Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2009 CI 19492
Discovery Level 3.
1
Bexar County, Texas and may be served at 145 Navarro, San
2
Code because NRG does not maintain a regular place of business
in the State of Texas and this action arose from NRG's business
residents.
STANDING
3
misrepresentation and illegal expenditures; to protect San
purpose; and (3) neither the claim asserted nor the relief
the lawsuit. Texas Ass’n of Bus. V. Texas Air Control Bd., 852
before the court, and (3) it is likely that the injury will be
4
S.W.3d 297, 305 (Tex. 2001).
review.” Iranian Muslim Org .v. City of San Antonio, 615 S.W.2d
202, 209 (citing Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539,
546 (1976).
FACTS
that CPS Energy comes to this Court with unclean hands and
represent.
5
convince the San Antonio community about the merits of pursuing
CPS Energy.
below, the interests of the City of San Antonio Mayor and City
Council conflict with those of the CPS Energy Board (CPSB).2 Had
litigation.
for the City of San Antonio’s interests in this case. Had the
with those of the City of San Antonio, CPS Energy and its
expansion. If approved, this bond vote would have been the City
expansion.
28. Prior to City Council vote, CPS Energy told the City
investment to date.
losing far more later. The potential for lost investment had a
would.
Section 8.
and blame for the collapse of public and official support for
Energy, CPS Energy took exactly the opposite position and argued
January 9, 2010 at 1.
9
Explaining the reversed position, CPS Energy’s Acting General
Manager said:
“Generally our position has been that the documents are unclear
participation.
NINA that the investment would be lost, CPS Energy changed its
authority would have been the first time the City Council
the rate increase to 3.5% and prohibited use of the funds for
nuclear expansion.
41. Thus, the only time CPS Energy sought any agreement
11
rejection was politically impossible.
participate in the project did not appear until the $400 million
bond vote came up. Then CPS Energy showed its true purpose by
not to pursue the nuclear option. NRG Energy took actions that
12
46. In pursuit of this conspiracy, CPS Energy and its
deceptive.
47. On June 19, 2007, NRG Energy claimed the project would
NRG and CPS Energy must have known at the time that the initial
estimate was well below the real expected cost. In March 2008,
citizen groups provided CPS Energy, City Council and the public
$17.5 billion.3
last moment.
3 “Nuclear Plant Capital Costs for the Two Proposed NRG Reactors at the South
Texas Project,” Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D., March 24, 2008.
13
"We're in a different position" from CPS, Winn said. "CPS
wants to be accurate with you."...
"We want Toshiba scared and to give us the lowest possible
cost. For us, it's all about the contract," Winn said.
If Toshiba is late, "they're going to lose a lot more money
than we are," he said. A fixed-price contract would
make Toshiba - and not CPS nor NRG - responsible for
cost overruns.
San Antonio Express-News, August 12, 2009 at 1C.
the project
claims being made in this case now by CPS Energy that Defendants
Toshiba that increased the projected cost far beyond the $13
billion figure.
14
billion figure, not the updated figures that would have produced
expansion.
used the $13 billion figure repeatedly before the public and the
stated he was:
15
disparage the alternatives to prevent an honest and objective
information relied upon by the public and the City Council, CPS
61. As just one example, CPS Energy claimed that the STEP
hour.
62. Yet over the last 20 years Austin saved 700 megawatts
16
kilowatt hour. CPS Energy inflated the cost of saving energy to
STEP program is and whether that success changes the need for
ratings.4
and City Council learned just before the vote on $400 million in
bonding authority that Toshiba had provided the much higher cost
68. The Mayor cancelled the City County funding vote and
damage public support for the project and the chance to pass the
bonding authority.
there has been a serious breach of trust between CPS Energy and
investigation.
information from the Mayor and City Council and the subsequent
Energy staff and besmirch the Mayor and his staff are part of
are conflicting interests between CPS Energy and the City of San
City.
19
76. CPS Energy responded that CPS Energy did not plan to
media.
not be represented.
6 The Mayor does serve as a voting member of the City Public Service Board.
20
RATEPAYER PROTECTION COALITION'S CLAIM FOR FRAUD
80. The actions of CPS Energy and NRG Energy towards the
b. its materiality;
c. its falsity;
plaintiff;
project.
possibility.
f. The City Council did not know the $13 billion estimate
7 Even though Toshiba said that the estimate was outdated, the
direction of an updated estimate was almost certainly going to
be upward and certainly not downward by billions, so that
characterization by Toshiba does not make the new estimate non-
material and does make the assertion of $13 billion without any
caveats false and misleading.
8 The CPS investigative report seeks to portray an informal
22
g. The Mayor had gathered almost all the Council members to
decision-making.
following:
year.
information.
24
1. The City Council vote on the $400 constituted a major
the Board and staff level of CPS Energy at a time when important
25
6. The community essentially has to start all over to
85. The Court can take note of the fact that on October 29,
2009, the San Antonio City Council had scheduled a vote to give
the sale of the bonds would have constituted a criminal act. See
Sarbanes Oxley Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 801 et.seq. Only the leak of
26
I, § 2.
and thereby denied the San Antonio voters their right of self-
government.
art I, § 2.
voters who elect them. CPS Energy and NRG Energy provided false
REMEDIES
27
following remedies:
on the part of CPS Energy to file this suit. That CPS Energy
was false.
financial damage.
30
4. There is a general gulf of distrust between the City
energy future.
2009. In part because upper management was too busy with the
31
awaiting upper management decisions. There are projects
being addressed.
10. CPS Energy and NRG Energy agree in this case that the
32
the threat to the continued viability of the project.
PRAYER
oversee CPS Energy and such other and further relief to which
Respectfully submitted,
33
PLAINTIFF HEREBY DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY
Certificate of Service
34