Skip to content

Reliant Energy controversies

Controversies tied to this brand in public sources. A listing is not a finding of fault.

Back to profile6 entries

  1. 2024

    Texas billing compliance proceeding

    Texas regulators alleged that Reliant Energy Retail Services failed to provide 701 monthly bills to 499 residential and small-commercial customers between January 2022 and April 2023. The reported resolution included a $50,100 administrative penalty and a $20,000 bill-payment assistance donation.

  2. 2021

    Pennsylvania unauthorized-switching settlement

    Reliant Energy Northeast, also identified by the commission as NRG Home, settled a Pennsylvania investigation into alleged unauthorized customer switching associated with in-person and event solicitations. The resolution included refunds, monitoring, complaint reporting, and a civil penalty.

  3. 2017

    Texas customer-complaint activity

    The Public Utility Commission of Texas received 118 complaints against Reliant during the last six months of 2017, including complaints categorized as 22 slamming and two cramming violations.

  4. 2005

    California electricity-crisis settlement

    California Attorney General Bill Lockyer announced a $460 million settlement with Reliant Energy concerning claims that power and energy prices had been manipulated during the crisis. The reported combined value of Reliant-related settlements connected with the crisis was $524.6 million.

  5. 2004

    California electricity-crisis indictment

    A federal grand jury indicted Reliant Energy Services and four officers or employees over allegations connected with California wholesale electricity prices during the 2000–2001 crisis. The allegations included conspiracy, wire fraud, and commodities manipulation; the indictment was not itself a finding of guilt.

  6. 2003

    SEC round-trip energy-trading matter

    The SEC issued a settled cease-and-desist order involving Reliant Resources and Reliant Energy over trades made between 1999 and 2001 that regulators said were designed to increase reported trading volumes and improve industry rankings. The companies settled without admitting or denying the findings.