FirstEnergy will cut 400 jobs by 2016

The utility FirstEnergy says it expects to cut up to 400 jobs by 2016 as it struggles against a lackluster economy that's led to lower demand and power prices.
Associated Press
Nov 10, 2012

The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer reports that the company's CEO talked about the coming job cuts during a public teleconference with analysts Thursday about third-quarter financial results.

FirstEnergy's Anthony Alexander said the reductions would be made through "normal attrition" beginning next year.

The Akron-based company employs 17,000 people in 10 companies from Ohio to the East Coast. Its third-quarter net profits were down nearly 20 percent compared with the same period in 2011.

FirstEnergy was faced with restoring power to around 250,000 customers in northeast Ohio following superstorm Sandy last week.

 

Comments

Centauri

"Your submission has triggered the spam filter and will not be accepted" again and again and again. Google Anthony Alexander FirstEnergy compensation at forbes.com

Total Compensation
$6.165 mil
5-Year Compensation
$43.04 mil

Contango

@ Centauri:

Have you tried hitting the "Save" button a second time after the spam filter warning?

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2012...

Utilities are one of the most highly govt. regulated sectors of our economy.

IMO, "normal attrition" more than likely means not filling the retiree spots with new hires.

8ballinthesidepocket

What would think would be a more proper compensation for this guy? How much of his comp is stock option related?

8ballinthesidepocket

I hit the enter key by mistake..there should be a formula where the top guy can earn only 8 times as much as the lowest paid person in the company. If the lowest person is making 40k then the top guy gets 320k. I guess you can't live on 320k anymore. Or make it ten times, but this guy is making 200 times which is criminal. He makes more in one day then the other guy makes in a year.

SamAdams

Why is such a high salary "criminal?"

Ask yourself WHY he makes such a high salary. Could it be because he makes the company a lot of money? The kind of money that not only pays HIS high salary, but gives investors a decent return on their dollar and pays the salaries of all of those men and women making LESS than he does?

And why is such a salary in business deemed such an evil thing when nobody bats an eye at Tom Cruise making millions for starring in a movie, Oprah Winfrey making millions for making women weep, and this baseball player and that football player making millions for entertaining sports fans? The salaries are as high as they are solely because the person getting the money WARRANTS getting the money by giving a good return on the investment of those who pay them. The end.

It's entirely true that some people don't get paid what they're worth. But suggesting limits on salaries only ends up putting limits on ambition. That's NEVER a good thing, not if anybody wants anything to grow!

Meanwhile, I understand the Obama administration is curtailing still MORE oil extraction. That's just freakin' awesome. Pretty soon, ALL the energy companies will be laying people off. At least First Energy is going to be able to do it via attrition!

Second Opinion

At least he runs a corporation. Why not be bothered about those in sports whose wages cause the costs of goods to increase due to excess advertising costs for goods?

We little people on the bottom will become smaller while those making millions will increase their income. When they say increase taxes on the rich LOOK OUT, this is a scam to tax us. Oh, watch FE ask the puco to allow a rider charge on our bills that they get no mater which supplier we use. Another delivery cost

sanduskysteve

I really feel sorry for any utility company making huge profits and complaining because the customer is finding ways to cut their bills a little. How about the CEO cut his bills a little? How about one less BMW in the 6 car garage? They want to make you feel bad for them, while they are making millions and with tax breaks and crazy deductions -they end up getting a big refund instead of paying anything in taxes. Exxon comes to mind.

KnuckleDragger

Name one millionaire that doesn't pay any individual income taxes. I'm waiting? Now corporations, that's another story, but then again, not one liberal complained when GE paid nothing in income tax. I wonder why that is? Oh, wait, I understand the CEO of GE is a big supporter of the Democrat party.

mrlizzzard

Look around while driving.So much work for utilities yet a layoff is expected.Just republican fear trick after the election.CEO of Duke energy got $44 million for 1 days work.Look it up.

Wind,solar,hydro, power is where we have to go.Don't we all want self sufficiency more than fear mongering.LETS ROLL AMERICA.

SamAdams

Wind and solar are still inefficient. REALLY inefficient.

Want better solar? Invest more money in NASA. They're the folks that have done all the REAL innovation and heavy lifting so far, and will likely continue if this talk of a permanent moon presence means anything at all. Of course, they'll have to fight for funding against the short-sighted who call that kind of thing "throwing money into outer space" when we could be "curing poverty" here on earth. Idiots.

Hydro? We're running out of places to put it. And then where there ARE places, there are people who jump up and down and fight the very notion of a dam.

Know what actually WOULD help our energy independence? Drilling in Alaska. Drilling in the Gulf. The Keystone Pipeline. More oil shale extraction (the kind the Obama administration has just curtailed further).

Know what ELSE would help? Nuclear. Clean, reliable, extraordinarily safe, and yet the word "radiation" gets used and the ignorant run for the hills. We haven't built a new nuke facility in this country in over 20 years! TWENTY YEARS!

Pretty darned soon, the ignorant masses will either be huddled around a fire every night, or they'll be dying poor and in the dark! If we're limited to current technology (or even near-future technology) for wind and solar, power will first be rationed and then unavailable as traditional sources age and fail. Is THAT what you want?

KURTje

You can harvest free D.C. emf from your landline. (Power goes out your phone still works) Do not know if it is legal or not. Basically you'll have nite lights if you lose power. Schematic is obtained from "Instructables/Free electricity." Components are available from Radio Shack,etc.

KnuckleDragger

An increasing number of people (over 50% now) don't have a traditional landline so that is out the window. Most have either a cell phone or use VOIP through cable internet for phone service. In 15 yrs, landlines will likely be obsolete. Many landline companies are already selling off their assets because the future is wireless telecommunications.

Taxed Enough Already

Must be Bush's fault.

Uncommon Sense

It's Bush's fault and Obama will fix it by nationalizing it - except Texas which has their own electric grid. Why has socialism become in vogue?

eriemom

Does Global Crossing ring a bell in Texas? How about Enron?

Contango

@ eriemom:

All cos. that fed at the govt. trough and Mr. Obama's is much, much larger.

Do Solyndra and A123 Systems ring bells?

Good to know that Al Gore is now worth a reported $100M after investing in some of those failed green cos. isn’t it?

More taxpayer backed failed green energy cos:

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/...

eriemom

Yes, the two companies that you site ring a bell. These are two out of many that have not been able to succeed in an environment where the rare earth metals needed to produce photovoltaics are mined in China. These companies showed great ingenuity. Their products were also reverse engineered in China and are now produced there with government support.

Government supported research is currently underway to produce these products without using rare earth metals. I don't know how to stop the reverse engineering. That is a political issue.

Contango

@ eriemom:

Believe that Solyndra was developing impractical technology.

Good luck creating a perpetual motion machine.

Leapfrogging technology is very expensive and is a scientific problem and can't be merely legislated into existence.

2cents

(Al Gore is now worth a reported $100M)

C, thats from inventing the internet silly ;)

KnuckleDragger

You forgot First Solar which has a huge facility near Toledo that only operates at about 10% capacity and is bleeding money like a printing press at the Fed.

eriemom

1st this article is related to electricity production and transmission, and not petroleum.
2nd. Electricity production is less costly and more efficient when gas, rather than coal is the source product. It is more efficient in that it produces more energy, and requires fewer employees.
Note the "war on coal" was and continues to be ridicules.

kURTje is right. Our transmission lines are obsolete--very inefficient. Maybe they should be sinking profits into research and development for more efficient transmission instead of over paying a CEO. WE built the grid. Are they waiting for US to rebuild it?

3rd. Nuclear is not without fault and is also produced from a non-renewable resource.

4th. Renewable is the future. The problem is that it is long range future. Storage is still not where it needs to be. It took over 10 years of research and development to get hydraulic fracturing.

Natural gas is our bridge to renewables, but it must be regulated. Capture the methan released at the drill site and treat the water used in the process. The industry is currently just injecting the chemically-laced fresh water, causing earthquakes. We can't take this huge quantity of fresh water out of the ecosystem without causing harm and the fresh water is in itself a natural resource--Lake Erie. This fracking fluid WILL find its way back into our water supply.

Because transportation costs will continue to rise manufacturing will become regional. Natural gas will allow us to bring manufacturing jobs that are currently international back to our shores. At least for those products with greater mass. Small widgets will still be profitably produced in low-wage societies. The middle class in this country needs to grow, unless we want to be one of the low-wage societies.

I understand that our climate IS changing, and the cause is our burning of fossil fuels (natural gas is a fossil fuel), but I see nothing in development that can help us in the near future. We just don't have the infrastructure in place to change energy sources quickly.

We cannot allow one political party to dominate this discussion with claims that Climate Change is a hoax. I once believed that we could stop this run-away train. Now I believe that we should prepare for the inevitable. We cannot prepare for something when our leaders insist that it is not real.

SamAdams

eriemom: Sorry, but you're wrong on more than a few counts.

Yes, this article is related to electricity production and transmission (kind of), but that means it's also DIRECTLY related to petroleum. Sure, electrical power does come from non-petroleum sources too, but there's no question various fossil fuels are also integrally involved with electricity. You do note the "war on coal," and you're right about that. Coal provides a substantial percentage of electrical power in this country, and the Obama administration's ongoing "war on coal" will, as Obama himself pointed out, cause rates to "necessarily skyrocket." When many of us are already conserving to the maximum we can, I wonder how he (or you) can think that's a good idea...

Yes, electricity can be, and is, produced from natural gas. But resources there are also finite.

The entire electrical grid is problematic in both the fact of its aging and its vulnerabiity to such as EMP (whether the EMP is naturally generated via a solar flare, or artificially generated in an attack of some kind) and computer hacks (already been done). Various government agencies are conveniently ignoring the EMP threat, and have done so for years. I remain unclear as to why.

No, nuclear is not without fault IF stringent safety procedures aren't followed. Disposal of spent fuel is also an issue (though it would be less so if the environmental lobby would stop engaging in knee-jerk reactions and start thinking in terms of reality). Non-renewable? To some extent. But I suggest you google "breeder reactor" and see what you find.

Yes, renewable is the future, but even you acknowledge that that's long range. One possibility that's already been repeatedly shot down: Microwaves from orbital solar collectors. Without atmospheric interference, solar energy on orbit is greater than on the planetary surface even with existing technology. Again, the problem is unreasoned fear of the words "radiation" and "microwave."

As for "climate change," the climate changes on both short and long term cycles and has done so for millennia. The jury is still out as to whether or not humanity has had much effect on the overall process, but the doubt is on the side of those who suggest that any effect humans is having is negligible. Else why would those so-called "studies" be faked, and those so-called "researchers" be encouraged to fudge their numbers, eh? No, climate change ISN'T a "hoax." It's also not the threat of doomsday some suggest, nor is it much within our control. I support the idea of less pollution since it's OBVIOUS that's bad regardless. But nonsense like "cap and trade" won't appreciably alter overall emissions. It'll just hamstring developed nations and allow the undeveloped to pollute quite literally without limit. And it sure won't have any effect on global climate!

If you want to prepare for something we KNOW is real, buck up electrical production including shielded facilities. Start replacing parts and pieces of the grid with shielded infrastructure. Leave the EXPERTS (like those in NASA) alone to continue development; stop giving federal dollars to those who send money to China to manufacture windmills or who can't make a go of selling solar technology as it is (or who ALSO go to China for manufacture).

This isn't as much a political issue as it is an uninformed and completely ignorant issue. Coal = Bad. Nuclear = Bad. Solar = Good. Wind = Good. Global Warming = We're DOOMED! NONE of these things are entirely true, but you'd never know it listening to the current administration or the mainstream media (but I repeat myself...)

The Big Dog's back

sam a, I don't know why we would be concerned about radiation and microwaves.

Contango

@ brutus:

"Many people are concerned about potential adverse health effects. Much of the research about power lines and potential health effects is inconclusive."

http://www.epa.gov/radtown/power...

Don't worry, the govt. ALWAYS tells the truth right?

eriemom

"there's no question various fossil fuels are also integrally involved with electricity" -- Turbine lubrication and the transportation of the fossil fule to the electricity production site.

"The jury is still out as to whether or not humanity has had much effect on the overall process, but the doubt is on the side of those who suggest that any effect humans is having is negligible."

I did not invite a discussion about your version about the science of climate change. When I have provided information about it, including facts, I have been personally attacked. I will state that your information about fake studies and numbers ARE the hoax. I believe that firefighters in the west, the people of New York and New Jersey, and farmers in the Midwest might disagree with your statement, " It's also not the threat of doomsday some suggest".

"But nonsense like "cap and trade" won't appreciably alter overall emissions."
I also did not bring Cap and Trade into the discussion. Efficiencies in production, trasmission, and use are having the same result.

"Leave the EXPERTS (like those in NASA) alone to continue development; stop giving federal dollars to those who send money to China to manufacture windmills or who can't make a go of selling solar technology as it is (or who ALSO go to China for manufacture)."

I agree. How do you stop the production of products, including your example of windmills, from being manufactured in China and imported into the United States? It is a cultural problem. The Chinese find nothing wrong with reverse technology the minute new technology comes on line, and our businesses help them.

"Start replacing parts and pieces of the grid with shielded infrastructure"
Seems that we agree on this, but who should pay for it?

Contango

eriemom writes:

"I did not invite a discussion about your version about the science of climate change. When I have provided information about it, including facts, I have been personally attacked."

Without the possibility of any discussions it's dogma.

Does the climate "change"? Yes. Five known ice ages tell us that it does.

Is the "cause" anthropological? Inconclusive.

"Attacked"? You post here and don't expect to be challenged? Reads like dogma again.

eriemom

Challenge should be based on fact. Discussions should be based on mutual respect. You do not produce fact or proof, and you are disrespectful in your posts.

All of the know ice age climate changes had a cause as well. Climate will change when forced to do so. None of the know natural causations are relavent to this era.

Contango

@ eriemom:

Are you incapable or just unwilling to find contrary evidence?

You likewise are "disrespectful in your posts."

So AGW is the only relevant factor for current climate change? That is an absurd statement, since climatologists use past historical data in order to make comparisons.

Dynamic systems are always dependent upon a confluence of events and factors.

SamAdams

Again, almost entirely wrong. We are, in fact, due for another ice age. NATURALLY. If there is, indeed, such a thing as global warming, it might prove a GOOD thing rather than a BAD thing if the historic model is correct (and we have no reason to believe it is not).

The only thing you're right about is that ice ages DID have causes. So did warming trends. But since the vast majority of them occurred without help or hindrance from humanity, why do you apparently exclude natural causes NOW?

KnuckleDragger

Here us some fact for ya. The same scientists that have jumped on the global warming bandwagon are also quoted as saying, "the earth is not supposed to have polar ice caps, because they do exist,we are still in an ice age." This statement alone should give rise to doubt about so-called global warming. I do have to laugh about eriemom's statement that climate will change when it is force to. That is the most ignorant statement I have heard yet. Yesterday it was warm and sunny, today is raining, I'm guessing someone forced the climate to change? I bet dinosaur farts caused the last ice age. Too bad there wasn't a George Bush around to blame. LOL

Pages