First Energy Corporate Greed

[topgroove]

Upset about FirstEnergy's pricey, hand-delivered light bulbs? You ain't seen nothing yet -- Kevin O'Brien

By Kevin OBrien

October 08, 2009, 3:59AM

There was a time when you and I could be trusted to change a light bulb.
In those days, powerful people who made weighty decisions understood that if a light bulb burned out, even the dimmest of us common folk would know enough to remove it from its socket, choose a suitable replacement and install it.
Apparently all of the weighty decisions have been made, because powerful people have now worked their way down to telling us what kind of light bulb we will use -- and even bringing some to us, apparently fearing that even the brightest of us common folk might botch the job.
How is it that an act whose very simplicity spawned a genre of humor, based mostly on ethnic, sexist and sectarian slurs -- "How many (insert your favorite target for tactless, insensitive, mean-spirited, stereotypical humor here) does it take to screw in a light bulb?" -- has suddenly become a complicated, labor-intensive, expensive, public endeavor?
The old jokes have given way to a new one, with a reworked setup for the punch line:
"How many public officials and utility big-wigs does it take to -- well, you know -- every FirstEnergy Corp. customer?"
In just a few days, people dressed in green T-shirts and green caps will begin the rather enormous task of delivering two 23-watt, warm-white, compact fluorescent light bulbs to every residence FirstEnergy serves.
They won't ask whether you want them. They'll just leave them on your doorstep, in a bag that will also contain a brochure called "More Than 100 Ways to Improve Your Electric Bill."
They won't ask for payment, though. As you might expect with an electric utility, that's already wired.
These whiz-bang new light bulbs -- which cost FirstEnergy $3.50 each, and which you could buy all by yourself at any number of stores for even less if you were still trusted to do that sort of thing -- will cost you $21.60 for the pair. You'll pay it off over the next three years, at 60 cents a month added to your electric bill.
The bulbs you would buy at the store might come from China, like FirstEnergy's do, but they wouldn't come with delivery vans, or brochures, or paid bulb valets clad in green shirts emblazoned, "What's the Big Idea?" -- a slogan that just couldn't be more ironically appropriate.
Those little customer-service extras add up. But they're not the Big Idea.
"Providing energy-efficient light bulbs is just one way we can help our customers save money while also helping the environment," FirstEnergy's Web site proclaims.
Except that FirstEnergy really isn't "providing" them. You are. FirstEnergy is just inflating your cost tremendously by having them brought to you.
And, by the way, the $21.60 you'll pay for those bulbs also includes a little assessment to cover the cost of the electricity that FirstEnergy won't be selling you because you use those bulbs. Think of it as paying money to save money so FirstEnergy won't lose money.
Thus, saving customers money isn't the Big Idea, either.
So why would FirstEnergy go to all of this trouble? And why would the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio sign off on it?
Here's where the powerful people who make weighty decisions meet the Big Idea.
This is all about global warming, of course. Or to be less specific, climate change. Or to be more nebulous yet, greenhouse gases.
The General Assembly passed a law last year requiring Ohio's utilities to reduce their customers' energy use by 22 percent, and to shift 12.5 percent of their power production to "renewable" energy sources -- solar and wind, for instance -- all by 2025.
The Great Light Bulb Boondoggle is the leading edge of an energy-reduction effort to comply with commands the government of Ohio has issued to the tides of technology.
Those commands -- to foist immature and inefficient generation methods on consumers and push aside less expensive, more efficient power sources, like coal -- will be enforceable only at great expense to the public.
People are upset about FirstEnergy's light bulbs, as folks with sore ears at the PUCO will attest. But let's keep this in perspective: $21.60 is nothing, compared to the expenses we'll pay if the greenshirts drop a bag full of cap-and-trade taxes on our front porches.
So forget the PUCO. Call your senators and your congress men

[topgroove]

FirstEnergy avoids hefty fines
By Betty Lin-Fisher
Beacon Journal staff writer
POSTED: 06:32 p.m. EST, Jan 07, 2010
FirstEnergy Corp. on Thursday was granted a waiver by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio for not meeting its 2009 state-mandated energy efficiency benchmarks.
The utility had said a failed program to distribute nearly 4 million energy-efficient light bulbs that sparked controversy last fall and was delayed by the PUCO did not allow it to meet the benchmarks. The Akron-based utility also said the commission's rules about how companies could meet those benchmarks were not yet approved when it applied for the waiver in October.
With the waiver, the utility avoided hefty fines from the commission.
A coalition of consumer and environmental groups, including the Ohio Consumers' Counsel, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Citizen Power had objected to First-Energy's request for the waiver, saying they believed FirstEnergy's failure to meet the benchmark was because of ''insufficient efforts to comply with the law.''
The groups had asked the PUCO not to give FirstEnergy the waiver, but if the commission did grant it, to make sure the utility would have to make up the cumulative energy savings in future years.
The commission agreed, granting the waiver at its meeting Thursday, but saying it was contingent upon FirstEnergy meeting the revised benchmarks within three years. The commission said it would determine the new benchmark levels as it considers the utility's three-year energy efficiency plan, which is pending before the commission.
FirstEnergy spokeswoman Ellen Raines said the company was pleased with the waiver.
''We intend to comply with the revised benchmarks through implementing programs outlined in our recently filed three-year plan and are hopeful that the commission will approve that filing so that we can begin offering our customers the opportunity to save energy and money,'' she said.
Ohio Consumers' Counsel Janine Migden-Ostrander said she and other advocates did not think FirstEnergy should get a waiver, but said she was pleased that the commission required FirstEnergy to make up the energy savings.
''That's really the most important factor, that we get the most energy efficiency,'' she said.
Migden-Ostrander said she hopes the commission will require FirstEnergy to fully comply with the revised benchmarks and all of the savings they did not reach in 2009.
''We don't think there should be any further breaks given to FirstEnergy,'' she said.
FirstEnergy was criticized in October after announcing it would distribute two compact fluorescent bulbs, called CFLs. They use up to 75 percent less electricity than traditional bulbs and can last up to 10 times longer and were to be distributed door to door in a mandatory program.
The company planned to recoup the cost and resulting loss of energy use with bills to customers of about 60 cents a month for three years, or $21.45.
The company eventually postponed the program after the PUCO and Gov. Ted Strickland reacted to public outcry and called for a moratorium. The company then consulted with what was called a collaborative group representing customers to come up with a revised program.
In December, the utility included a voluntary CFL bulb program in its three-year plan.
Details are still being worked out on that plan as well as others, including home energy audits at a reduced price, the expansion of a free thermostat program and rebates to builders to enhance construction of energy-efficient homes.
Regulated, investor-owned utilities such as FirstEnergy must reduce energy usage by 22.2 percent by the end of 2025 and reduce peak demand by 7.75 percent by the end of 2018.
The law required the utility to take action in 2009.
Betty Lin-Fisher can be reached at
330-996-3724 or blinfisher@
thebeaconjournal.com.
FirstEnergy Corp. on Thursday was granted a waiver by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio for not meeting its 2009 state-mandated energy efficiency benchmarks.
The utility had said a failed program to distribute nearly 4 million energy-efficient light bulbs that sparked controversy last fall and was delayed by the PUCO did not allow it to meet the benchmarks. The Akron-based utility also said the commission's rules about how companies could meet those benchmarks were not yet approved when it applied for the waiver in October.
With the waiver, the utility avoided hefty fines from the commission.
A coalition of consumer and environmental groups, including the Ohio Consumers' Counsel, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Citizen Power had objected to First-Energy's request for the waiver, saying they believed FirstEnergy's failure to meet the benchmark was because of ''insufficient efforts to comply with the law.''
The groups had asked the PUCO not to give FirstEnergy the waiver, but if the commission did grant it, to make sure the utility would have to make up the cumulative energy savings in future years.
The commission agreed, granting the waiver at its meeting Thursday, but saying it was contingent upon FirstEnergy meeting the revised benchmarks within three years. The commission said it would determine the new benchmark levels as it considers the utility's three-year energy efficiency plan, which is pending before the commission.
FirstEnergy spokeswoman Ellen Raines said the company was pleased with the waiver.
''We intend to comply with the revised benchmarks through implementing programs outlined in our recently filed three-year plan and are hopeful that the commission will approve that filing so that we can begin offering our customers the opportunity to save energy and money,'' she said.
Ohio Consumers' Counsel Janine Migden-Ostrander said she and other advocates did not think FirstEnergy should get a waiver, but said she was pleased that the commission required FirstEnergy to make up the energy savings.
''That's really the most important factor, that we get the most energy efficiency,'' she said.
Migden-Ostrander said she hopes the commission will require FirstEnergy to fully comply with the revised benchmarks and all of the savings they did not reach in 2009.
''We don't think there should be any further breaks given to FirstEnergy,'' she said.
FirstEnergy was criticized in October after announcing it would distribute two compact fluorescent bulbs, called CFLs. They use up to 75 percent less electricity than traditional bulbs and can last up to 10 times longer and were to be distributed door to door in a mandatory program.
The company planned to recoup the cost and resulting loss of energy use with bills to customers of about 60 cents a month for three years, or $21.45.
The company eventually postponed the program after the PUCO and Gov. Ted Strickland reacted to public outcry and called for a moratorium. The company then consulted with what was called a collaborative group representing customers to come up with a revised program.
In December, the utility included a voluntary CFL bulb program in its three-year plan.
Details are still being worked out on that plan as well as others, including home energy audits at a reduced price, the expansion of a free thermostat program and rebates to builders to enhance construction of energy-efficient homes.
Regulated, investor-owned utilities such as FirstEnergy must reduce energy usage by 22.2 percent by the end of 2025 and reduce peak demand by 7.75 percent by the end of 2018.
The law required the utility to take action in 2009.


Betty Lin-Fisher can be reached at
330-996-3724 or blinfisher@
thebeaconjournal.com.

[topgroove]

Dennis Kucinich Gets a Well-Deserved Payback for Integrity from the Northeast Blackout

© Copyright 2003, From The Wilderness Publications, www.copvcia.com. All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web site for non-profit purposes only.

[August 21, 2003, 2350 PDT, (FTW) -- Although FTW will not endorse any Presidential candidate who does not address all the issues of Peak Oil and Gas, Bush Administration Complicity in 9/11, Trillions of Dollars Stolen from the US Treasury, and criminal misrepresentation of Iraqi intelligence before the US invasion, we do like to give praise where praise is due. Two and a half decades ago, young Cleveland Mayor Dennis Kucinich stood his ground, alone and defiant against deregulation of the power industry, corporate greed, and in the best interests of his constituents. Not only did he show courage, he paid a big price for it. What's more, he survived.
If anyone has earned the right to speak out on an issue that threatens the future of this country it is Dennis Kucinich. If anyone has earned a right to remind people of this history, it is Dennis Kucinich. Now, if he would just join with Texas investment banker and Bush energy advisor Matt Simmons [Behind The Blackout] in not only slamming deregulation but addressing Peak Oil and Gas issues and also take on the bubbling revelations that show that the administration held the door open on 9/11, lied about Iraq, and hold the government accountable for the money we need to fix things and develop alternative energy sources, we might just have a leader worth following to hell and back. We're going there anyway. - MCR]
----------

Lights Out on Deregulation
By Dennis Kucinich

With and estimated 50 million Americans and Canadians left without power and in some cases water, common sense requires us to reflect on the absurdity of deregulation of public utilities. In the first case, the right of utility franchise is vested in the people. We give utilities permission to operate, and enable them to set up a profit making business in exchange for the promise of affordable and reliable service. In 1992, investor owned utilities pushed the Democratic House to pass HR776 which granted electric utilities broad powers. The bill was supposed to restructure the electric utility industry to spur competition.
Utilities used deregulation to effect a series of mergers limiting competition. In order to accelerate profits, cost cutting ensued, involving the layoff of thousands of utility company employees, including some who were responsible for maintenance of generation, transmission, and distribution systems. A number of investor-owned utilities stopped investing in the maintenance and repair of their own equipment, and, instead, cut costs to enhance the value of their stock rather than spending money to enhance the value of their service.
A prime case in point is FirstEnergy Corp, late of Ohio. FirstEnergy formed through a merger of utility companies which owned nuclear power plants which often were neither used nor useful, and as a result incurred huge debt. FirstEnergy's predecessor, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI) in the 1950s and 60s was a high performing blue chip stock until they invested in nuclear power. FirstEnergy has tried without success to keep online a very troublesome nuclear power facility at Port Clinton, Ohio, the Davis-Besse plant. Davis-Besse is currently shut down and has been for some time. FirstEnergy and federal regulators failed to properly monitor the operations of the plant, resulting in conditions where the plant's reactor vessel was threatened with a breach when boric acid ate into the head of the reactor.

Millions of people in the Midwest and the water supply of our entire Great Lakes region were at risk because of First Energy's negligence, improper maintenance, and actual cover-up of the degradation of the reactor. Furthermore, federal regulators determined that notwithstanding the peril which was presented to one of the largest populated areas of the

[topgroove]

If there was ever an example of an unholy alliance between government and industry, this is it. If there was ever an example of the failure of necessary regulation by the government of an investor-owned utility, it is found in the government's failure to regulate FirstEnergy, because now, according to published reports by the Associated Press, CNN, and ABC News, the blackout which affected an estimated 50 million people began in the FirstEnergy system.
I've been familiar with First Energy and the challenge of utility monopolies for over 30 years. Early in my career, in the 1970s, I watched FirstEnergy's predecessor, CEI, as they were hard at work trying to undermine the ability of the City of Cleveland to operate its own municipal electric system. CEI conducted a tireless crusade to attempt to put the city's publicly owned system, Muny Light, out of business. Muny Light competed against CEI in a third of the city and provided municipal power customers with savings on their electric bill of 20-30 percent. It also provided cheaper electricity for 76 city facilities and thousands of Cleveland street lights, saving taxpayers millions of dollars each year. In the 1970s, CEI applied for a license to operate a nuclear power plant. The license application triggered an antitrust review. The antitrust review revealed that CEI had committed numerous violations of federal antitrust law in its attempt to put Muny Light out of business. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in an extensive investigation, determined that CEI blocked Muny Light from making repairs to its generator by lobbying the Cleveland City Council to place special conditions on Muny Light Bonds which made the bonds more difficult to sell, thereby depriving the city of revenue it needed to repair its generators in order to provide its own power. The delay in repairs to the generators caused Muny Light to have to purchase power. CEI then worked behind the scenes to block Muny Light from purchasing power from other power companies. CEI became the only power company Muny Light could buy from. At that point, CEI sharply increased and sometimes tripled the cost of purchase power to Muny Light. And, as a result, Muny Light began to lose money. CEI used Muny Light's weakened operational and financial condition (which they created) as evidence of the public system's lack of viability and as proof that the only way the people of Cleveland could have reliable power was for the city to sell its electric system to CEI. The antitrust review cited one incident when during a period of inclement weather, Muny Light asked CEI for a special transfer of emergency power. The transfer of power was conducted in such a way so as to cause an outage on the Muny Light system. CEI used the incident as further proof of the city's inability to operate a municipal electric system. Throughout this period, the Cleveland media, which received substantial advertising revenues from CEI, crusaded against the city's ownership of a municipal electric system. When the federal government came to review CEI's practices, CEI executives appeared at a city council committee meeting to declare that they had no interest in the acquisition of Muny Light even as they worked behind the scenes to put Muny Light out of business.
In 1976, after years of work to undermine Muny Light, CEI finally succeeded in getting the mayor and the council of Cleveland to agree to sell Muny Light, giving CEI a monopoly on electric power in the Cleveland area and enabling CEI to greatly expand its rate base to get more revenue to pay for its rapidly mounting expenses associated with building nuclear power plants. At that time, I was clerk of the Cleveland Municipal Court, a citywide elected office. I organized a civic campaign to save Muny Light. People gathered signatures in freezing rain to block the sale. I ran for mayor of Cleveland on a promise that if elected, my first act would be to cancel the sale of Muny Light. I won the election. I cancelled the sale. CEI immediately went to court to demand that the city pay 15 million dollars for power which it had purchased while CEI was running up charges to the city. The previous mayor had intended to pay that light bill by selling the light system and simultaneously disposing of a 325 million dollar antitrust damage suit. My election not only stopped the sale, but kept the lawsuit alive. CEI went to federal court to get an order attaching city equipment as a means of trying to destabilize city services as still another desperate effort to try to try to create a political climate to force the sale. I moved quickly to pay the bill by cutting city spending. The Muny Light issue came to a head on December 15, 1978, when Ohio's largest bank, Cleveland Trust, the 33rd largest bank in America at that time, told me that they would not renew the city's credit on 15 million dollars worth of loans taken out by the previous administration unless I would agree to sell Cleveland's municipally owned utility to CEI.
On that day, by that time, the sale of Muny Light was being promoted by both Cleveland newspapers, virtually all of the radio and TV stations in town, the entire business community, all the banks, both political parties, and several unions, as well as a majority of the Cleveland City Council. All I had to do was to sign my name to legislation and the system would have sold and the city credit "protected." The chairman of Cleveland Trust even offered 50 million dollars of new credit if I would agree to sell Muny Light.
Where I come from it matters how much people pay for electricity. I grew up in the inner city of Cleveland. The oldest of 7 children. My parents never owned a home, they lived in 21 different places by the time I was 17, including a couple of cars. I remember when there were 5 children and my parents living in a 3 room upstairs apartment on Cleveland's east side. My parents would sometimes sit in the kitchen at one of those old white enamel top tables, which, when the surface was chipped, was black underneath. When they counted their pennies, I could hear them clicking on the enamel top table. Click, Click, Click.
When I was in the board room with the Chairman of Cleveland Trust Bank, I was thinking about my parents counting their pennies and I could hear those pennies hitting the enamel top table. So, I said no to the sale of Muny Light to CEI. At Midnight, Cleveland Trust put the City of Cleveland into default. Later, it was revealed, that Cleveland Trust and CEI had four interlocking directors. Cleveland Trust was CEI's bank. Together with another bank, Cleveland Trust owned a substantial share of CEI stock and had numerous other mutual interests. Public power was saved in Cleveland. I lost the election in 1979 with default as the major issue. Cleveland Trust changed it name to AmeriTrust. The new mayor changed the name of Muny Light to Cleveland Public Power.

In 1993, the City of Cleveland announced that it was expanding Muny Light. It was the largest expansion of any municipal electric system in

[topgroove]

First Energy Reports Healthy Profit Jolt


Posted: Mar 02, 2009 11:10 AM by Greg Sushinsky


Filed Under: Recession,Retirement
Tickers in this Article: FE, DUK, SO, FPL, AEP
<DIV style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px; OVERFLOW: hidden">FirstEnergy (NYSE:FE), the Ohio-based electric utility, reported a 24% increase in net income for the quarter ending December, 2008. The earnings per share (EPS) came in at $1.04 against the 87 cents of the previous year's same quarter, with income up to $332 million versus $268 million. Increased power sales led to higher revenues of $3.2 billion compared to $3.1 billion from the same quarter a year earlier. The stock trades around $43, down from a 52-week high of $84. There looks like potential opportunity with this stock.







The Buzzing Sound of Growth
FirstEnergy is not only holding its own in this recession, but prospering. Total revenue has increased each of the last three years, from $11 billion to $13.5 billion annual revenue in 2008, a trend which is expected to continue despite the horrible economy. EPS, which have also increased each year, have gone from $3.81 to $4.37 over the same period, and are expected to top the $5 mark in 2010. Again, even if you wish to chop down these estimates as overly-optimistic, the recent history is still encouraging. Likewise, the company has gone through the Public Utility Commission of Ohio (PUCO) hearings to secure rate increases for the next couple of years. This all bodes well for the immediate future.

[electriklady]

I have to share the respect I have for one of worst energy's supervisors. This is a recent event......

A friend and supervisor has been having some serious health problems the last couple of years, health problems that could become deadly if you add a little "gas to the fire...ie STRESS", I am not even sure that his current health condition wasnt caused by stress. He was in the hospital having some tests recently and his boss called him in the middle of his test to ask him about his "sick leave" form and about his employee's work schedule. Not how are you just more harassing work "shit".... in the middle of a freaking STRESS TEST.

Evidently he decided "enough is enough"....and told his boss that his boss was an asshole, and to "get off his back" or fire him, and he really didnt much care which one they chose.

My hat is off to you Mr. _ _ _ _ _ _, you are one of the few people in management that has any courage and dignity. If more people in lower management at worst energy followed his lead, some freaking "lights" might go on in the huge arrogant heads of worst energies upper management nazis.

Also heard tell there is a big suck fest coming up in State College, where all management participants will be put up in one of State College's finest hotels to thank them for the great job they did in 2009. The great job who did? No money for tools, meters, toiletries, tires, but they found the money for the big
SUCK FEST!!!!!!!!!!! Talk about corporate arrogance.

[climbing high]

yes we just had one of their leaders on the property telling us how tight money was,and now woodstock 3 in state college! If any of you lower management had any balls you would tell them to stick their love fest up their ass!!!!! I hear they got the right man for it!!!!!! You people are a joke!!!!!!!!!!! I work out of shithole f..king building but you can send all of management to state college for 2 days. You phony bastards. I guess most of our district could go,but we spent most of it on stockport road! Hey EL I hope our planner is"nt arranging the trip!!!!!! What a joke!!!!!!!! local management except 1 with any balls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[topgroove]

FirstEnergy Q3 Profit Plummets; Narrows FY09 EPS View - Update
10/27/2009 11:08 AM ET
(RTTNews) - Electric utility company FirstEnergy Corp. (FE: News ) on Tuesday posted a profit for the third quarter that more than halved from last year, reflecting weak revenues across all its business segments. On a per share basis, normalized non-GAAP earnings fell from last year, but topped the Street view. In addition, the company narrowed its earnings forecast for the full year.

The company's third-quarter net income totaled $230 million, compared to $471 million posted a year earlier. Net income available to FirstEnergy Corp. was $234 million or $0.77 per share, compared to $471 million or $1.54 per share in the prior-year quarter.

Special items during the most recent quarter included a $0.30 per share decrease in earnings for costs related to the early retirement of $1.2 billion of debt at FirstEnergy Corp., a $0.07 per share decrease in earnings associated with organizational restructuring charges; and a $0.03 per share increase in earnings related to an adjustment to the impairment of securities held in trust for nuclear decommissioning activities. The prior-year results included tax adjustments that increased earnings in that quarter by $0.12 per share when compared to the third quarter of 2009.

Normalized non-GAAP earnings, excluding special items, were $1.11 per share for the third quarter of 2009, compared to $1.60 per share for the same quarter of last year.

On average, 6 analysts polled by Thomson Reuters expected the company to post earnings of $1.05 per share. Analysts' estimates typically exclude special items.

Quarterly revenues declined to $3.41 billion from the previous year's revenue of $3.91 billion.

[terminater]

Hey Electric Lady I had a long conversation with my Phille Laywer today about that phone call from a$$ hole management to your buddy,who was in the hospital getting a stress test ,big no no for a$$ hole management, it, s time to hit them in the pocket book ,with the big bonus time comming and all ,I see law suit in his future,as for there big suck fest, look at them, there all a bunch of loosers who couldn,t do there normal jobs so they took the easy way out,and sucked and sucked and sucked to where they are now, and where did it get them? All a trip to suck fest school, like I keep saying there all a bunch of Kissy Furs, low life wanna be,s there day is comming,and I for one have the first ticket in,can,t wait heres to you!!!!!!!!!!!!

[topgroove]

FirstEnergy CEO gets pay hike
By Betty Lin-Fisher
Beacon Journal business writer
POSTED: 06:28 p.m. EDT, Apr 01, 2009
Anthony Alexander, president and chief executive of Akron-based utility FirstEnergy Corp., received compensation of $12.8 million in 2008, a 4 percent increase from 2007.
Alexander's salary rose 4 percent to $1.3 million while his performance-based bonus fell nearly 4 percent to $2.3 million, according to the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The FirstEnergy board of directors use a benchmark system to measure the utility's executive pay against company peers, said spokeswoman Tricia Ingraham.
The other four highest-compensated company officers saw a variety of pay raises and pay cuts.
They were:
• Richard H. Marsh, senior vice president and chief financial officer: $2,698,718, a pay cut of nearly 4 percent from $2,799,937 in 2007. The reduction is because Marsh chose not to participate in a deferred compensation program in 2008, Ingraham said.
• Gary Leidich, who in 2008 was promoted from senior vice president of operations to executive vice president of FirstEnergy Corp. and president of FirstEnergy Generation: $5,839,308, a 50 percent pay increase from $3,876,762 in 2007. Leidich received a substantial salary increase when he was promoted, Ingraham said.
• Richard R. Grigg, executive vice president and president of FirstEnergy Utilities: $5,166,677, a 12 percent increase from $4,624,647 in 2007. Grigg was promoted in 2008 from executive vice president and chief operating officer.
• Leila L. Vespoli, executive vice president and general counsel: $3,300,232. Vespoli, who received a promotion from senior vice president and general counsel, was not among the top five paid executives in 2007, so her compensation was not included in last year's proxy statement.
Alexander's salary is significantly higher than the other executives because of his position and ''the board's strong desire to keep him with our company,'' Ingraham said.
Alexander received stock awards valued at $9 million when they were given last March and April, up 5.6 percent from similar awards he was given in 2007, according to the filing.
FirstEnergy common stock was at nearly $70 at the time of the awards. It closed Wednesday at $38.76, having lost nearly half its value.
Alexander received perks valued at $122,780, including $93,491 for the personal use of corporate aircraft. For security reasons, FirstEnergy's board requires Alexander to use corporate aircraft when he travels. He also received $97,012 in above-average returns on deferred compensation.
Last month, FirstEnergy said it would be cutting 335 people from its management and support staff as part of a reorganization as it dealt with the global economic downturn.
In addition, as part of the reorganization, another 257 employees companywide were given new assignments that would not change their location or compensation. Those employees, if they did not want their new assignment, could leave the company, but would not be eligible for the severance package, officials said.
Ingraham said the proxy statement reflected executive salaries in 2008, and the company began taking action in November of last year to adjust for the economic conditions. Also, for this year, all employees, including the top five paid executives, are maintaining their base salaries. The company said it has placed more emphasis on reaching financial objectives before further bonuses are made.
In 2008, FirstEnergy reported profit of $1.34 billion, or $4.38 per share, compared with profit of $1.31 billion, or $4.22 per share, in 2007. Revenue rose to $13.6 billion from $12.8 billion.
The company's power plants produced a record 82.4 million megawatt-hours of electricity in 2008.
FirstEnergy is the nation's fifth largest investor-owned electric system, serving 4.5 million customers in Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Anthony Alexander, president and chief executive of Akron-based utility FirstEnergy Corp., received compensation of $12.8 million in 2008, a 4 percent increase from 2007.
Alexander's salary rose 4 percent to $1.3 million while his performance-based bonus fell nearly 4 percent to $2.3 million, according to the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The FirstEnergy board of directors use a benchmark system to measure the utility's executive pay against company peers, said spokeswoman Tricia Ingraham.
The other four highest-compensated company officers saw a variety of pay raises and pay cuts.
They were:
• Richard H. Marsh, senior vice president and chief financial officer: $2,698,718, a pay cut of nearly 4 percent from $2,799,937 in 2007. The reduction is because Marsh chose not to participate in a deferred compensation program in 2008, Ingraham said.
• Gary Leidich, who in 2008 was promoted from senior vice president of operations to executive vice president of FirstEnergy Corp. and president of FirstEnergy Generation: $5,839,308, a 50 percent pay increase from $3,876,762 in 2007. Leidich received a substantial salary increase when he was promoted, Ingraham said.
• Richard R. Grigg, executive vice president and president of FirstEnergy Utilities: $5,166,677, a 12 percent increase from $4,624,647 in 2007. Grigg was promoted in 2008 from executive vice president and chief operating officer.
• Leila L. Vespoli, executive vice president and general counsel: $3,300,232. Vespoli, who received a promotion from senior vice president and general counsel, was not among the top five paid executives in 2007, so her compensation was not included in last year's proxy statement.
Alexander's salary is significantly higher than the other executives because of his position and ''the board's strong desire to keep him with our company,'' Ingraham said.
Alexander received stock awards valued at $9 million when they were given last March and April, up 5.6 percent from similar awards he was given in 2007, according to the filing.
FirstEnergy common stock was at nearly $70 at the time of the awards. It closed Wednesday at $38.76, having lost nearly half its value.
Alexander received perks valued at $122,780, including $93,491 for the personal use of corporate aircraft. For security reasons, FirstEnergy's board requires Alexander to use corporate aircraft when he travels. He also received $97,012 in above-average returns on deferred compensation.
Last month, FirstEnergy said it would be cutting 335 people from its management and support staff as part of a reorganization as it dealt with the global economic downturn.
In addition, as part of the reorganization, another 257 employees companywide were given new assignments that would not change their location or compensation. Those employees, if they did not want their new assignment, could leave the company, but would not be eligible for the severance package, officials said.
Ingraham said the proxy statement reflected executive salaries in 2008, and the company began taking action in November of last year to adjust for the economic conditions. Also, for this year, all employees, including the top five paid executives, are maintaining their base salaries. The company said it has placed more emphasis on reaching financial objectives before further bonuses are made.
In 2008, FirstEnergy reported profit of $1.34 billion, or $4.38 per share, compared with profit of $1.31 billion, or $4.22 per share, in 2007. Revenue rose to $13.6 billion from $12.8 billion.
The company's power plants produced a record 82.4 million megawatt-hours of electricity in 2008.
FirstEnergy is the nation's fifth largest investor-owned electric system, serving 4.5 million customers in Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.