Bill Text: CA ACR144 | 2011-2012 | Regular Session | Introduced

California Assembly Concurrent Resolution 144 (Prior Session Legislation)

Introduced

Bill Title: Public Utilities Commission: settlement with NRG Energy.

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 2-0)

Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2012-06-25 - In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. [ACR144 Detail]

Download: California-2011-ACR144-Introduced.html

BILL NUMBER: ACR 144	INTRODUCED
	BILL TEXT


INTRODUCED BY   Assembly Member Fong
   (Coauthor: Assembly Member Buchanan)

                        APRIL 17, 2012

   Relative to public review of the settlement between the Public
Utilities Commission and NRG Energy.


	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   ACR 144, as introduced, Fong. Public Utilities Commission:
settlement with NRG Energy.
   This measure would urge that the full terms, conditions, and
circumstances of the settlement between the Public Utilities
Commission and NRG Energy be made available for public review and
comment to ensure incorporation of key principles that will result in
ratepayer benefit, consumer choice, and competitive fairness in
California's electric vehicle market.
   Fiscal committee: yes.



   WHEREAS, On March 23, 2012, the Public Utilities Commission
announced a $120 million settlement (Settlement) agreement with
Dynegy Power Marketing's successor in interest, NRG Energy (NRG), to
settle claims that Dynegy had artificially inflated the cost of
electricity and had taken advantage of California's power crisis a
decade ago; and
   WHEREAS, During 2000 and 2001, the State of California, and
ultimately ratepayers, overpaid nearly $9 billion to various
companies, including to NRG that artificially raised prices by
withholding energy supplies, driving up rates, and causing the
notorious rolling blackouts that left power customers sporadically in
the dark; and
   WHEREAS, The Settlement, to be performed over four years, stems
from claims against NRG, which coowned plants that generated
California power at the time, and enabled harmful business practices
against California ratepayers; and
   WHEREAS, The Settlement negatively impacts California ratepayers
by taking funds that otherwise should have been rightfully refunded
to such ratepayers and, essentially, giving those funds to NRG to
build future profit-generating business operations; and
   WHEREAS, Only $20 million of this Settlement will go directly to
ratepayers to reduce energy bills, while $100 million will return to
NRG through an in-kind contribution that funds at least 200 public
fast-charging stations, and another 10,000 plug-in units at 1,000
locations in the San Francisco Bay area, the San Joaquin Valley, the
Los Angeles basin, and San Diego County; and
   WHEREAS, NRG has been rewarded instead of penalized for Dynegy's
past market manipulations and is being presented with a monopolistic
entrance into the California electric vehicle charging market with
exclusivity clauses, unlimited pricing, and would permit the
defendant to be relieved of its liability in exchange for giving the
defendant a preferential position in the start of a vacant market in
California, threatening consumer choice, market competition and
interoperability, and open architecture among charging networks; and
   WHEREAS, The Settlement may harm electric vehicle drivers and may
result in NRG administering unjust and unreasonable prices for
electric vehicle charging services by virtue of its anticipated
large-scale dominance of the market; and
   WHEREAS, The Settlement has adverse impacts on current
negotiations and infrastructure deployment activities by other
electric vehicle charging operators in California that will
discourage near-term and long-term competitiveness and negatively
impact opportunity for a level playing field among electric vehicle
charging networks operating in California; and
   WHEREAS, The Settlement negotiation process has been conducted in
total secrecy, lacking transparency, with no opportunity for
independent assessment of the impacts on California ratepayers and
California's current infrastructure market; and
   WHEREAS, The Settlement undermines public policy to expand a
competitive market for electric vehicles in California, as expressed
in Assembly Bill 631 (Chapter 480 of the Statutes of 2011) and
Assembly Bill 118 (Chapter 750 of the Statutes of 2007); now,
therefore, be it
   Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate
thereof concurring, That the Legislature urges that the full terms,
conditions, and circumstances of the Settlement be made available for
public review and comment to ensure incorporation of key principles
that will result in ratepayer benefit, consumer choice, and
competitive fairness in California's electric vehicle market; and be
it further
   Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of
this resolution to author for appropriate distribution.