SEC Filings

10-K
NRG ENERGY, INC. filed this Form 10-K on 02/29/2016
Entire Document
 
                

Energy Plus Holdings — On August 7, 2012, Energy Plus Holdings received a subpoena from the NYAG which generally sought information and business records related to Energy Plus Holdings' sales, marketing and business practices. Energy Plus Holdings provided documents and information to the NYAG. On June 22, 2015, the NYAG issued another subpoena seeking additional information. Energy Plus Holdings is responding to this second subpoena. The Company does not expect the resolution of this matter to have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
Maryland Department of the Environment v. GenOn Chalk Point and GenOn Mid-Atlantic — On January 25, 2013, Food & Water Watch, the Patuxent Riverkeeper and the Potomac Riverkeeper (together, the Citizens Group) sent GenOn Mid-Atlantic a letter alleging that the Chalk Point, Dickerson and Morgantown generating facilities were violating the terms of the three National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits by discharging nitrogen and phosphorous in excess of the limits in each permit. On March 21, 2013, the MDE sent GenOn Mid-Atlantic a similar letter with respect to the Chalk Point and Dickerson generating facilities, threatening to sue within 60 days if the generating facilities were not brought into compliance. On June 11, 2013, the Maryland Attorney General on behalf of the MDE filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging violations of the CWA and Maryland environmental laws related to water. The lawsuit is ongoing and seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties in excess of $100,000. The Company does not expect the resolution of this matter to have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
Midwest Generation New Source Review Litigation — In August 2009, the EPA and the Illinois Attorney General, or the Government Plaintiffs, filed a complaint, or the Governments’ Complaint, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of CAA PSD requirements by Midwest Generation arising from maintenance, repair or replacement projects at six Illinois coal-fired electric generating stations performed by Midwest Generation or ComEd, a prior owner of the stations, including alleged failures to obtain PSD construction permits and to comply with BACT requirements. The Government Plaintiffs also alleged violations of opacity and PM standards at the Midwest Generation plants. Finally, the Government Plaintiffs alleged that Midwest Generation violated certain operating permit requirements under Title V of the CAA allegedly arising from such claimed PSD, opacity and PM emission violations. In addition to seeking penalties of up to $37,500 per violation, per day, the complaint seeks an injunction ordering Midwest Generation to install controls sufficient to meet BACT emission rates at the units subject to the complaint and other remedies, which could go well beyond the requirements of the CPS. Several environmental groups intervened as plaintiffs in this litigation and filed a complaint, or the Intervenors’ Complaint, which alleged opacity, PM and related Title V violations. Midwest Generation filed a motion to dismiss nine of the ten PSD counts in the Governments’ Complaint, and to dismiss the tenth PSD count to the extent the Governments’ Complaint sought civil penalties for that count. The trial court granted the motion in March 2010.
In June 2010, the Government Plaintiffs and Intervenors each filed an amended complaint. The Governments’ Amended Complaint again alleged that Midwest Generation violated PSD (based upon the same projects as alleged in their original complaint, but adding allegations that the Company was liable as the “successor” to ComEd), Title V and opacity and PM standards. It named EME and ComEd as additional defendants and alleged PSD violations (again, premised on the same projects) against them. The Intervenors’ Amended Complaint named only Midwest Generation as a defendant and alleged Title V and opacity/PM violations, as well as one of the ten PSD violations alleged in the Governments’ Amended Complaint. Midwest Generation again moved to dismiss all but one of the Government Plaintiffs’ PSD claims and the related Title V claims. Midwest Generation also filed a motion to dismiss the PSD claim in the Intervenors’ Amended Complaint and the related Title V claims. In March 2011, the trial court granted Midwest Generation’s partial motion to dismiss the Government Plaintiffs’ PSD claims. The trial court denied Midwest Generation’s motion to dismiss the PSD claim asserted in the Intervenors’ Amended Complaint, but noted that the plaintiffs would be required to convince the court that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled. The trial court did not address other counts in the amended complaints that allege violations of opacity and PM emission limitations under the Illinois State Implementation Plan and related Title V claims. The trial court also granted the motions to dismiss the PSD claims asserted against EME and ComEd.
Following the trial court ruling, the Government Plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s dismissals of their PSD claims, including the dismissal of nine of the ten PSD claims against Midwest Generation and of the PSD claims against the other defendants. Those PSD claim dismissals were affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in July 2013. In addition, in 2012, all but one of the environmental groups that had intervened in the case dismissed their claims without prejudice. As a result, only one environmental group remains a plaintiff intervenor in the case. The Company does not expect the resolution of this matter to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

202