IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO
CITY OF CINCINNATI and CITY OF
COLUMBUS,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. _____________________

Judge ______________________

v.
FIRSTENERGY CORP., an Ohio
corporation; SAM RANDAZZO, in his
official capacity as the CHAIRMAN OF
THE STATE OF OHIO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION, an
individual; ROBERT SPRAGUE, in his
official capacity as the TREASURER OF
THE STATE OF OHIO, an individual,

COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants.
To also be served upon:
Ohio Attorney General David Yost
30 East Broad Street, 17th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.

This lawsuit seeks to protect consumers in Cincinnati, Columbus, and throughout

Ohio from the now-infamous Ohio House Bill 6 (“HB 6”), a law produced by what federal
prosecutors rightly describe as “the largest bribery, money-laundering scheme ever perpetrated
against the people of the state of Ohio.” Though many of the individuals responsible for the
scheme have already been indicted by federal prosecutors, 1 criminal prosecutions alone can’t
save Ohioans from the crushing monetary payments that HB 6 will soon impose on them.
2.

1

In just nine weeks, on January 1, 2021, the so-called HB 6 Clean Air Fund Rider

USA v. Larry Householder, et al., No. 20-MJ-00526 (S.D. Ohio).

 (“HB 6 Rider”) will take effect, and every ratepayer will begin seeing more than $900 million in
new fees added to their utility bills. These fees will be collected by utility companies and sent to
the State Treasury, at which point they will be—according to the still-current version of the
law—rerouted to the architect of the HB 6 bribery scheme, FirstEnergy and its two nuclear
plants.
3.

When it became apparent that HB 6 would not be repealed this year, the Ohio

Attorney General filed a civil case on behalf of the State of Ohio against FirstEnergy and its coconspirators, 2 which recognized that more must be done to protect Ohioans from HB 6:
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.
4.

Though the Attorney General’s complaint goes on to establish in great detail that

HB 6 is the product of corruption and that the HB 6 Rider is the “result of corrupt legislation,” it
fails to ask the court to award any relief that would actually stop the new HB 6 Rider fees from
going into effect on January 1, 2021. Taking action to block those fees from appearing on
ratepayers’ utility bills is the only way to “address the harm that Ohio utility ratepayers still face
as they pay into a corporate bailout fund that was secured through fraud, deceit and
intimidation.”
5.

Rather than asking the court to stop the new fees from being collected from

ratepayers in the first place, the Attorney General’s lawsuit aims only to stop FirstEnergy from
“receiving the proceeds of funds collected” from the HB 6 Rider. Unfortunately, the interests of
ratepayers are not sufficiently represented by the State’s suit. Even if the Attorney General

2

State of Ohio ex rel. Yost v. FirstEnergy Corp., et al., No. 20-CV-6281 (Ct. Common
Pleas, Franklin Cty.).

2

 prevails—and the State of Ohio wins the right to retain the $900 million—Ohioans still lose, as
they will be forced to pay the new HB 6 fees into the State Treasury.
6.

Putting aside the legality of the HB 6 Rider, the timing of these new fees—which

will add more than $25 million to residential utility bills in Columbus and nearly $10 million to
residential utility bills in Cincinnati—could not be worse: more than 100,000 ratepayers in
Columbus and Cincinnati alone have already fallen behind on their utility bills during the
pandemic. Utility companies in Cincinnati, Columbus, and across Ohio (including FirstEnergy
itself) are preparing to resume service disconnections. 3 Adding these new fees to Ohioans’ utility
bills is unfair, unjust, unethical, and irresponsible, especially given that the country is in the
midst of a pandemic, and, even more than that, winter is coming. Failure to protect ratepayers
from these new fees—fees that the State of Ohio has already admitted are illegal and would not
be imposed but for fraud and corruption—will further put hundreds of thousands of Ohio’s most
vulnerable households at risk of delinquency and disconnections. 4
7.

Plaintiffs therefore bring this lawsuit to protect their residents from the financial

3

Thousands of Ohio consumers behind on their utility bills, ENERGYCENTRAL,
energycentral.com/news/thousands-ohio-consumers-behind-their-utility-bills-wi; see also Jeremy
Pelzer, Here’s when Ohio utilities will resume service shutoffs for unpaid bills,
CLEVELAND.COM, cleveland.com/open/2020/07/heres-when-ohio-utilities-will-resume-serviceshutoffs-for-unpaid-bills.html.
4

Tony Romm, Millions of Americans risk losing power and water as massive, unpaid
utility bills pile up, THE WASHINGTON POST, washingtonpost.com/business/2020/10/01/powerwater-gas-bills (“The worst economic crisis in more than a generation has thrust potentially
millions of Americans across the country into a similar, sudden peril: Cash-strapped, and in some
cases still unemployed, they have fallen far behind on their electricity, water and gas bills,
staring down the prospect of potential utility shut-offs and fast-growing debts they may never be
able to repay.”); see also Kris Maher, More Homes Are Going Dark as Moratoriums on Utility
Shut-Offs End, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, wsj.com/articles/more-homes-are-going-dark-asmoratoriums-on-utility-shut-offs-end-11601112601 (“Advocates for low-income residents say
the funding won’t be enough . . . Losing utilities often causes people to live in dangerous
conditions. During the pandemic, that could mean crowding more people into homes.”).

3

 consequences of HB 6. To be clear, this Complaint does not seek to deter the use of cleaner
energy options and strategies in Cincinnati, Columbus, and across Ohio, including nuclear
energy and the implementation of energy aggregation efforts 5; rather, its sole purpose is to
prevent the harm that will come from allowing the direct product of known corruption to become
effective law in the State of Ohio. Plaintiffs support legislative efforts to put Ohio on the path to
sustainable and clean energy. HB 6, however, is not such an effort.
8.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs challenge the HB 6 Rider as an unconstitutional tax and

seek to stop it from taking effect on January 1, 2021. Plaintiffs further allege that the scheme to
corrupt the legislative process demonstrates a clear violation of the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act
(OCPA), R.C. 2923.31 et seq.
PARTIES
9.

The City of Cincinnati is a home-rule, chartered municipal corporation under

Article XVIII, Section 7 of the Ohio Constitution and is located in Hamilton County. The City of
Cincinnati brings this action for and on behalf of itself and its citizens as ratepayers subject to
HB 6 and the HB 6 Rider.
10.

The City of Columbus a home-rule, chartered municipal corporation under Article

XVIII, Section 7 of the Ohio Constitution. The City of Columbus is located in Franklin County.

5

See, e.g., Mayor Ginther, City And Partners Kick-Off Community Choice Aggregation,
THE CITY OF COLUMBUS, https://www.columbus.gov/Templates/Detail.aspx?id=2147516598#
(“Community choice aggregation and a commitment to 100% clean, renewable energy will
transform our energy future and are key components to helping us achieve environmental justice
and equity, so that all residents in central Ohio – and our children and generations to come - are
protected from the impacts of climate change,” said Mayor Ginther. “This effort will drive
workforce development and job creation in the clean-energy sector for our city, region and the
whole state of Ohio . . . The City is committed to sourcing clean energy as locally as possible
which will aid in transforming Ohio’s energy landscape.”).

4

 The City of Columbus brings this action by and through City Attorney Zach Klein 6 for and on
behalf of itself and its citizens as ratepayers subject to HB 6 and the HB 6 Rider.
11.

Defendant FirstEnergy Corp. (“FirstEnergy”) is a corporation formed and existing

under the laws of the State of Ohio, with its principal place of business located at 76 South Main
Street, Akron, Ohio 44308. Defendant FirstEnergy Corp. does business in this County and across
the State of Ohio.
12.

Defendant Sam Randazzo is the Chairman of the State of Ohio Public Utilities

Commission and is being sued in his official capacity.
13.

Defendant Robert Sprague is the Treasurer of the State of Ohio and is being sued

in his official capacity.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
14.

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to R.C. 2305.01, as the

amount in controversy far exceeds $15,000.
15.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants as they conduct business in

Ohio, purposefully direct or directed their actions toward Ohio, and have the requisite minimum
contacts with Ohio necessary to constitutionally permit the Court to exercise jurisdiction.
16.

Venue is proper in Franklin County pursuant to Civ. R. 3(C)(2), Civ. R. 3(C)(3)

and Civ. R. 3(C)(6).

6

Section 133.02 of the Columbus City Code provides: “To help insure that the citizens of
Columbus have an adequate supply of energy and adequate telephone service, each at a fair
price, the Columbus city attorney is hereby authorized to take appropriate action with regard to
regulation of privately owned public utilities. The city attorney may appear as a named party for
the city and its agencies, and residential, commercial and industrial consumers within the city
limits before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
courts, boards, commissions and any other regulatory bodies.”

5

 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
FirstEnergy’s Need For A Legislative Solution
17.

For much of the 2000s, FirstEnergy’s nuclear energy business in Ohio was

operating on a razor’s edge. With the arrival of new competition in the energy market, and
fluctuations in government regulations, the future of FirstEnergy’s aging nuclear plants was in
jeopardy by 2016. Having lost federal benefits and having failed to defeat a court challenge to
certain state-level protections, FirstEnergy was suddenly out of options.
18.

In its own words, FirstEnergy needed a “Legislative Solution” that would create a

flow of cash, year after year, from Ohio ratepayers to its investors and keep its otherwise
financially troubled nuclear power plants operating at a profit.
19.

To carry out such a brazen anti-ratepayer cash grab, which by design would

provide no actual benefit to ratepayers (and in fact harm them in myriad ways), would invariably
require assistance from the highest levels of the Ohio Legislature. Following the 2016 election,
Republican leadership was unwilling to take such a leap to prop up FirstEnergy. As such, new
leadership would be required. Luckily for FirstEnergy, as Attorney General Yost correctly
explained, “the once and future ruler of the Ohio House of Representatives” was waiting in the
wings for exactly such an opportunity.
20.

Defendant FirstEnergy, in conjunction with Larry Householder, gathered a group

of individual and companies, forming an Enterprise, 7 to carry out its corrupt plan to (1) elect new
members to the Ohio House of Representatives to support Householder for Speaker of the

7

The Enterprise here consists of, at least, the following individuals and business entities:
FirstEnergy Corp., FirstEnergy Service Company, FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., Energy Harbor
Corp., FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., Larry Householder, Friends Of Larry Householder,
Generation Now, Inc., Partners for Progress, Jeff Longstreth, JPL & Associates LLC, Constant
Content Co., Neil Clark, Matt Borges, 17 Consulting Group LLC, and Juan Cespedes.

6

 House, (2) get Householder elected Speaker, (3) improperly fund a massive campaign to pressure
House and Senate members to pass HB 6, and (4) act in corrupt and deceptive manner to derail
attempts to repeal HB 6.
Funding “Team Householder”
21.

Larry Householder (“Householder”), the one-time Republican Speaker of the

House from 2001 to 2004, returned to the Ohio state house in 2016. Unwilling to simply remain
in the rank and file of the Republican Party, Householder aspired to return to the Speaker’s chair.
22.

Ahead of the 2018 midterms, when then-Speaker Cliff Rosenberger would be

leaving office, there were sixteen House seats held by representatives who would not support
Householder for Speaker. Householder assembled sixteen candidates of his choice who would be
loyal to him to run against the incumbent representatives.
23.

To elect “Team Householder,” as they would come to be known, Householder

needed a benefactor to bankroll the effort. Instead of turning to traditional—and legal—methods
of fundraising, Householder found a core partner for the Enterprise that had a near-endless
supply of cash and was urgently in need of a high-powered ally: FirstEnergy.
24.

In 2016, FirstEnergy was already wining and dining Householder, including

taking him (and his sons) on a trip aboard FirstEnergy’s private jet to President Trump’s
inauguration ceremony. In the months following that trip, Householder and FirstEnergy further
solidified their Enterprise by initiating payments to two newly minted 501(c)(4) organizations
and bringing in additional members: Partners for Progress (formed January 26, 2017) and the
seemingly randomly named Generation Now (formed February 6, 2017).
25.

Generation Now’s bank accounts were opened by Enterprise member Jeff

Longstreth, Householder’s campaign and political strategist, and a property owned by Longstreth

7

 served as its base of operations. Almost immediately, FirstEnergy began making $250,000
quarterly payments to Generation Now, while also transferring $5 million to Partners for
Progress shortly after its formation.
26.

Over the next year, millions flowed from FirstEnergy to Generation Now,

Partners for Progress, and other related Enterprise entities (e.g., Hard Working Ohioans, Growth
& Opportunity PAC) for the purpose of making “dark money” contributions to Team
Householder candidates in the 2018 election in ways that would not require disclosure to the
public or to election officials.
27.

As hoped, eleven of the sixteen Team Householder candidates won their races,

and each of those newly elected members of the Ohio House then supported Householder in his
successful bid for Speaker in January 2019. 8
The Successful Push to Pass HB 6
28.

After his successful ascension, it was time for Householder to make good on his

contribution to the Enterprise. Not three months after becoming Speaker, Householder had two
of his new, loyal freshman representatives introduce HB 6.
29.

With the introduction of HB 6 came $9 million from FirstEnergy to Generation

Now. That money was spent in various ways to exert public pressure on House members to
support HB 6, while Householder and other members of the Enterprise pushed on members from
the inside. For example, Enterprise member Neil Clark, a career lobbyist who served as a proxy
for Householder, threatened legislators with loss of committee assignments and having
legislation slowed or simply eliminated if they did not vote the “right” way.

8

Larry Householder elected new Ohio House speaker, DAYTON DAILY NEWS (Jan. 7,
2019), https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/larry-householderelected-new-ohio-house-speaker/a3ltKxDAm3jT5HTd7vrDWK/.

8

 30.

Under this onslaught of public and private pressure, in May 2019, HB 6 was

passed by the Republican-controlled House.
31.

With less direct influence in the Republican-controlled Senate, Householder,

FirstEnergy and members of the Enterprise had to find a new pressure point. Following the
expenditure of $7 million in advertisements aimed at corralling Senate votes, the Enterprise
leveraged the urgent need to pass the biennial budget by July 1, 2019. Using his newly acquired
power as Speaker, Householder linked the House’s agreement to the budget to the passage of HB
6. As such, the same day the House passed the budget, the Senate passed HB 6. Republican
Governor Mike DeWine quickly signed HB 6 into law thereafter.
32.

For FirstEnergy, the enactment of HB 6 achieved several key goals:
a.

From 2021 until 2027, Ohio ratepayers will pay a new monthly tax
on their electricity bills, from 85 cents for residential customers up
to $2,400 for big industrial customers. This tax will produce $150
million per year that, as of now, will be used solely by FirstEnergy
to subsidize its two nuclear power plants—Davis-Besse, outside of
Toledo, and Perry, northeast of Cleveland. 9

b.

It will further undercut Ohio’s already weak incentive structure for
renewable energy. Prior to HB 6, Ohio required its utilities to get
12.5 percent of their power from renewables by 2027. Under HB 6,
that target will move to 8.5 percent by 2026, will exempt large
industrial customers, and will entirely remove the standard after
2026, effectively destroying any incentive for renewable energy
development.

c.

It will remove any requirements and incentives to increase energy
efficiency standards. Before HB 6, utilities were required to reduce
customers’ energy use by 22 percent from 2008 levels by 2027
through energy efficiency programs (which were set to save Ohio
ratepayers $4 billion over the next 10 years). HB 6 now allows
utilities to abandon those programs entirely once they hit 17.5

9

Attorney General Yost himself alleges in the State’s lawsuit that FirstEnergy’s activities
“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.”

9

 percent, a level most have almost reached already. 10
d.

33.

Finally, HB 6 helps FirstEnergy with an entirely different problem
apart from its failing nuclear plants: exiting the Ohio Valley Electric
Corporation (“OVEC”) (a collective owned by several large
utilities), without losing tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars
in the process. Instead, under HB 6, ratepayers around the State have
to pay up to $1.50 monthly (and up to $1,500 per month for
commercial and industrial users) to subsidize OVEC’s two coal
plants for the purpose of paying the “incremental costs” resulting
from FirstEnergy Solutions withdrawal from OVEC. 11

Even at the time of its passage (a year before the true depth of the corruption

would be known), the incredibly self-serving and anti-ratepayer nature of HB 6 was not lost on
the public, environmentalists, or journalists. For example, David Roberts at Vox.com did not
mince words, publishing an article with the headline Ohio just passed the worst energy bill of the
21st century; A corrupt bailout for dinosaur power plants that screws renewable energy in the
process. 12
The Successful Derailment of the Referendum to Repeal HB 6
34.

Due to the obvious negative impact HB 6 would have on ratepayers—and on the

environmental efficiency efforts of Ohio generally—an effort quickly materialized to repeal HB
6 through a statewide referendum. To appear on the upcoming ballot, supporters of the
referendum were required to collect approximately 265,000 signatures.

10

See David Roberts, Ohio just passed the worst energy bill of the 21st century, VOX (Jul.
27, 2019), https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/7/27/8910804/ohio-gop-nuclearcoal-plants-renewables-efficiency-hb6.
11

Jeremy Pelzer, FirstEnergy Solutions can’t cancel coal-plant contracts until feds have
chance to weigh in, court rules, CLEVELAND.COM (Dec. 13, 2019),
https://www.cleveland.com/open/2019/12/firstenergy-solutions-cant-cancel-coal-plant-contractsuntil-feds-have-chance-to-weigh-in-court-rules.html.
12

See n. 10, supra.

10

 35.

Sensing the serious threat this referendum posed, FirstEnergy, Householder, and

the other members of the Enterprise sprung back into action to derail the referendum before it
could ever be voted on by the public.
36.

To that end, FirstEnergy transferred $38 million to Generation Now. Yet, as

connections between Generation Now and HB 6 became more public, Householder and other
members of the Enterprise needed other shell organizations to move money and make media
purchases, including Ohioans for Energy Security (to which Generation Now sent $23 million).
37.

The Enterprise spent millions in its anti-repeal efforts on mailers and ads

discouraging Ohioans from signing the petitions and falsely tying the repeal effort to the Chinese
communist government.
38.

Generation Now engaged Enterprise member Matt Borges (a lobbyist working on

behalf of FirstEnergy and the Enterprise) to facilitate other efforts to defeat the proposed
referendum. Borges and his company, 17 Consulting Group, served as a conduit through which
the Enterprise spent over $1 million in its efforts to defeat the proposed referendum. To that end,
Borges used accounts he controlled to transfer $600,000 from Generation Now to Enterprise
member Juan Cespedes (a lobbyist working on behalf of FirstEnergy and the Enterprise). He
utilized these funds to disrupt signature collection efforts, to engage others in anti-referendum
efforts, and to pay himself.
39.

Members of the Enterprise even went so far as to pay fifteen separate signature

collection operations—to do absolutely nothing—in order to prevent them from working for the
repeal side, in total paying them over $500,000. Likewise, the Enterprise also hired “blockers,”
meant to disrupt the signature gathering efforts by following the collectors and making potential

11

 signers uncomfortable. Even more nefarious, Borges offered bribes to those working for the
repeal campaign for inside information or to simply stop collecting signatures.
40.

In the end, this unethical campaign worked. On October 21, 2019, the repeal

campaign missed its signature deadline. The very next day, an affiliate of FirstEnergy sent an
additional $3 million to Generation Now.
Householder and Members of the Enterprise Personally Profited Beyond the Political Gain
41.

Over a three year period, Householder personally received over $400,000 directly

from his corruption. Money from Generation Now was used to (1) pay Householder’s attorneys
for a private legal matter; (2) satisfy a civil judgment against Householder in his personal
capacity; (3) pay expenses for the Householder campaign; (4) pay the taxes on and improve a
residence owned by Householder in the State of Florida; and (5) pay credit card bills on
Householder’s behalf.
42.

Longstreth’s company, JPL & Associates, received $10.5 million in transfers

from Generation Now, and another entity he owned received another $4.4 million. Longstreth
netted millions of dollars for himself, including a $1 million payment directly to his brokerage
account in January 2020.
43.

Householder’s and FirstEnergy’s other foot soldiers – Neil Clark, Matt Borges,

and Juan Cespedes – collectively pocketed over $1.5 million for their contributions and action.
COUNT I
Violation of Ohio Const. Art. VIII, § 4
(On behalf of all Plaintiffs against Sam Randazzo, in his official capacity
as the Chairman of the State of Ohio Public Utilities Commission, and
Robert Sprague, in his official capacity as the Treasurer of the State of Ohio)
44.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth

herein.

12

 45.

Plaintiffs assert this claim on behalf of themselves, as ratepayers, as well as on

behalf of the residential and commercial ratepayers that reside within their municipalities.
46.

HB 6 requires all electric distribution utilities in Ohio to collect an additional

monthly charge—the HB 6 Rider—from all of their retail electric customers beginning on
January 1, 2021.
47.

HB 6 tasks the Public Utilities Commission with determining how much revenue

each electric distribution utility will collect and the “level and structure” of charges added to
customers’ bills, provided that the charges collected produce an annual revenue requirement of
$150,000,000 for a “nuclear generation fund” and $20,000,000 for a “renewable generation
fund.”
48.

HB 6 requires that 88.25% of the $170,000,000 generated by the HB 6Rider will

be deposited in the nuclear generation fund, which will be in the custody of the State Treasurer.
49.

Therefore, the purpose of the HB 6 Rider is to generate a specific revenue target

for a specific state fund.
50.

The HB 6 Rider is applied to all retail electric customers in Ohio, regardless of

whether that customer will receive any benefit from the additional charge.
51.

Electric customers do not receive any goods, services, or benefits in exchange for

paying the Rider.
52.

Because the purpose of the HB 6 Rider is to raise revenue for a state fund, it is a

tax under Ohio law.
53.

Beginning in April 2021, the Ohio air quality development authority will direct

the Treasurer to remit money from the nuclear generation fund to the owner or operator of a
“qualifying nuclear resource,” defined as an “electric generating facility in this state fueled by

13

 nuclear power.”
54.

There are only two nuclear power plants in Ohio: the Davis-Besse plant in Oak

Harbor, and the Perry Nuclear Plant in North Perry. Both plants are owned by FirstEnergy.
55.

The HB 6 Rider will not be not collected for any public purpose. Rather, the

legislature, under the direction of Householder, enacted the HB 6 Rider for an unlawful purpose:
to reward FirstEnergy for participating in the corrupt Enterprise and helping elevate Householder
to the Speaker position. Any purported public benefits of the HB 6 Rider are clearly evasive of
the actual, corrupt purpose. A tax levied as a result of bribery and corruption has no public
benefit.
56.

Therefore, under HB 6, the public revenue collected from the HB 6 Rider will be

given to an individual corporation—FirstEnergy—in violation of Article VIII, Section 4 of the
Ohio Constitution.
57.

Under HB 6, it is the duty of the Public Utilities Commission and the State

Treasurer to collect the Clean Air Fund Rider. Though the HB 6 Rider will appear on customers’
electric bills, the Public Utilities Commission determines and authorizes the “level and structure”
of any charges, and the revenue collected is required to be deposited into funds in the custody of
the Treasurer.
58.

Plaintiffs assert this cause of action against the Commissioner of the Public

Utilities Commission and the State Treasurer, in their official capacities, to enjoin the collection
of the HB 6 Rider on the grounds that it is an unconstitutional tax. See R.C. 2723.01 (“Courts of
common pleas may enjoin the illegal levy or collection of taxes and assessments and entertain
actions to recover them when collected, without regard to the amount thereof. . . .”); R.C.

14

 2723.03 (“Action to enjoin the collection of taxes and assessments must be brought against the
officer whose duty it is to collect them.”).
COUNT II
Violation of Ohio Corrupt Practices Act, R.C. 2923.31 et seq.
(On behalf of all Plaintiffs against FirstEnergy Corp.)
59.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth

60.

Plaintiffs are governmental entities and are therefore “person[s]” within the

herein.

meaning of R.C. 2923.31(G).
61.

Plaintiffs assert this claim on behalf of themselves, as ratepayers, as well as on

behalf of the residential and commercial ratepayers that reside within their municipalities.
62.

The residential, commercial, and industrial consumers within the city limits of

Columbus and Cincinnati are individuals, corporations, partnerships, and associations and are
therefore “person[s]” within the meaning of R.C. 2923.31(G).
63.

Defendant FirstEnergy Corp. is a corporation and is therefore a “person” within

the meaning of R.C. 2923.31(G).
64.

At all times relevant to this case, FirstEnergy was associated with an Enterprise in

fact consisting of, at least, the following individuals and companies: FirstEnergy Corp.,
FirstEnergy Service Company, FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., Energy Harbor Corp., Larry
Householder, Friends of Larry Householder, Generation Now, Inc., Partners for Progress, Jeff
Longstreth, JPL & Associates LLC, Constant Content Co., Neil Clark, Matt Borges, 17
Consulting Group LLC, and Juan Cespedes. Each individual and company is separate and
distinct from the Enterprise.

15

 65.

The parties in the Enterprise were associated in fact and conspired to hatch a plan

to: (1) elect new members to the House, (2) get Householder elected Speaker, (3) pressure House
and Senate members to pass HB 6, and (4) derail attempts to roll back HB 6.
66.

FirstEnergy both directly and indirectly conducted and participated in the affairs

of the Enterprise through a pattern of corrupt activity, as described in this Complaint.
67.

Specifically, FirstEnergy and the Enterprise committed at least the following

incidents of corrupt activity that were related to the affairs of the Enterprise:
a.

The Enterprise engaged in, attempted to engage in, or conspired to
engage in racketeering activity under the Organized Crime Control
Act of 1970, 18 U.S.C. 1961(1)(B) because the Enterprise
committed wire fraud as part of its corrupt and fraudulent scheme.
See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1346.

b.

The Enterprise engaged in, attempted to engage in, or conspired to
engage in financial transactions involving the proceeds of or in
furtherance of unlawful or corrupt activity (i.e., money laundering)
in violation of R.C. 1315.55. The Enterprise paid many illegal
bribes, as described above, with the purpose to facilitate its corrupt
activity. And the Enterprise used the anonymity provided by
Generation Now’s purported 501(c)(4) status to evade statutory
reporting requirements.

c.

The Enterprise engaged in, attempted to engage in, or conspired to
engage in multiple instances of extortion in violation of R.C.
2905.11. For instance, in order to prevent the repeal of HB 6, the
Enterprise hired “blockers” to follow, harass, and intimidate
signature collectors and to cause mental distress to potential signers.
The Enterprise also threatened legislators that they would lose
committee assignments and have their legislation stalled if they did
not support HB 6.

d.

The Enterprise engaged in, attempted to engage in, or conspired to
engage in multiple instances of bribery in violation of R.C. 2921.02.
For example, the Enterprise funded candidates who would support
Householder’s bid for Speaker and would be loyal to him, and it
threatened to stall legislation if representatives did not vote in favor
of HB 6.

16

 e.

68.

The Enterprise engaged in, attempted to engage in, or conspired to
engage in multiple instances of tampering with evidence in violation
of R.C. 2921.12. For instance, the Enterprise instructed at least one
witness to delete text messages from Householder about HB 6, since
the Enterprise knew that Householder’s threats were illegal and
would be politically damaging.

These incidents were not isolated events; they were all related to the purposes of

the Enterprise. The incidents were separate and distinct; they were not so closely related to each
other or connected in time and place that they constituted a single event. Taken together, the
incidents constitute a pattern of corrupt activity.
69.

FirstEnergy derived and will derive pecuniary value through its pattern of corrupt

activity:

70.

a.

From 2021 until 2027, all Ohio ratepayers will pay the HB 6 Rider
on their monthly electric bills. The Rider will generate $150 million
per year that will be available solely to FirstEnergy to subsidize its
two nuclear power plants.

b.

HB 6 lowered the incentives for renewable energy and removed
requirements and incentives to increase energy efficiency. Both of
these measures benefit or are likely to benefit FirstEnergy
financially.

c.

HB 6 allows FirstEnergy to exit the Ohio Valley Electric
Corporation without losing money. Instead, under HB 6, ratepayers
pay an additional monthly charge to subsidize the “incremental
costs” resulting from FirstEnergy Solutions withdrawing from
OVEC.

FirstEnergy’s pattern of corrupt activity directly and proximately caused all

Plaintiffs and the citizens of Cincinnati and Columbus to be threatened with injury. Beginning on
January 1, 2021, all ratepayers in Ohio—including individuals, businesses, and municipalities—
will be forced to pay the HB 6 Rider on every monthly electric bill. The HB 6 Rider will cost up
to 85 cents for residential customers and up to $2,400 for industrial customers each month, and it
will produce $170 million per year ($150 million of which will be passed along to FirstEnergy).

17

 71.

HB 6, including the HB 6 Rider, would not have passed but for the Enterprise’s

corrupt activity, and it was foreseeable to the Enterprise that its actions would cause HB 6 to pass
and to take effect. Indeed, the enactment of HB 6 and the HB 6 Rider was a central goal of the
Enterprise.
72.

As a result of HB 6, ratepayers across Ohio are also required to pay up to $1.50 in

additional fees monthly (and up to $1,500 monthly for commercial and industrial users).
73.

All Plaintiffs and the citizens of Cincinnati and Columbus are in immediate

danger of monetary harm, since the Rider will automatically go into effect on January 1, 2021.
74.

Plaintiffs bring this cause of action against FirstEnergy to prevent that imminent

monetary harm and ask the Court to issue appropriate orders to protect consumers from the
additional charge and to ensure that FirstEnergy’s violations will not continue or be repeated.
R.C. 2923.34(B).
75.

In the alternative, Plaintiffs seek treble damages to compensate them for all

charges paid under the HB 6 Rider. R.C. 2923.34(E).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in their
favor and against the Defendant as follows:
A. Declare that the Clean Air Fund Rider is an unconstitutional tax enacted without
public benefit;
B. Order that collection of the HB 6 Clean Air Fund Rider be enjoined;
C. Order the Defendant to pay compensatory damages to Plaintiffs and to the citizens of
Columbus and Cincinnati, including punitive and treble damages as allowable by law;
D. Order the Defendant to pay statutory damages, as provided by law;
E. Order the Defendant to pay attorneys’ fees and litigation costs to Plaintiffs;

18

 F. Order the Defendant to pay both pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts
awarded; and
G. Order such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
CITY OF CINCINNATI
Dated: October 27, 2020

/s/ Andrew W. Garth
Andrew W. Garth (0088905)
Interim City Solicitor
801 Plum Street, Room 214
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Phone: (513) 352-3345
Fax: (513) 352-1515
Andrew.Garth@cincinnati-oh.gov
/s/ Emily Smart Woerner
Emily Smart Woerner (0089349)
Deputy City Solicitor
801 Plum Street, Room 214
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Phone: (513) 352-3307
Fax: (513) 352-1515
Emily.Woerner@cincinnati-oh.gov
/s/ Erica Faaborg
Erica Faaborg (0081140)
Assistant City Solicitor
801 Plum Street, Room 214
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Phone: (513) 352-3309
Fax: (513) 352-1515
Erica.Faaborg@cincinnati-oh.gov
CITY OF COLUMBUS

Dated: October 27, 2020

/s/ Richard Coglianese
Richard N. Coglianese (0066830)
rncoglianese@columbus.gov
Joseph M. Gibson, Jr. (0084587)
jmgibson@columbus.gov
Assistant City Attorneys
City of Columbus, Department of Law
Zach Klein, City Attorney

19

 77 N. Front Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Phone: (614) 645-7385
Fax: (614) 645-6949
Jay Edelson*
jedelson@edelson.com
Ari Scharg*
ascharg@edelson.com
Alex Tievsky*
atievsky@edelson.com
Amy Hausmann*
abhausmann@edelson.com
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle, 14th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60654
Phone: (312) 589-6370
*Pro hac vice admission to be sought
Special Counsel for the City of Cincinnati;
Special Counsel for the City of Columbus

20