On September 30, 2011, FERC issued orders denying all requests for rehearing and again determined that SECA charges were not owed by Green Mountain Energy. Numerous parties, including BP Energy, sought judicial review of FERC's orders, and Green Mountain Energy was granted intervenor status in the consolidated appeals. Most appellants subsequently settled with the transmission owners and withdrew their appeals, including BP Energy, which agreed to pay approximately $24 million to the three transmission owners signing the agreement, with another $1 million offered to the remaining PJM transmission owners, should they choose to join the settlement; all chose to do so. FERC approved the settlement, and BP Energy moved to dismiss its appeals; its motions to dismiss were granted by the Court.
Carlsbad Energy Center — On May 21, 2015, the CPUC approved the Carlsbad Energy Center PPTA for a nominally rated 500 MW five unit natural gas peaking plant. On December 7, 2015, three parties filed two petitions for a writ of review with the California Court of Appeal appealing the CPUC's decision. The petitions remain pending. Additionally, on July 30, 2015, the CEC approved an amendment to the design of the Carlsbad Energy Center. On September 22, 2015, the CEC granted rehearing of its decision approving the amendment to permit the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, or CDFW, to file comments on the proposed decision. On November 12, 2015, the CEC issued an order on rehearing affirming its decision approving the amendment. No party appealed the CEC's decision.
California Station Power — As the result of unfavorable final and non-appealable litigation, the Company has accrued a liability associated with its power plants’ consumption of station power in California, after August 30, 2010. The majority of the liability is associated with the Company's Encina, El Segundo, and Long Beach facilities. The Company has established an appropriate reserve and is awaiting final billing decisions from SCE.
Note 24 — Environmental Matters
NRG is subject to a wide range of environmental laws in the development, construction, ownership and operation of projects. These laws generally require that governmental permits and approvals be obtained before construction and during operation of power plants. NRG is also subject to laws regarding the protection of wildlife, including migratory birds, eagles and threatened and endangered species. Environmental laws have become increasingly stringent and NRG expects this trend to continue. The electric generation industry is facing new requirements regarding GHGs, combustion byproducts, water discharge and use, and threatened and endangered species. In general, future laws are expected to require the addition of emissions controls or other environmental controls or to impose certain restrictions on the operations of the Company's facilities, which could have a material effect on the Company's operations.
The EPA finalized CSAPR in 2011, which was intended to replace CAIR in January 2012, to address certain states' obligation to reduce emissions so that downwind states can achieve federal air quality standards. In December 2011, the D.C. Circuit stayed the implementation of CSAPR and then vacated CSAPR in August 2012 but kept CAIR in place until the EPA could replace it. In April 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the D.C. Circuit's decision. In October 2014, the D.C. Circuit lifted the stay of CSAPR. In response, the EPA in November 2014 amended the CSAPR compliance dates. Accordingly, CSAPR replaced CAIR on January 1, 2015. On July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit held that the EPA had exceeded its authority by requiring certain reductions that were not necessary for downwind states to achieve federal standards. Although the D.C. Circuit kept the rule in place, the court ordered the EPA to revise the Phase 2 (or 2017) (i) SO2 budgets for four states including Texas and (ii) ozone-season NOx budgets for 11 states including Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas. The EPA is currently reviewing the decision. In December 2015, the EPA proposed the CSAPR Update Rule using the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, which would reduce the total amount of ozone season NOx as compared with the previously utilized 1997 Ozone NAAQS. If finalized, this proposal would reduce future NOx allocations and/or current banked allowances. While NRG cannot predict the final outcome of this rulemaking, the Company believes its investment in pollution controls and cleaner technologies leave the fleet well-positioned for compliance.
In February 2012, the EPA promulgated standards (the MATS rule) to control emissions of HAPs from coal and oil-fired electric generating units. The rule established limits for mercury, non-mercury metals, certain organics and acid gases, which limits had to be met beginning in April 2015 (with some units getting a 1-year extension). In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Michigan v. EPA, and held that the EPA unreasonably refused to consider costs when it determined that it was "appropriate and necessary" to regulate HAPs emitted by electric generating units. The U.S. Supreme Court did not vacate the MATS rule but rather remanded it to the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings. In November 2015, the EPA proposed a supplemental finding that including a consideration of cost does not alter the EPA's previous determination that it is appropriate and necessary to regulate air toxics, including mercury from power plants. In December 2015, the D.C. Circuit remanded the rule to the EPA without vacatur. While NRG cannot predict the final outcome of this rulemaking, NRG believes that because it has already invested in pollution controls and cleaner technologies, the fleet is well-positioned to comply with the MATS rule.