Ohio Revised Code
Section 2923.31(A), in violation of Ohio Revised Code Section 2923.34.
28. Much of the conduct at issue here has previously been made public through documents
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. While it is true
14

 that an Affidavit in Support of Criminal Complaint 1 and subsequent Indictment 2 filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the “Federal Charging
Documents”) set forth allegations of significant pervasive criminal conduct relating to the
introduction and passage of House Bill 6 of the 133rd Ohio General Assembly, the remedies
available to the District Court cannot remedy the harms sought to be addressed through
this action.
29. The corrupt acts at issue in this case are rooted in financial distress, political ambition and
greed.
30. On August 4, 2014, FirstEnergy Corp., through its Ohio-regulated distribution companies, 3
filed its fourth Electric Security Plan (“ESP”) with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
(“PUCO”). Under the terms of the ESP, FirstEnergy Corp.’s Ohio-regulated distribution
companies would buy power directly from FirstEnergy Corp.’s wholly-owned subsidiary
FirstEnergy Solutions and sell that power to their customers, bypassing the PJM
Interconnection auction system. These all-too-close corporate relationships are referred to
as affiliate power sales agreements. Affiliate power sales agreements are generally
prohibited under federal regulations because they encourage self-dealing and limit
competition and customer choice. FirstEnergy Solutions and FirstEnergy Corp.’s Ohioregulated distribution companies were operating under a waiver of that prohibition from
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). On January 27, 2016, a group of
FirstEnergy’s competitors filed a complaint asking FERC to rescind that earlier waiver.
31. PUCO approved FirstEnergy Corp.’s ESP on March 31, 2016. That plan incorporated a
Retail Rate Stability Rider (“RRSR”), a generation surcharge FirstEnergy Corp. included
in an effort to subsidize FirstEnergy Solutions’ coal and nuclear plants. Less than one
month later, FERC terminated FirstEnergy Corp.’s waiver. FirstEnergy’s competitors

Affidavit in Support of Criminal Complaint filed July 17, 2020, in United States of America v Larry Householder et
al, Case No. 1:20-MJ-00526, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (“Charging
Affidavit”).
2
Indictment filed July 30, 2020, in United States of America v. Larry Householder et al, Case No. 1120CR077, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (“Indictment”).
3
FirstEnergy Corporation’s Ohio regulated distribution companies include Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company,
Ohio Edison Company and Toledo Edison Company.
1

15

 immediately asked PUCO to revisit the ESP, arguing that FERC’s decision prohibited
FirstEnergy Corp. from implementing the RRSR.
32. On October 12, 2016, PUCO issued its fifth rehearing entry relating to FirstEnergy Corp.’s
ESP. That entry removed the RRSR from the ESP but added a Distribution Modernization
Rider (“DMR”) in its place, claiming that any extra revenue would serve as an incentive
for the companies to modernize their distribution systems. The DMR, which was not part
of FirstEnergy Corp.’s original ESP application, had the potential to bring between $168
and $204 million in extra revenue to FirstEnergy Corp. every year, revenue that could be
used to shore up FirstEnergy Solutions’ failing nuclear power plants. Not surprisingly, the
change from RRSR to DMR faced continuing objections from FirstEnergy’s competitors,
resulting in four additional hearings before the PUCO. PUCO issued its final appealable
order approving the DMR on October 11, 2017. Objectors filed their appeal in the Supreme
Court of Ohio a mere five days later. The Supreme Court would eventually strike the plan’s
DMR provision in a June 2019 decision, 4 but FirstEnergy Corp. could not wait for the
Court to act. It needed action fast.
33. FirstEnergy Corp.’s economic problems were compounding. In its November 2016 Annual
Report to Shareholders, FirstEnergy Corp. and its affiliates reported a weak energy market,
poor demand forecasts and hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Much of those losses
could be traced back to failing nuclear power plants operated by FirstEnergy Solutions, a
then-subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp. Worse yet, FirstEnergy Corp. was forced to “write
down” the value of the coal and nuclear power plants owned by FirstEnergy Solutions by
$6.2 billion. There were limited options available to stop FirstEnergy Corp.’s financial
bleeding: a government funded or facilitated bailout (couched as "legislative and regulatory
solutions for generation assets"); closing plants and selling assets; restructuring debt -- or
seeking protection under U.S. bankruptcy laws for its affiliates involved in nuclear
generation.

4

See In re Application of Ohio Edison Co., 157 Ohio St.3d 73, 2019-Ohio-2401.

16

 34. During FirstEnergy Corp.’s fourth-quarter 2016 earnings conference call, FirstEnergy
Corp.’s President and CEO, Chuck Jones, stated:
In Ohio, we have had meaningful dialogue with our fellow utilities
and with legislators on solutions that can help ensure Ohio's future
energy security. Our top priority is the preservation of our two
nuclear plants in the state and legislation for a zero emission
nuclear (“ZEN”) program is expected to be introduced soon. The
ZEN program is intended to give state lawmakers greater control
and flexibility to preserve valuable nuclear generation. We believe
this legislation would preserve not only zero emission assets but
jobs, economic growth, fuel diversity, price stability, and
reliability and grid security for the region.
We are advocating for Ohio's support for its two nuclear plants,
even though the likely outcome is that [FirstEnergy Corp.] won't
be the long-term owner of these assets. We are optimistic, given
these discussions we have had so far and we will keep you posted
as this process unfolds.
35. FirstEnergy Corp’s “top priority” legislation, this zero emission nuclear (“ZEN”) program,
would be introduced in the Ohio General Assembly in 2017, but it would die without
reaching any Chamber floor.
36. FirstEnergy Corp. and its affiliates knew getting legislation establishing a ZEN-type
program in Ohio passed would not be easy. It would require a special combination of
political experience, name identification and the willingness to play rough. FirstEnergy
Corp. and its affiliates needed a legislative general to lead the charge. They found Larry
Householder.
37. Householder was no stranger to Capital Square, having previously served as a House
member representing Ohio's 72nd District from 1997 to 2004. For four of those years
(2001-2004), Householder served as Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, the
17

 chamber’s most influential position. In 2016, Householder successfully sought reelection
to his former seat as a representative and began working to regain the Speaker's chair.
38. FirstEnergy connected with Householder almost immediately following his 2016 election,
flying Householder and a family member to Washington, D.C. on one of its corporate jets
to attend President Donald J. Trump’s January 2017 inauguration.
39. Shortly after that flight, the “Unholy Alliance” began to take form. Using millions of
dollars routed through FirstEnergy Service, FirstEnergy Solutions, in partnership with
Householder, built and engaged a team of lobbyists, political strategists, 501(c)(4) entities,
attorneys, consulting firms and media companies to create a machine that would allow the
combined FirstEnergy entities to covertly put over $60 million into introducing, passing
and protecting from referendum what would become known in 2019 as House Bill 6 (“H.B.
6”), the “Ohio Clean Air Program.”
40. The first step was creating a mechanism that would allow FirstEnergy Solutions and others
to contribute money to the effort outside the public’s eye. To that end, on January 26,
2017, Partners for Progress was incorporated in the State of Delaware. Partners for
Progress described itself as engaging in activities consistent with Section 501(c)(4) of the
Internal Revenue Code. Instead, as Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose pointed out in
his August 27, 2019 complaint to the Ohio Elections Commission, Partners for Progress
turned out to be a Political Action Committee in disguise.
41. FirstEnergy Corp. transferred $5 million to Partners for Progress shortly after its formation.
The 2017 IRS Form 990 return filed by Partners for Progress, which designates a longtime
lobbyist for FirstEnergy Corp. as its principal officer, lists that deposit as Partners for
Progress’s sole source of revenue for 2017. Partners for Progress would go on to serve as
a key intermediary for financial transactions between FirstEnergy Corp., FirstEnergy
Service, FirstEnergy Solutions and other members of the Unholy Alliance.
42. On February 6, 2017, another 501(c)(4) entity, Generation Now, was incorporated under
the laws of the State of Delaware. Like Partners for Progress, Generation Now describes
itself as being “organized exclusively for the promotion of social welfare and economic
18

 development purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue
Code.” Generation Now is registered with the Ohio Secretary of State to do business as
Generation Now Ohio, Inc. It, too, is a subject of Secretary of State LaRose’s complaint
to the Elections Commission.
43. Within days of its formation, Generation Now opened two accounts at Fifth Third Bank.
Longstreth, a resident of Franklin County, Ohio, and Householder’s longtime political
strategist and advisor, was listed as a signatory on both accounts. A property owned by
Longstreth would later serve as Generation Now’s Ohio base of operations. Generation
Now’s 2017 IRS Form 990, which bears Longstreth’s signature, lists JPL & Associates as
Generation Now’s president and secretary. JPL & Associates was paid over $580,000 by
Generation Now for those services in 2017 alone.
44. On March 16, 2017, FirstEnergy Service, a wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp.,
transferred $250,000 into Generation Now’s newly opened account. Identical transfers of
$250,000 from FirstEnergy Service to Generation Now took place on May 17, October 10
and December 8, 2017.
45. 501(c)(4) entities have a unique advantage over traditional Political Action Committees for
those seeking to shield the source of their income from discovery. Unlike Political Action
Committees, Federal law does not require 501(c)(4) entities to disclose to the public the
names or addresses of the sources of their donations. This veil of secrecy has led to
501(c)(4)’s often being referred to as “dark money groups.”
46. During 2017, the Ohio legislature considered three pieces of legislation that would have
established a program consistent with the zero emissions nuclear (ZEN) program
mentioned by FirstEnergy Corp.’s CEO Chuck Jones in the fourth-quarter 2016 earnings
conference call:
•

On April 6, 2017, Senators LaRose and Eklund introduced S.B. 128.

•

On April 10, 2017, Representative Anthony DeVitis introduced H.B. 178.

•

On October 17, 2017, Representative Anthony DeVitis introduced H.B. 381, a near
19

 mirror of S.B. 128 and H.B. 178.
47. Unlike S.B. 128 and H.B. 178, which received virtually no support from legislators,
DeVitis' H.B. 381 was cosponsored by fifteen House members, including Householder.
None of the three pieces of legislation received sufficient support in their respective
Committees to be presented for a floor vote -- but FirstEnergy Corp. did not yet have a
Machiavellian ally in the Speaker chair. That would change when it joined forces with
Householder.
48. In early 2018, the Unholy Alliance assembled a slate of candidates which would come to
be referred to as “Team Householder.” Candidates were selected to run against incumbent
representatives who were not supporters of Householder, with the understanding that, if
elected, they would support his quest for the Speakership. Candidates identified to be part
of Team Householder were interviewed by a number of individuals, including Clark, a
Columbus-based political consultant and lobbyist who referred to himself as one of
Householder’s "closest advisors” and “proxy.” Clark would later serve as the direct gobetween for the Unholy Alliance in its dealings with legislators. In that role, Clark bullied,
intimidated and coerced legislators into supporting Larry Householder and H.B. 6.
49. Candidates selected to be members of Team Householder received direct, public support
from some members of the Unholy Alliance. Other members of the Unholy Alliance sought
to exert their influence through indirect means. The Unholy Alliance used Longstreth,
Longstreth’s company JPL & Associates, Generation Now, Partners for Progress,
Hardworking Ohioans and others to route millions of dollars in money, media, consulting
and campaign services to support Team Householder candidates in ways that would not
require disclosure to the public or to elections officials.
50. Between April 2, 2018 and May 16, 2018, members of the Unholy Alliance used
Generation Now to transfer $1 million to Growth & Opportunity PAC. Growth &
Opportunity PAC then used a portion of those funds to purchase over $600,000 in radio,
television and digital ads, direct mail services and campaign consulting to benefit Team
Householder’s preferred candidates in the 2018 Ohio Primary Election.

20

 51. The Unholy Alliance used the anonymity provided by Generation Now’s status as an IRS
501(c)(4) and the routing of the money through Growth & Opportunity PAC to prevent the
public and regulators from discovering their efforts to influence the outcome of the 2018
Ohio Primary Election, to make contributions to candidates in excess of allowable limits
and to avoid reporting political activity, all in violation of RC 1315.55, Ohio’s Money
Laundering statute. Federal Election Commission records reveal expenditures by Growth
& Opportunity PAC in OH HD 06, OH HD 19, OH HD 21, OH HD 37, OH HD 42, OH
HD 43, OH HD 47, OH HD 50, OH HD 61, OH HD 65, OH HD 67, OH HD 72, OH HD
80, OH HD 81, OH HD 83, OH HD 84, OH HD 86, OH HD 90 and OH HD 91 during the
2018 Primary season. Not coincidentally, Team Householder candidates were seeking the
Republican nomination in Ohio House Districts 06, 19, 21, 37, 42, 43, 47, 50, 61, 67, 72,
80, 83, 86, 90 and 91 at the time those expenditures were made. Eleven of those sixteen
candidates, including Householder himself, were successful. Ten would later vote to pass
H.B. 6.
52. The Unholy Alliance continued its efforts to seize control of the Ohio legislature during
the 2018 General Election.
53. Between September 25, 2018 and November 2, 2018, the Unholy Alliance used Generation
Now and a yet-undetermined FirstEnergy entity to funnel $1.17 million to Hardworking
Ohioans. Hardworking Ohioans then contracted with a media placement company to place
over $1 million in media buys targeting opponents of Team Householder in the 2018
General Election, the goal being to influence voters to choose Team Householder
candidates.
54. The Unholy Alliance used the anonymity provided by Generation Now’s status as an IRS
501(c)(4) and the routing of the money through Hardworking Ohioans to prevent the public
and regulators from discovering their efforts to influence the outcome of the election, to
make contributions to candidates in excess of allowable limits and to avoid reporting
political activity. This pattern of obfuscation and deceit, which is detailed in the federal
indictment and Secretary LaRose’s complaint with the Elections Commission, as well as

21

 in this Complaint, constitutes multiple violations of RC 1315.55, Ohio’s Money
Laundering statute.
55. Householder did his part as well, sending over $335,000 in donations directly from Friends
of Larry Householder, Householder’s own campaign committee, to his favored candidates
in 2018 alone.
56. Many Team Householder candidates were victorious. These victorious candidates, in turn,
helped elect Householder as Speaker of the House in January 2019.
57. On April 12, 2019, two House members who had been backed by Householder and the
Unholy Alliance introduced H.B. 6. The Bill, described by Clark as a "nuclear power plant
bailout," established a program under which FirstEnergy Solutions’ two Ohio nuclear
power plants would become eligible for ratepayer-funded subsidies of $9 per megawatt
hour produced. The changes made by H.B. 6 had the potential to send over $1 billion to
FirstEnergy Corp. and FirstEnergy Solutions.
58. In a press conference held the day H.B. 6 was introduced, Householder stated that he had
"crafted” the legislation with the two representatives who had introduced it. When asked
where the amount of the subsidy contained in the proposed legislation came from,
Householder responded with the following; "It's based on our brains. For me, I look back,
for two years I've had this in my head, and I've had various versions on that white board
over the last several months."
59. Once H.B. 6 was introduced, the real work began. FirstEnergy Service wired $1.5 million
to Generation Now on April 19, 2019, seven days after H.B. 6 was introduced. Generation
Now received another $8 million in transfers from FirstEnergy Service in May 2019.
Generation Now used that money for mailers and media meant to pressure members of the
Ohio House of Representatives to support the legislation, many of which suggested that
voters “Call Representative ____ and tell him (or her) to have the courage to support House
Bill 6…”
60. Crossing the Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives can be a dangerous proposition,
politically and economically.

The Speaker leads the majority caucus. Defying the
22

 Speaker’s wishes can lead to legislation being killed outright or left to die a slow death in
committee. The Speaker also has complete control over the appointment of committee
members and chairs, positions that bring anywhere from $3,250 to $13,500 per year in
additional pay. In addition to these levers, Speaker Householder’s complete control over
the largess from FirstEnergy, and the prospect of future contributions both legitimate and
illegitimate from that source, gave him maximum leverage over his caucus.
61. The Unholy Alliance used that dynamic to secure support for Householder and H.B. 6. For
example, Clark threatened legislators with loss of committee assignments and having their
legislation stalled or killed outright if they did not vote the right way. Householder himself
became involved in these intimidation tactics on at least one occasion, telling an individual
referred to in the Federal Charging Documents as Rep. 7, “I just want you to remember when I needed you - you weren't there. Twice.”
62. Because these threats to “kill” legislation and terminate committee appointments and
chairpersonships were made with a single purpose – securing the votes needed for H.B. 6
to pass - each act constitutes a violation or attempted violation of RC 2905.12, Extortion,
and RC 2921.02, Bribery.
63. Knowing that discovery of their efforts would prove disastrous both politically and legally,
members of the Unholy Alliance instructed at least one witness to delete text messages
received from Householder relating to H.B. 6. This, and any other attempt to conceal or
destroy evidence of their misconduct, constitutes a violation of RC 2921.12, Tampering
with Evidence.
64. On May 29, 2019, H.B. 6 passed the House. The Unholy Alliance then turned its attention
to the Ohio Senate. Over the next two months, the Unholy Alliance unleashed a $7 million
barrage of television ads, postcards, mailers and digital media with the goal of pressuring
Senators to vote in favor of passing H.B. 6. When that did not work, Householder, with
the authority purchased for him by FirstEnergy, dramatically upped the stakes.
65. H.B. 6 was not the only important piece of legislation pending that spring. House Bill 166
(“H.B. 166”), Ohio’s Fiscal Year 2020-2021 biennial budget, was also in play. By law,
23

 Ohio must have its biennial general fund budget in place by July 1 of each odd-numbered
year. Failing to have a biennial budget in place by July 1 leads to one of the following two
things: (1) an agreed temporary budget or (2) a total government shutdown. That would
prove to be a key tool in the efforts to get H.B. 6 over the finish line.
66. It quickly became apparent to those around Capital Square that H.B. 6 and H.B. 166 were
joined at the hip. The Senate passed its amended version of H.B. 166 on June 20, 2020.
The House rejected the Senate’s proposed amendments that same day. The Conference
Committee assigned to H.B. 166 met on June 25, 2020, but the process immediately ground
to a halt. The June 30th deadline for the operating budget came and went, and several
weeks passed with no end to the impasse in sight. Then everything changed.
67. On July 16, 2019, the conference committee working on the voluminous budget bill finally
agreed to a single version of that legislation, and both chambers passed it on July 17, 2019.
It was signed into law the next day. On the same day that the budget impasse ended, the
Senate also passed H.B. 6 and sent it back to the House for concurrence. The House soon
concurred, and the bill was swiftly signed into law. In a few short months, the Unholy
Alliance had taken an idea that received no serious consideration during the previous
General Assembly and transformed it into a top legislative priority on par with the state
operating budget. The reasons for this are clear: with a billion-dollar corporate bailout at
stake for FirstEnergy, and millions of dollars of political influence at stake for Speaker
Householder and his cohorts, H.B. 6 was the was the gasoline in the engine of corruption
driving the Unholy Alliance’s efforts.
68. Immediately after passage of H.B. 6, an effort was mobilized to repeal H.B. 6 through a
ballot referendum. Under Ohio law, in order to place a referendum on the ballot, a group
must collect 1,000 certified signatures and submit proposed ballot language to the Ohio
Attorney General for approval. The approval ensures that the description of the referendum
meets the "fair and truthful" standard outlined in the Ohio Revised Code. If the Ohio
Attorney General approves the language, and the Ohio Secretary of State certifies the
signatures collected, the proponents of the ballot referendum must then collect signatures
from registered voters totaling six percent of the voters who participated in the last
24

 gubernatorial election. In this case, six percent equaled about 265,000 signatures. Those
signatures, too, must be validated by the Ohio Secretary of State. If the requisite number
of signatures are collected and validated, the referendum appears on the ballot for a popular
vote by the residents of Ohio.
69. Between June 19, 2019 and November 30, 2019, the Unholy Alliance transferred over $40
million into Generation Now to fund their efforts to derail the proposed referendum.
70. Throughout late summer and fall of 2019, Generation Now, Longstreth, Householder,
Clark, Borges and Cespedes, along with other members of the Unholy Alliance, engaged
in a continuous, well-funded and coordinated effort aimed at defeating the referendum,
including, but not limited to: directing and funding massive, inflammatory direct mail
campaigns and extensive media outreach through third parties, causing individuals to
engage in patterns of harassing and intimidating individuals hired to collect signatures
supporting placing the referendum on the ballot, bribing individual signature collectors to
leave their employment and abandon efforts aimed toward placing the anti-H.B. 6
referendum on the ballot, seeking to bribe individuals working for companies hired to
collect signatures on behalf of H.B. 6 opponents and paying consultants and Unholy
Alliance members for their participation in anti-referendum efforts.
71. As early as June 23, 2019, the Unholy Alliance began taking affirmative steps to impede
the collection of signatures by paying signature collection companies tens of thousands of
dollars to stay on the sidelines.
72. Clark and Cespedes led the efforts to hire signature collection companies away from
referendum backers, together arranging for over $500,000 in payments from Generation
Now toward such efforts by end of July 2019.
73. Between August 1, 2019 and November 30, 2019, Generation Now paid Ohioans for
Energy Security nearly $23 million to embark on an expansive, inflammatory direct mail
and media campaign designed to keep voters from signing onto efforts to put the
referendum repealing H.B. 6 on the ballot.

25

 74. Generation Now engaged Borges to facilitate other efforts to defeat the proposed
referendum. Borges and his company, 17 Consulting Group, served as a conduit through
which the Unholy Alliance spent an additional $1.62 million in its efforts to defeat the
proposed referendum. In that capacity, Borges used accounts under his control to pass
$600,000 from Generation Now to Cespedes. Cespedes used that money to disrupt
signature collection efforts, to engage others in anti-referendum efforts and to pay himself.
75. Borges personally engaged in a scheme to interfere with the signature collection efforts by
paying a bribe to a senior executive working for the signature collection agency hired by
supporters of the referendum.
76. Borges used portions of the remaining dollars received from Generation Now to promote
anti-referendum efforts, to impede signature collection efforts and to pay himself. In 2019
alone, Borges received over $380,000 in financial benefit from his membership in the
Unholy Alliance.
77. As described above, the Unholy Alliance used the anonymity provided by Generation
Now’s claimed IRS 501(c)(4) status, coupled with the routing of the money through shell
companies, Unholy Alliance members and private businesses to evade statutory
requirements relating to the reporting of political activities surrounding their attempts to
block a referendum seeking to repeal H.B. 6. This pattern of obfuscation and deceit, which
is detailed in the federal indictment and Secretary LaRose’s complaint with the Elections
Commission, as well as in this Complaint, constitutes multiple violations of RC 1315.55,
Ohio’s Money Laundering statute.
78. The passage of H.B. 6 and the defeat of the referendum did not signal the end of the Unholy
Alliance. They had to secure their position of dominance in the Ohio House. Between
January 1, 2020 and April 28, 2020, the Unholy Alliance pumped nearly $1 million into
primary elections involving Team Householder candidates, routing money from
Generation Now through Coalition for Growth & Opportunity to Growth & Opportunity
PAC. Growth & Opportunity PAC then purchased $900,000 in direct mail, radio, digital
and television advertising and production services for the benefit of Team Householder’s
preferred candidates in the 2020 Ohio Primary Election.
26

 79. The benefit of passing the money through Coalition for Growth & Opportunity first was
that Growth & Opportunity PAC listed Coalition for Growth & Opportunity as the source
of the $1,010,000 million in FEC filings, not Generation Now, which multiple media
sources had linked to the Alliance’s multimillion-dollar effort to pressure legislators into
voting in favor of H.B. 6. 5
80. Householder continued to do his part as well, with his campaign committee, Friends of
Larry Householder, doling out almost $80,000 in donations directly to favored candidates.
81. Throughout the 2020 Ohio Primary Election, Unholy Alliance members used the
anonymity provided by Generation Now’s status as an IRS 501(c)(4), coupled with the
anonymity provided by Coalition For Growth & Opportunity’s status as an IRS 501(c)(4)
entity and the routing of the money through Growth & Opportunity PAC to prevent the
public and regulators from discovering their efforts to influence the outcome of the
election, to make contributions to candidates in excess of allowable limits and to avoid
reporting political activity, all in violation of RC 1315.55, Ohio’s Money Laundering
statute.
82. The benefits of being a member of the Unholy Alliance were more than political, they were
personal and monetary.
83. Between February 6, 2017 through July 21, 2020, the Unholy Alliance caused over
$400,000 in benefits to be transferred to Householder.

Moneys transferred through

Generation Now to JPL & Associates and other accounts controlled by Longstreth were
used to pay attorneys working on a private legal matter for Householder, to satisfy a civil
judgment that was levied against Householder in his personal capacity, to pay
Householder’s campaign expenses, to pay the taxes on and improve a residence owned by
Householder in the State of Florida and to pay credit card bills on Householder’s behalf.

See, e.g., Laura A. Bischoff, Big Money Pushes for Energy Bill; Consumer Groups Oppose It, DAYTON
DAILY NEWS, May 8, 2019, https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/local/big-money-pushes-for-energybill-consumer-groups-oppose/ciWTL5gLpNVxpt3b03dxLP/; Josh Goad, Who Paid All That Money to Buy
All Those Nuclear Bailout Ads Raining on Ohio?, CINCINNATI ENQUIRER, July 12, 2019, https://w
ww.cincinnati.com/story/news/2019/07/02/who-paid-all-money-buy-all-those-nuclear-bailout-ads-ohiohouse-bill-6/1443145001/.
5

27

 All of this was done in a manner designed to conceal the source and amount of the benefits
to Householder and to shield his acceptance of the proceeds of his unlawful acts from
discovery, all in violation of RC 1315.55, Ohio’s Money Laundering statute.
84. During the course of the Unholy Alliance, Generation Now transferred a total of $10.5
million to JPL & Associates, Longstreth’s political consulting company. Additionally,
Generation Now transferred over $4.4 million to Ohioans for Energy Security, which was
subsequently passed on by Ohioans for Energy Security to Constant Content, another
business owned by Longstreth. Together, those businesses paid Longstreth over $5
million, including $1 million that was placed in a brokerage account for Longstreth’s
benefit in January 2020, for his service to the Unholy Alliance, all in violation of RC
1315.55, Ohio’s Money Laundering statute
85. Other Unholy Alliance members benefitted directly, as well. Clark, Householder’s selfproclaimed proxy and emissary, received over $290,000 from his work for the Unholy
Alliance. Borges' company, 17 Consulting Group, received $1.62 million from the Unholy
Alliance between August 1, 2019 and October 21, 2019. $350,000 of that was paid directly
to Borges for his efforts to derail the proposed referendum. Another $600,000 was passed
on to Cespedes to support his efforts to derail the referendum. Cespedes separately received
another $277,000 in “consulting fees” for serving as the intermediary between FirstEnergy
Solutions, legislators and the Unholy Alliance on matters relating to H.B. 6.
86. The acts set forth above are only the beginning. The full breadth of the Unholy Alliance
has yet to be revealed. What has come to light thus far reveals a long running scheme that
co-opted Ohio’s legislative and referendum processes through coercion, intimidation,
bribery and collusion.
V.

DAMAGES CAUSED BY DEFENDANTS’ ACTS

87. Over three years, corporate interests with more than a billion dollars to gain spent tens of
millions of dollars disguised as independent expenditures by so-called “Social Interest
Organizations” buying influence, aggregating power and deceiving voters. An aspiring
House Speaker used political influence, campaign contributions, threats to committee
28

 assignments and a team of henchmen to reach the dais and pass a sweetheart deal for his
sponsors. And a gang of political operatives and corporate insiders used a web of dark
money groups, political action committees and for-profit corporations to buy their way out
of facing a referendum that threatened the legislation that lay at the heart of all of these
efforts. Together, these corporations, entities and individuals formed an Enterprise that
engaged in a pervasive pattern of Corrupt Activity to the detriment of all Ohioans, in
violation of RC 2923.32 and RC 2923.34, Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity that
continues to this day.
88. Defendants’ violations of law and their pattern of racketeering activity have directly and
proximately caused damage to the Ohio Pension Systems through the decreased value of
stock held by the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System in FirstEnergy Corp.
89. Defendants’ violations of law and their pattern of racketeering activity have directly and
proximately caused damage to Ohio’s residential, commercial and large industrial electric
utility customers, all of whom will be subject to a new monthly-fixed charge due to the
passage of H.B. 6 which, in the aggregate, is expected to approach $1.3 billion.
90. Defendants’ violations of law and their pattern of racketeering activity have directly and
proximately caused damage to Ohio’s reputation for good government and fair dealings
with business interests, harm which will impede Ohio’s ability to attract business
opportunities.
91. Defendants’ violations of law and their pattern of racketeering activity have directly and
proximately caused damage to the State of Ohio directly through the State’s agreement to
settle and compromise in bankruptcy certain claims held by State agencies against
FirstEnergy Solutions.
92. By virtue of these violations of R.C. 2923.34, Defendants are liable to the State for three
times the damages Plaintiff has sustained, which are in excess of $25,000, plus the cost of
this suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.
VI.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

29

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays this court grant relief as follows:
That this Court issue orders that the acts alleged herein be adjudged and decreed to be unlawful
in violation of R.C. 2923.34 and that the Court enter a judgment declaring them to be so;
That, pursuant to RC. 2923.34(B)(4) this court enter an order revoking and nullifying the Ohio
Air Quality Development Authority’s approval of any application filed by any Defendant in
this case to receive the proceeds of funds collected pursuant to the utility surcharge provided
for in House Bill 6;
That, pursuant to R.C. 2923.34(B)(2), each and every Defendant named herein, along with its
predecessors, parents, associates, subsidiaries, successors and assigns be enjoined from
receiving any monetary benefit, supplement, credit or offset created by or through H.B. 6 of
the 133rd Ohio General Assembly;
That, pursuant to R.C. 2923.34(B)(3), each Defendant business entity and nonprofit entity
named in this Complaint be dissolved or reorganized such that no agent, officer or
representative found to have engaged in acts in furtherance of retains a position within the
defendant business or nonprofit entity;
That, pursuant to R.C. 2923.34(B)(2), each Defendant be enjoined from holding any position
or office with any government entity, campaign committee, candidate committee, political
party organization, Political Action Committee, regulatory board, government agency or any
entity formed pursuant to Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code for a period of eight
(8) years;
That, pursuant to R.C. 2923.34(B)(2), each Defendant be enjoined from engaging in any and
all lobbying activities in the State of Ohio for a period of eight (8) years;
That Defendants be ordered to pay compensatory, punitive and treble damages as provided by
law;
That Defendants be ordered to pay Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and expenses
of litigation as provided by law;
30

 That Plaintiff recover all measures of damages allowable under the State statutes identified
herein, and that judgment be entered against Defendants in favor of Plaintiff; and,
That the Court order such other and further relief as the Court deems just, necessary and
appropriate.
VII.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, the State of Ohio, by and through its Attorney General, Dave Yost, demands a trial
by jury on all claims to the maximum number of jurors permitted by law.

31

 DATED: September 23, 2020
Respectfully submitted,
DAVE YOST
Ohio Attorney General (0056290)

/s/ Jonathan D. Blanton
JONATHAN D. BLANTON (0070035)
Deputy Attorney General for Major Litigation
/s/ L. Martin Cordero
L. MARTIN CORDERO* (0065509)
Section Counsel
*Counsel of Record
MARGARET O’SHEA (0098868)
Assistant Attorney General
BRADFORD TAMARRO (0030156)
Senior Assistant Attorney General
30 East Broad Street, 17th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
614.728.1171
Martin.Cordero@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
Margaret.O'Shea@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
Bradford.Tammaro@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
Jonathan.Blanton@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
Counsel for the State of Ohio

32

 REQUEST AND APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
PURSUANT TO R.C. 2923.34(D)
Additional Relevant Facts Establishing Need For An Injunction.
Defendants Householder, Longstreth, Clark, Borges, Cespedes, and Generation Now have
been indicted. United States of America v. Larry Household, et al., Case No. 1:20-cr-00077TSB, Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, Judge Black filed July 30, 2020.
The Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act indictment alleges a
significant conspiracy of hiding the source of tens of millions of dollars used to influence the
passage of a taxpayer funded bailout of failing energy generators and the corrupt political
process used to achieve its goals.
FirstEnergy Corp., FirstEnergy Service Company (“FirstEnergy Service”), FirstEnergy
Solutions Corp. (“FirstEnergy Solutions”), and Energy Harbor Corp. (“Energy Harbor”), as
successor in interest and benefit to FirstEnergy Solutions, have not been indicted, but their
identities as co-participating members of an Enterprise listed in the indictment is readily
discernable.
Unindicted "Company A Corp." was an Akron-based public utility holding company.
Throughout the start of the relevant period until in or around February 2020, Company A Corp.
was the parent company to entities involved in nuclear energy generation, including Company
A­l. Company A Service Co. is a principle subsidiary of Company A Corp. According to its
2019 annual report, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Company A Corp. also served
as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Company A Service. Co. Company A Corp is
clearly a pseudonym for FirstEnergy Corp.
Unindicted “Company A Service Co.” is identified in the indictment as a principal subsidiary
“providing legal, financial, and other corporate support” to its parent company, “an Akron33

 based public utility holding company” and shares the same President and Chief Executive
Office, as well as a common first name. FirstEnergy Service is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
FirstEnergy Corp. with its principal place of business in Akron, Ohio, providing
administrative, management, financial, compliance, ethical, external affairs, and political and
regulatory advocacy services. See, In re: FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP., et al., 1850757(AMK), US District Court, NDOH ED, 18-50757amk Doc 2721-1 at 50-51.
Unindicted “Company A-1” is identified in the indictment as a wholly-owned subsidiary to
“an Akron-based public utility holding company” that owned and operated two nuclear plants
in Ohio that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in March, 2018. Company A-1 also
shares a first name with its parent company. FirstEnergy Solutions is an Akron, Ohio-based
operator of two Ohio nuclear power generation stations.

FirstEnergy Solutions filed a

voluntary petition for bankruptcy protection on March 31, 2018.

In February, 2020,

FirstEnergy Solutions emerged from bankruptcy protection under the name Energy Harbor as
successor in interest to FirstEnergy Solutions and entitled to all previous assets and benefits of
FirstEnergy Solutions including the taxpayer-funded bailout of H.B. 6. See, In re:
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP., et al., 18-50757(AMK), US District Court, NDOH ED,
18-50757amk Doc
Defendant Householder was stripped of his leadership role by a vote of 91-0 on Thursday, July
30, 2020. House Journal, July 30, 2020, https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/session/journals.
Defendant Householder was replaced by Robert R. Cupp, representative of the 4th District, as
Speaker

by

a

vote

of

55-38.

House

Journal,

July

30,

2020,

https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/session/journals.
Householder continues to have access to significant financial resources through his campaign
committee, Friends of Larry Householder.

In elections past, Householder has used

contributions by Friends of Larry Householder to support candidates for the General Assembly
as a means to aggregate power and influence. If left unchecked, this reservoir of financial
resources will allow Householder and the Unholy Alliance to continue to aggregate allegiance
through contributions, intimidation and financial support.

34

 On or about August 27, 2020, Secretary of State LaRose filed a complaint with the Ohio
Elections Commission alleging in excess of one hundred fifty election law violations against,
among others, Defendants Householder, Longstreth, Cespedes, Borges, Clark, Friends of Larry
Householder, Generation Now, Partners for Progress, JPL & Associates, Constant Content and
17 Consulting Group. The complaint also names various non-Defendant entities which are
controlled by various Defendants herein including, among others, The Oxley Group and Grant
Street Consulting. The complaint also names unidentified “Company A Corp.,” “Company A1,” and “Company A Service Co.,” which are expressly named herein as FirstEnergy Corp.,
FirstEnergy Solutions, FirstEnergy Service, respectively.
https://www.ohiosos.gov/media-center/press-releases/2020/2020-08-27/;
https://www.ohiosos.gov/globalassets/media-center/news/2020/2020-08-27.pdf.
In late July, a firm that does consulting work for FirstEnergy Corp. fired a senior documents
analyst involved in the processes and procedures for compliance with federal law designed to
fight fraud and increase oversight to protect a company’s shareholders and the public. On
September 1, 2020, FirstEnergy Corp. and the consulting compliance firm sued the former
employee for alleged general breach of contract and unauthorized access of company files.
FirstEnergy Corp. et al v. Pircio, US District Court, NDOH ED 1:20-cv-01966-PAB. The
pleading reveals that FirstEnergy Corp. is under federal investigation. In particular, the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission’s public finance abuse unit has opened an
investigation into FirstEnergy Corp. relating to the same allegations detailed in the above
complaint.
https://www.cleveland.com/business/2020/09/us-securities-and-exchange-commissionlaunches-investigation-into-firstenergy-corp.html.
On August 31, 2020, Speaker Cupp created a created a House Select Committee on Energy
Policy

and

Oversight.

House

Journal,

August

31,

2020,

https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/session/journals. Speaker Cupp indicated that the purpose of
the committee is “to have an open and thorough process for repealing House Bill 6 and
replacing

it

with

thoughtful

legislation

Ohioans

can

have

confidence

in.”

https://www.statenews.org/post/ohio-house-creates-new-committee-nuclear-bailout-repealdebate.
35

 Representatives Skindell and O’Brien introduced H. B. No. 738 – To Repeal The Changes
Made By H.B. 6 Of The 133rd General Assembly To The Laws Governing Electric Service,
Renewable Energy, And Energy Efficiency And The Changes Made To Other Related Laws.
House Journal, August 31, 2020, https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/session/journals.
To date, H.B. 738 has thirty-nine cosponsors, has been referred to Speaker Cupp’s H.B. 6
review committee, and hearings were held on September 10, 2019 and September 16, 2019.
Additional committee activity is expected to take place over the course of the next few weeks,
including solicitation of additional cosponsors, interested parties, and witnesses in favor or
against changes to H.B. 6.
Representatives Lanese and Greenspan introduced H. B. No. 746 - To Repeal Sections 4 And
5 Of H.B. 6 Of The 133rd General Assembly To Repeal The Changes Made By H.B. 6 Of The
133rd General Assembly To The Laws Governing Electric Service, Renewable Energy, And
Energy Efficiency And The Changes Made To Other Related Laws. House Journal, August
31, 2020, https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/session/journals.
Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction against each Defendant and non-Defendant entity
named herein to be restrained from the following activities:
o No Defendant or non-Defendant entity may personally, or through others,

directly or indirectly, paid or unpaid, make any contribution in either money
and/or goods/services to any political action committee, group, individual,
partnership, or other whose primary purpose is to keep or modify H.B. 6 from
now through the end of the calendar year of 2020.

o No Defendant or non-Defendant entity may personally, or through others,
directly or indirectly, paid or unpaid, make any public statements for or against
any future legislative bill, proposal, amendment, or other legislative action
taken by either the Ohio House of Representatives or Ohio Senate relating to
any repeal, modification, replacement, or change to H.B. 6 or legislation with a
similar outcome from now through the end of the calendar year of 2020.

36

 o No Defendant or non-Defendant entity may personally, or through others,

directly or indirectly, paid or unpaid, seek to lobby, advise, consult, or in any
way attempt to influence any sitting member of the Ohio House of
Representatives or Ohio Senate relating to any repeal, modification,
replacement, or change to H.B. 6 or legislation with a similar outcome from
now through the end of the calendar year of 2020.

o No Defendant or non-Defendant entity may personally, or through others,
directly or indirectly, paid or unpaid, make any monetary or in-kind
contribution to, for or against any candidate for election to the Ohio House of
Representatives or Ohio Senate from now through the end of the calendar year
of 2020.
Plaintiff further seeks specific preliminary injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant Friends of
Larry Householder from transferring, donating, encumbering, gifting or otherwise distributing
money held by or for the benefit of Friends of Larry Householder without first obtaining
approval from this court. This limitation would not apply to transactions with an aggregate
value to a single recipient of less than $250.
Generally, in determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction, a court must consider the
following factors: (1) whether there is a substantial likelihood that the moving party will
prevail on the merits of its claims; (2) whether the moving party will suffer irreparable harm if
the injunction is not granted; (3) whether third parties will be unjustifiably harmed if the
injunction is granted; and (4) whether the public interest will be served if the injunction is
granted. Vanguard Transp. Sys. v. Edwards Transfer & Storage Co. Gen. Commodities Div.,
109 Ohio App.3d 786, 790, 673 N.E.2d 182 (10th Dist.1996); P&G v. Stoneham, 140 Ohio
App.3d 260, 267, 747 N.E.2d 268 (1st Dist.2000).
A.

There Is A Substantial Likelihood Of Success On The Merits.

This Complaint alleges a significant, sophisticated scheme orchestrated over several years to
hide millions of dollars while advancing corrupt political interests in a taxpayer-funded bailout
of failing energy operations.
37

 This Complaint is supported by the publicly reported statements of the Defendants herein,
publicly available documents, including incorporation documents, political campaign
contributions, and other materials. It will further be supplemented with financial statements,
transfers, checks, and other materials establishing the purposeful design to hide millions of
dollars used to corrupt the political process including self-dealing.
Householder was a representative (and later Speaker) of the Ohio House who was able to create
legislation for a taxpayer-funded bailout in the aggregate sum of $1.3 billion that would
primarily benefit Defendants FirstEnergy Service, FirstEnergy Solutions, and Energy Harbor.
Defendants Householder, Friends of Larry Householder, Generation Now, Longstreth, JPL &
Associates, Constant Contact, Clark, Cespedes, Borges, and 17 Consulting Group received
financial and non-financial benefits as stated above in the Complaint from an enterprise in
violation of Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act.
There is simply no innocent account or coincidental explanation of the facts alleged above that
these Defendants will be able to claim. The facts are significant and overwhelming as to a
violation of the Ohio’s Pattern of Corrupt Activity Act (“OPCA”), R.C. 2923.34. The
obviousness of the violations has been reviewed and has triggered action by the Ohio Secretary
of State to refer over one hundred fifty violations of campaign laws to the Ohio Elections
Commission thereby indicating at least prima facie evidence of an actual violation.
In determining whether to grant injunctive relief, courts have recognized that no one factor is
dispositive. The four factors must be balanced, moreover, with the “flexibility which
traditionally has characterized the law of equity.” Cleveland v. Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co., 115
Ohio App.3d 1, 14, 684 N.E.2d 343 (8th Dist.1996) citing Royal Appliance Mfg. Co. v. Hoover
Co., 845 F.Supp. 469, 153 F.R.D. 131 (N.D.Ohio 1994), and quoting Friendship Materials,
Inc. v. Michigan Brick, Inc., 679 F.2d 100, 105 (6th Cir.1982) (A “balancing of the hardships”
“permits the district court, in its discretion, to grant a preliminary injunction even where the
plaintiff fails to show a strong or substantial probability of ultimate success on the merits of
his claim, but where he at least shows serious questions going to the merits and irreparable
harm which decidedly outweighs any potential harm to the defendant if an injunction is
issued.”).
38

 B.

Although Irreparable Harm Exists, It Need Not Be Shown.

Irreparable injury is that which has no adequate remedy at law and cannot be measured and
compensated for through traditional money damages. Goodall v. Crofton, 33 Ohio St. 271,
276 (1877); Cleveland v. Div. 268 of Amalgamated Ass’n, 84 Ohio App. 43, 81 N.E.2d 310
(8th Dist.1948).
The Injunction requested herein clearly falls within this category. Plaintiff has narrowly
tailored its injunction relief request to prevent another of corrupt activity identical to the one
that resulted in the passage of H.B. 6 and the Complaint herein. The influence of representative
of the House and Senate member votes in favor or against any future legislation sought to
address H.B. 6 cannot be made up for in traditional money damages.
Moreover, R.C. 2923.34(D) alleviates any requirement that there be a showing of immediate
danger or significate injury to Plaintiff. Specifically, the Legislature stated:
In a civil proceeding under division (B) of this section, the court may grant injunctive
relief without a showing of special or irreparable injury.
Pending final determination of a civil proceeding initiated under this section, the court
may issue a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction upon a showing of
immediate danger or significant injury to the plaintiff, including the possibility that any
judgment for money damages might be difficult to execute, and, in a proceeding
initiated by an aggrieved person, upon the execution of proper bond against injury for
an improvidently granted injunction.
C.

No Unjustifiable Harm Will Come To Third Parties.

In injunction suits, regard must be had not only for the rights of the complainants but also for
the injuries which might result to others from the granting of an injunction. White v. Long, 12
Ohio App.2d 136, 140, 231 N.E.2d 337 (12th Dist.1967).
Plaintiff has narrowly tailored their injunctive relief request so as to minimize harm to third
parties. One category of third parties who might be harmed would be elected representatives
of the House or members of the Senate. However, it is highly unlikely that such members
39

 would desire receiving any financial or other services from Defendants herein as such
contribution would likely bring negative publicity and perception with it. In fact, several
officials have already sought to divest themselves of any prior contributions, let alone be
willing to accept future contributions from any of the Defendants.
Republican nominee Tom Young of the 42nd District, Republican nominee Brian Stewart of
the 78th District, and Republican nominee Marilyn John of the 2nd District received donations
from Defendant Friends of Larry Householder in January 2020, and stated that each plan either
to return the donation or donate it to charity. https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2020/07/23/threegop-candidates-pledge-to-return-donations-from-householder/.
Representative Shane Wilkin, who co-sponsored H.B. 6, has donated away contributions
previously

received

from

Householder

and

FirstEnergy

PAC

FSL.

https://www.wnewsj.com/news/144255/wilkin-sheds-campaign-contributions-fromfirstenergy-and-householder.
Representative Tavia Galonski, Representative Lisa Sobecki, and Representative Michele
Lepore-Hagan have all donated away previous contributions made by FirstEnergy PAC FSL.
https://www.wnewsj.com/news/144255/wilkin-sheds-campaign-contributions-fromfirstenergy-and-householder.
Another category of third parties who might be harmed are lobbyists, lawyers, consultants and
others who would be paid financial compensation for work to either advance and restrict future
legislations regarding H.B. 6. However, Plaintiff does not seek to enjoin such employment,
only the limitation in how these Defendants participate in contributing to such employment.
A last category of third parties who might be harmed would be the general public who would
not hear from these Defendants directly or indirectly regarding future legislation regarding
H.B. 6.

The value of such insight from Defendants Householder, Friends of Larry

Householder, Generation Now, Longstreth, JPL & Associates, Constant Content, Clark,
Cespedes, Borges, and 17 Consulting Group is minimal. These Defendants are not experts in
the field of public utilities, energy, economics, development, or any other substantive matter
for which they could provide invaluable insight to the Legislature or others. These Defendants
40

 are politicians, lobbyists, and influence groups on political issues, and have no scientific,
technical or other expertise in any future legislation regarding H.B. 6. The general public will
not be harmed by an injunction against the Defendants.
In contrast, the potential adverse harm to consumers in the State of Ohio is significant.
Defendant Friends of Householder had available cash of $1,367,788.35 as of June 5, 2020.
This sum could significantly impact local elections or influence of the outcome of legislative
efforts through lobbyists. While all of this was not a direct result of the contributions of codefendants, it has certainly been intermingled. The potential for undue influence on legislative
members, or others involved in the legislative process is great. The risk is simply to high that
funds available to the Defendants will be used to further pursue the illicit acts that are alleged.
As for Defendants FirstEnergy Service, FirstEnergy Solutions, and Energy Harbor, they are
public utilities and are otherwise knowledgeable about scientific, technical, and other expertise
which may need addressed by the Legislature or others in any future legislation related to H.B.
6. Indeed, H.B. 6 was directly proposed to subsidize and otherwise financially benefit
FirstEnergy Solutions and Energy Harbor. And until there is a change to H.B. 6, Energy
Harbor will financially benefit from regular payments by the public to Energy Harbor. Plaintiff
does not seek to enjoin these Defendants from stating facts or opinions regarding their expertise
in scientific, technical, or other energy related matters. Rather this narrowly tailored injunction
request seeks to restrain these Defendants from seeking a specific outcome to any future
legislation related to H.B. 6. Plaintiff instead seeks that these Defendants remain impartial as
to the political process during this narrow window when representatives of the House and
members of the Senate are determining the future of H.B. 6. That is a reasonable consequence
for the allegations of contained in this Complaint and to maintain the integrity of any future
legislation.
D.

It Is In The Public Interest To Grant The Injunction.

Two years prior to its introduction, Defendant Householder “had [it] in [his] head” the
framework for H.B. 6. (Press conference, Householder, April 12, 2019.) When he came into
power as Speaker, Defendant Householder had the legislative authority to create legislation,
have it debated in committees of members that Defendant Householder selected, and bring that
41

 legislation to a vote. And that he did. Known to only a few, Defendants were using
FirstEnergy Service and FirstEnergy Solutions, monies to secretly fund the passage of the
taxpayer-funded bailout that was H.B. 6. The millions of dollars in contributions and influence
described above are not the only efforts FirstEnergy Corp. and its allies made to increase their
influence in the legislature. Between January 1, 2017 and June 4, 2020, the most recent date
through which campaign finance contribution reports are available, FirstEnergy Corp.’s
political action committee, FirstEnergy PAC FSL, contributed over $290,000 to candidates
seeking election to the Ohio legislature. The public has a great interest in ensuring that any
future legislation related to H.B. 6 is not tainted by the same or similar tactics which have
already occurred. Therefore, all Defendants and non-Defendants should be enjoined from the
requested activities.

BALANCE OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

42

 WHEREFORE, the State of Ohio respectfully moves this Court to issue Preliminary Injunctive
relief with respect to each Defendant and non-Defendant entity as set forth above.
Respectfully submitted,
DAVE YOST
Ohio Attorney General (0056290)
/s/ Jonathan D. Blanton
JONATHAN D. BLANTON (0070035)
Deputy Attorney General for Major Litigation
/s/ L. Martin Cordero
L. MARTIN CORDERO* (0065509)
Section Counsel
*Counsel of Record
MARGARET O’SHEA (0098868)
Assistant Attorney General
BRADFORD TAMARRO (0030156)
Senior Assistant Attorney General
30 East Broad Street, 17th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
614.728.1171
Martin.Codero@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
Margaret.O'Shea@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
Bradford.Tammaro@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
Jonathan.Blanton@ohioattorneygeneral.gov

Counsel for the State of Ohio

43