Print Page  |  Close Window

SEC Filing Details

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

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Consider the Constitutionality of Maryland's Generator Contracting Programs — On October 19, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of certain state-directed procurements of new electric generating facilities. The case involves the authority of the Maryland Public Service Commission to direct load-serving utilities in the state to enter into long-term power purchase contracts with a generation developer to encourage the construction of new generation capacity in Maryland. The constitutionality of the long-term contracts was challenged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, which, in an October 24, 2013, decision, found that the contracts violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution because they were both conflict preempted and field preempted by the FPA and the authority that the FPA granted to FERC. On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. A case arising out of New Jersey and raising similar issues was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which also determined that the state-mandated contracts were preempted. After the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Maryland case, the Company filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Court to uphold the right of states to incentivize new generation by directing utilities in the state to enter into long-term contracts — but noted that FERC has both the authority and the statutory obligation to protect wholesale markets by requiring that bids in the wholesale markets reflect costs and by ensuring that uneconomic entry does not distort auction outcomes. The Supreme Court heard oral argument on February 24, 2016. The outcome of this litigation could have broad impacts on whether and how states require utilities to contract with new generation resources, as well as how such contracted resources interact with the FERC-jurisdictional wholesale markets.

U.S. Supreme Court Allows FERC to Retain Jurisdiction Over Demand Response — On January 25, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-2 decision affirming FERC’s ability to exercise jurisdiction over demand response resources seeking to voluntarily participate in the wholesale markets. Additionally, the Supreme Court upheld FERC’s preferred scheme for pricing demand response in the energy market. This case arose out of a May 23, 2014, decision by the D.C. Circuit which vacated FERC’s rules (known as Order No. 745) that set the compensation level for demand response resources participating in the FERC-jurisdictional energy markets. The Court of Appeals had held that the FPA does not authorize FERC to exercise jurisdiction over demand response and that instead demand response is part of the retail market over which the states have jurisdiction. With the Supreme Court’s decision, FERC will resume exercising jurisdiction over demand response, which the Company views as a positive for both its wholesale and distributed businesses.
State Regulation
In Texas, NRG's operations within the ERCOT footprint are not subject to rate regulation by FERC, as they are deemed to operate solely within the ERCOT market and not in interstate commerce. These operations are subject to regulation by the PUCT, as well as to regulation by the NRC with respect to the Company's ownership interest in STP.
In New York, the Company's generation subsidiaries are electric corporations subject to "lightened" regulation by the NYSPSC. As such, the NYSPSC exercises its jurisdictional authority over certain non-rate aspects of the facilities, including safety, retirements, and the issuance of debt secured by recourse to the Company's generation assets located in New York. The Company currently has blanket authorization from the NYSPSC for the issuance of $15 billion of debt. Additionally, the NYSPSC has provided GenOn Bowline with a separate debt authorization of $1.488 billion.
In California, the Company's generation subsidiaries are subject to regulation by the CPUC with regard to certain non-rate aspects of the facilities, including health and safety, outage reporting and other aspects of the facilities' operations. Additionally, the competitiveness of many of NRG's new businesses is dependent on state competition and other policies.
Nuclear Operations
NRG South Texas LP is a 44% owner of a joint undivided interest in STP, the other owners of STP being the City of Austin, Texas (16%) and the City Public Service Board of San Antonio (40%). STP Nuclear Operating Company, or STPNOC, was founded by the then-owners in 1997 to operate the plant and it is the operator licensee and holder of the Facility Operating Licenses NPF-76 and NPF-80. STPNOC is a nonstock, nonprofit, nonmember corporation. Each owner of STP appoints a board member (and the three directors then choose a fourth director who also serves as the chief executive officer of STPNOC). A participation agreement establishes an owners' committee with voting interests consistent with ownership interests.
As a holder of an ownership interest in STP, NRG South Texas LP is an NRC licensee and is subject to NRC regulation. The NRC license gives the Company the right only to possess an interest in STP but not to operate it. As a possession-only licensee, i.e., non-operating co-owner, the NRC's regulation of NRG South Texas LP is primarily focused on the Company's ability to meet its financial and decommissioning funding assurance obligations. In connection with the NRC license, the Company and its subsidiaries have a support agreement to provide up to $120 million to support operations at STP.