Print Page  |  Close Window

SEC Filing Details

NRG ENERGY, INC. filed this Form 10-K on 03/01/2018
Entire Document

Montgomery County Station Power Tax On December 20, 2013, NRG received a letter from Montgomery County, Maryland requesting payment of an energy tax for the consumption of station power at the Dickerson Facility over the previous three years.  Montgomery County seeks payment in the amount of $22 million, which includes tax, interest and penalties.  NRG disputed the applicability of the tax. On December 11, 2015, the Maryland Tax Court reversed Montgomery County's assessment. Montgomery County filed an appeal, and on February 2, 2017, the Montgomery County Circuit Court affirmed the decision of the tax court. On February 17, 2017, Montgomery County filed an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. On February 1, 2018, the court heard oral arguments.
California Station Power As the result of unfavorable final and non-appealable litigation, the Company has accrued a liability associated with consumption of station power at three of the Company’s power plants in California, after August 30, 2010.  In December 2017, subsidiaries of the Company entered into settlements with SCE for the liabilities associated with the Company's El Segundo and Long Beach facilities.  The Company has established an appropriate reserve pending potential regulatory action by SDG&E regarding Encina.
Puente Power Project — On October 5, 2017, the California Energy Commission, or CEC, the agency responsible for permitting the Puente Power Project, issued a statement on behalf of the committee of two Commissioners overseeing the permitting process stating their intention to issue a proposed decision that would deny a permit for the Puente Power Project. On October 16, 2017, NRG filed a motion to suspend the permitting proceeding for at least six months, which was granted on November 3, 2017. During the six month suspension period, which could conceivably be extended, NRG will evaluate the progress of a procurement process initiated by SCE to replace the Puente Power Project.
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. The electric generation industry has been facing requirements regarding GHGs, combustion byproducts, water discharge and use, and threatened and endangered species that have been put in place in recent years. However, under the current U.S. presidential administration, some of these rules are being reconsidered and reviewed. 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 consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Federal and state environmental laws generally have become more stringent over time, although this trend could slow or pause in the near term with respect to federal laws under the current U.S. presidential administration.
The EPA finalized CSAPR in 2011, which was intended to replace CAIR in January 2012, to address certain states' obligations 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. On October 26, 2016, the EPA finalized the CSAPR Update Rule, which reduces future NOx allocations and discounts the current banked allowances to account for the more stringent 2008 Ozone NAAQS and to address the D.C. Circuit's July 2015 decision. This rule has been challenged in the D.C. Circuit. The Company believes its investment in pollution controls and cleaner technologies leave the fleet well-positioned for compliance.