Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies This footnote should be read in conjunction with the complete description under Note 22, Commitments and Contingencies, to the Company's 2017 Form 10-K. Commitments First Lien Structure NRG has granted first liens to certain counterparties on a substantial portion of the Company's assets, excluding assets acquired in the GenOn and EME (including Midwest Generation) acquisitions, assets held by NRG Yield, Inc. and NRG's assets that have project-level financing, to reduce the amount of cash collateral and letters of credit that it would otherwise be required to post from time to time to support its obligations under out-of-the-money hedge agreements for forward sales of power or MWh equivalents. The Company's lien counterparties may have a claim on NRG's assets to the extent market prices exceed the hedged price. As of March 31, 2018, hedges under the first lien were in-the-money for NRG on a counterparty aggregate basis. Contingencies The Company's material legal proceedings are described below. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to these legal proceedings and intends to defend them vigorously. NRG records reserves for estimated losses from contingencies when information available indicates that a loss is probable and the amount of the loss, or range of loss, can be reasonably estimated. As applicable, the Company has established an adequate reserve for the matters discussed below. In addition, legal costs are expensed as incurred. Management has assessed each of the following matters based on current information and made a judgment concerning its potential outcome, considering the nature of the claim, the amount and nature of damages sought, and the probability of success. Unless specified below, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these legal proceedings or reasonably estimate the scope or amount of any associated costs and potential liabilities. As additional information becomes available, management adjusts its assessment and estimates of such contingencies accordingly. Because litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable rulings or developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of the Company's liabilities and contingencies could be at amounts that are different from its currently recorded reserves and that such difference could be material. In addition to the legal proceedings noted below, NRG and its subsidiaries are party to other litigation or legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. In management's opinion, the disposition of these ordinary course matters will not materially adversely affect NRG's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Midwest Generation Asbestos Liabilities — The Company, through its subsidiary, Midwest Generation, may be subject to potential asbestos liabilities as a result of its acquisition of EME. The Company is currently analyzing the scope of potential liability as it may relate to Midwest Generation. The Company believes that it has established an adequate reserve for these cases. On March 27, 2018, ComEd filed a Motion to Compel Payments of Claims seeking $61 million related to asbestos liabilities. On April 25, 2018, NRG filed an Omnibus Objection to All Remaining Claims of ComEd and Exelon. 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. 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. On March 9, 2018, the Consent Decree which provides that Midwest Generation will be required to (x) pay $500,000 to each of the State of Illinois and the Federal Government and (y) make and maintain certain operational improvements was lodged with the court. Telephone Consumer Protection Act Purported Class Actions — Three purported class action lawsuits have been filed against NRG Residential Solar Solutions, LLC — one in California and two in New Jersey. The plaintiffs generally allege misrepresentation by the call agents and violations of the TCPA, claiming that the defendants engaged in a telemarketing campaign placing unsolicited calls to individuals on the “Do Not Call List.” The plaintiffs seek statutory damages of up to $1,500 per plaintiff, actual damages and equitable relief. On June 22, 2017, plaintiffs in the California case filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to substitute new plaintiffs. Defendants filed an opposition to this motion on June 26, 2017. The court granted plaintiffs' motion to substitute new plaintiffs and on August 1, 2017, defendants filed an answer to the second amended complaint. On August 31, 2017, the court in the California case agreed that the litigation should be stayed pending final court approval of the New Jersey settlement. On July 12, 2017, the parties in the New Jersey action reached an agreement in principle to resolve the class allegations which was confirmed by a term sheet signed by the parties on July 28, 2017. On September 27, 2017, plaintiffs in the New Jersey case filed their motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement which was approved by the court on November 17, 2017. On May 1, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class action settlement. California Department of Water Resources and San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Sunrise Power Company LLC — On January 29, 2016, CDWR and SDG&E filed a lawsuit against Sunrise Power Company, along with NRG and Chevron Power Corporation. In June 2001, CDWR and Sunrise entered into a 10-year PPA under which Sunrise would construct and operate a generating facility and provide power to CDWR. At the time the PPA was entered into, Sunrise had a transportation services agreement, or TSA, to purchase natural gas from Kern River through April 30, 2018. In August 2003, CDWR entered into an agreement with Sunrise and Kern River in which CDWR accepted assignment of the TSA through the term of the PPA. After the PPA expired, Kern River demanded that any reassignment be to a party which met certain creditworthiness standards which Sunrise did not. As such, the plaintiffs brought this lawsuit against the defendants alleging breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing and improper distributions. Plaintiffs generally claim damages of $1.2 million per month for the remaining 70 months of the TSA. On April 20, 2016, the defendants filed objections in response to the plaintiffs' complaint. The objections were granted on June 14, 2016; however, the plaintiffs were allowed to file amended complaints on July 1, 2016. On July 27, 2016, defendants filed objections to the amended complaints. On November 18, 2016, the court sustained the objections and allowed plaintiffs another opportunity to file a second amended lawsuit which they did on January 13, 2017. On April 21, 2017, the court issued an order sustaining the objections without leave to amend. On July 14, 2017, CDWR filed a notice of appeal. On January 10, 2018, CDWR filed its appellate brief. Defendants filed their opposition brief on April 10, 2018. Braun v. NRG Yield, Inc. — On April 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit against NRG Yield, Inc., the current and former members of its board of directors individually, and other parties in California Superior Court in Kern County, CA. Plaintiffs allege various violations of the Securities Act due to the defendants’ alleged failure to disclose material facts related to low wind production prior to the NRG Yield, Inc.'s June 22, 2015 Class C common stock offering. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, rescission, attorney’s fees and costs. The Defendants filed demurrers and a motion challenging jurisdiction on October 18, 2016. The case is currently stayed by agreement of the parties. On May 2, 2018, the court approved a joint stipulation which provides: (i) plaintiffs' opposition brief is due on or before July 30, 2018; (ii) defendants' reply brief is due on or before October 5, 2018; and (iii) a hearing on the motions is scheduled on October 30, 2018. Griffoul v. NRG Residential Solar Solutions — On February 28, 2017, plaintiffs, consisting of New Jersey residential solar customers, filed a purported class action lawsuit in New Jersey state court. Plaintiffs allege violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Action and Truth-in-Consumer Contracts, Warranty and Notice Act with regard to certain provisions of their residential solar contracts. The plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief as to the proper allocation of the solar renewable energy credits. On June 6, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration or dismiss the lawsuit. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on June 29, 2017. On July 14, 2017, the court denied NRG's motion to compel arbitration or dismiss the case. On July 25, 2017, NRG filed a motion for reconsideration of the appeal, which was denied. On August 22, 2017, NRG filed a notice of appeal. After fully briefing the appeal, oral argument was heard on April 24, 2018. Rice v. NRG — On April 14, 2017, plaintiffs filed a purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against NRG, First Energy Corporation and Matt Canastrale Contracting, Inc. Plaintiffs generally claim personal injury, trespass, nuisance and property damage related to the disposal of coal ash from GenOn's Elrama Power Plant and First Energy’s Mitchell and Hatfield Power Plants. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, medical monitoring and remediation of their property. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 14, 2017. On October 20, 2017, NRG filed its answers and affirmative defenses. Washington-St. Tammany and Claiborne Electric Cooperative v. LaGen — On June 28, 2017, plaintiffs Washington-St. Tammany Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Claiborne Electric Cooperative, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Louisiana Generating, L.L.C., or LaGen, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs claim breach of contract against LaGen for allegedly improperly charging the plaintiffs for costs related to the installation and maintenance of certain pollution control technology. Plaintiffs seek damages for the alleged improper charges and a declaration as to which charges are proper under the contract. On September 14, 2017, the court issued a scheduling order setting this case for trial on October 21, 2019. LaGen filed its answer and affirmative defenses on November 17, 2017. GenOn Chapter 11 Cases — On the Petition Date, the GenOn Entities filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court. Under the Restructuring Support Agreement to which the GenOn Entities, NRG and certain of GenOn's and GenOn Americas Generation's senior unsecured noteholders are parties, each of them supported the Bankruptcy Court's approval of the plan of reorganization. GenOn has a customary "fiduciary out" under the Restructuring Support Agreement. If the plan of reorganization is not consummated, NRG may not be entitled to the benefits of the Settlement Agreement provided under the Restructuring Support Agreement and it will remain subject to any claims of GenOn and the noteholders, including claims relating to or arising out of any shared services and any other relationships or transactions between the companies. See Note 3, Discontinued Operations and Dispositions, for additional information related to the Chapter 11 Cases. GenOn Noteholders' Lawsuit — On December 13, 2016, certain indenture trustees for an ad hoc group of holders, or the Noteholders, of the GenOn Energy, Inc. 7.875% Senior Notes due 2017, 9.500% Notes due 2018, and 9.875% Notes due 2020, and the GenOn Americas Generation, LLC 8.50% Senior Notes due 2021 and 9.125% Senior Notes due 2031, along with certain of the Noteholders, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware against NRG and GenOn alleging certain claims related to the Services Agreement between NRG and GenOn. Plaintiffs generally seek return of all monies paid under the Services Agreement and any other damages that the court deems appropriate. On February 3, 2017, the court entered an order approving a Standstill Agreement whereby the parties agreed to suspend all deadlines in the case until March 1, 2017. The Standstill Agreement terminated on March 1, 2017. On April 30, 2017, the Noteholders filed an amended complaint that asserts (i) additional fraudulent transfer claims in relation to GenOn’s sale of the Marsh Landing project to NRG Yield LLC, (ii) alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by certain current and former officers and directors of GenOn in relation to the Services Agreement and the alleged usurpation of corporate opportunities concerning the Mandalay and Canal projects and (iii) claims against NRG for allegedly aiding and abetting such claimed breaches of fiduciary duties. In addition to NRG and GenOn, the amended complaint names NRG Yield LLC and certain current and former officers and directors of GenOn as defendants. The plaintiffs, among other things, generally seek return of all monies paid under the services agreement and any other damages that the court deems appropriate. On December 14, 2017, a settlement agreement was executed between GenOn and NRG which should ultimately resolve this lawsuit. Morgantown v. GenOn Mid-Atlantic — On June 8, 2017, Morgantown and Dickerson Owner Lessors filed a lawsuit against GenOn Mid-Atlantic, LLC, NRG North America LLC, GenOn Americas Generation, LLC, NRG Americas, Inc., GenOn Energy Holdings, Inc., GenOn Energy, Inc., and NRG Energy, Inc. in New York State Supreme Court. The plaintiffs allege that they were overcharged by defendants for certain services outlined in a Services Agreement and that defendants caused a Qualified Credit Support portion of a Participation Agreement, or QCS Agreement, to be violated by causing the transfer of certain money outside the allowable confines set forth in the QCS Agreement. In addition, plaintiffs claim that the transfers were unfairly executed and done so in an effort to defraud plaintiffs and hinder their ability to continue to do business. As such, plaintiffs seek, among other things, the return of certain transferred funds and service charges paid and to bar defendants from executing additional transfers on plaintiffs’ behalf. On November 7, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order estimating the claims to be valued at $0. On December 14, 2017, a settlement agreement was executed between GenOn and NRG. On April 27, 2018, the parties executed a mutual release which in conjunction with the settlement agreement resolved this lawsuit. BTEC v. NRG Texas Power — On July 18, 2017, BTEC New Albany LLC, or BTEC, filed a lawsuit against NRG Texas Power LLC, or NRG Texas Power, in the Harris County District Court in Texas. On January 15, 2013, the parties entered into a Membership Interest and Purchase Agreement, or MIPA, whereby BTEC agreed to dismantle, transport and rebuild an electric power generation facility at the former P.H. Robinson Electric Generating Station in Bacliff, Texas. The MIPA required BTEC to meet a Guaranteed Commercial Completion Date of May 31, 2016. But even a year later, BTEC had not satisfied all of the contractually-required acceptance criteria. As a result and given that the MIPA expiration date passed on May 31, 2017, NRG elected to terminate the contract in June 2017. BTEC claims that NRG Texas Power breached the MIPA by improperly terminating it, and seeks a declaratory judgment as to the rights and obligations of the parties. In addition, BTEC seeks damages, interest and attorney’s fees. On August 14, 2017, NRG Texas Power served its answer to the lawsuit. On September 7, 2017, NRG Texas Power filed a counterclaim seeking damages in excess of $48 million. On March 21, 2018, BTEC filed a Second Amended Petition in which they supplemented their previous claims and added a claim for specific performance. GenOn Related Contingencies Actions Pursued by MC Asset Recovery — With Mirant Corporation's emergence from bankruptcy protection in 2006, certain actions filed by GenOn Energy Holdings and some of its subsidiaries against third parties were transferred to MC Asset Recovery, a wholly owned subsidiary of GenOn Energy Holdings. MC Asset Recovery is governed by a manager who is independent of NRG and GenOn. MC Asset Recovery is a disregarded entity for income tax purposes. Under the remaining action transferred to MC Asset Recovery, MC Asset Recovery seeks to recover damages from Commerzbank AG and various other banks, or the Commerzbank Defendants, for alleged fraudulent transfers that occurred prior to Mirant's bankruptcy proceedings. In December 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed MC Asset Recovery's complaint against the Commerzbank Defendants. In January 2011, MC Asset Recovery appealed the District Court's dismissal of its complaint against the Commerzbank Defendants to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, or the Fifth Circuit. In March 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal and reinstated MC Asset Recovery's amended complaint against the Commerzbank Defendants. On December 10, 2015, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Commerzbank Defendants. On December 29, 2015, MC Asset Recovery filed a notice to appeal this judgment with the Fifth Circuit. On June 1, 2017, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment. On June 12, 2017, MC Asset Recovery petitioned the Fifth Circuit for rehearing. The petition for rehearing was denied and a court order and judgment affirming the District Court's judgments was entered on July 17, 2017. The bankruptcy court is scheduled to hear a Motion for a Final Decree in the Mirant bankruptcy on June 13, 2018. Natural Gas Litigation — GenOn is party to several lawsuits, certain of which are class action lawsuits, in state and federal courts in Kansas, Missouri, Nevada and Wisconsin. These lawsuits were filed in the aftermath of the California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001 and the resulting FERC investigations and relate to alleged conduct to increase natural gas prices in violation of state antitrust law and similar laws. The lawsuits seek treble or punitive damages, restitution and/or expenses. The lawsuits also name as parties a number of energy companies unaffiliated with NRG. In July 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, which was handling four of the five cases, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against GenOn in those cases. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, or the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the decision of the District Court. GenOn along with the other defendants in the lawsuit filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the Ninth Circuit's decision and the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition. On April 21, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s holding that plaintiffs’ state antitrust law claims are not field-preempted by the federal Natural Gas Act and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court left open whether the claims were preempted on the basis of conflict preemption. The U.S. Supreme Court directed that the case be remanded to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada for further proceedings. On March 7, 2016, class plaintiffs filed their motions for class certification. On March 30, 2017, the court denied the plaintiffs' motions for class certification. On April 13, 2017, the plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit for interlocutory review of the court’s order denying class certification. On June 13, 2017, the Ninth Circuit granted plaintiffs' petition for interlocutory review. The appeal is fully briefed. In May 2016 in one of the Kansas cases, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Subsequently in December 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit. The appeal was argued on February 16, 2018. On March 27, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision. On April 10, 2018, the defendants filed a petition for rehearing. GenOn has agreed to indemnify CenterPoint against certain losses relating to these lawsuits. In September 2012, the State of Nevada Supreme Court, which was handling the remaining case, affirmed dismissal by the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada of all plaintiffs' claims against GenOn. In February 2013, the plaintiffs in the Nevada case filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, thereby ending one of the five lawsuits. On February 26, 2018, GenOn filed objections to the proofs of claim filed in the Chapter 11 Cases by all of the plaintiffs in each of the four cases. GenOn filed that same day a motion seeking a schedule for a series of hearings to resolve the objections and asking the Bankruptcy Court to estimate all of the proofs of claim at zero dollars. The plaintiffs have objected to the request for Bankruptcy Court to estimate the proofs of claim. The Bankruptcy Court ordered briefing as to whether it had authority to resolve these claims. Potomac River Environmental Investigation — In March 2013, NRG Potomac River LLC, a subsidiary of GenOn, received notice that the District of Columbia Department of Environment (now renamed the Department of Energy and Environment, or DOEE) was investigating potential discharges to the Potomac River originating from the Potomac River Generating facility site, a site where the generation facility is no longer in operation. In connection with that investigation, DOEE served a civil subpoena on NRG Potomac River LLC requesting information related to the site and potential discharges occurring from the site. NRG Potomac River LLC provided various responsive materials. In January 2016, DOEE advised NRG Potomac River LLC that DOEE believed various environmental violations had occurred as a result of discharges DOEE believes occurred to the Potomac River from the Potomac River Generating facility site and as a result of associated failures to accurately or sufficiently report such discharges. DOEE has indicated it believes that penalties are appropriate in light of the violations. NRG Potomac River LLC is currently reviewing the information provided by DOEE. Natixis v. GenOn Mid-Atlantic — On February 16, 2018, Natixis Funding Corp. and Natixis, New York Branch filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against GenOn Mid-Atlantic, the owner lessors under GenOn Mid-Atlantic’s operating leases of the Dickerson and Morgantown coal generation units, and the lease indenture trustee under those leases. The plaintiffs’ allegations against GenOn Mid-Atlantic relate to a payment agreement between GenOn Mid-Atlantic and Natixis Funding Corp. to procure credit support for the payment of certain lease payments owed pursuant to the GenOn Mid-Atlantic operating leases for Morgantown and Dickerson. The plaintiffs seek approximately $34 million in damages arising from GenOn Mid-Atlantic’s purported breach of certain warranties in the payment agreement. On April 2, 2018, GenOn Mid-Atlantic removed the allegations against it to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On April 11, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a briefing schedule on a forthcoming motion to remand by Natixis Funding Corp. and a forthcoming motion to transfer by GenOn Mid-Atlantic.

Commitments and Contingencies

This footnote should be read in conjunction with the complete description under Note 22, Commitments and Contingencies, to the Company's 2017 Form 10-K.

Commitments

First Lien Structure

NRG has granted first liens to certain counterparties on a substantial portion of the Company's assets, excluding assets acquired in the GenOn and EME (including Midwest Generation) acquisitions, assets held by NRG Yield, Inc. and NRG's assets that have project-level financing, to reduce the amount of cash collateral and letters of credit that it would otherwise be required to post from time to time to support its obligations under out-of-the-money hedge agreements for forward sales of power or MWh equivalents. The Company's lien counterparties may have a claim on NRG's assets to the extent market prices exceed the hedged price. As of March 31, 2018, hedges under the first lien were in-the-money for NRG on a counterparty aggregate basis.

Contingencies

The Company's material legal proceedings are described below. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to these legal proceedings and intends to defend them vigorously. NRG records reserves for estimated losses from contingencies when information available indicates that a loss is probable and the amount of the loss, or range of loss, can be reasonably estimated. As applicable, the Company has established an adequate reserve for the matters discussed below. In addition, legal costs are expensed as incurred. Management has assessed each of the following matters based on current information and made a judgment concerning its potential outcome, considering the nature of the claim, the amount and nature of damages sought, and the probability of success. Unless specified below, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these legal proceedings or reasonably estimate the scope or amount of any associated costs and potential liabilities. As additional information becomes available, management adjusts its assessment and estimates of such contingencies accordingly. Because litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable rulings or developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of the Company's liabilities and contingencies could be at amounts that are different from its currently recorded reserves and that such difference could be material.

In addition to the legal proceedings noted below, NRG and its subsidiaries are party to other litigation or legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. In management's opinion, the disposition of these ordinary course matters will not materially adversely affect NRG's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Midwest Generation Asbestos Liabilities — The Company, through its subsidiary, Midwest Generation, may be subject to potential asbestos liabilities as a result of its acquisition of EME. The Company is currently analyzing the scope of potential liability as it may relate to Midwest Generation. The Company believes that it has established an adequate reserve for these cases. On March 27, 2018, ComEd filed a Motion to Compel Payments of Claims seeking $61 million related to asbestos liabilities. On April 25, 2018, NRG filed an Omnibus Objection to All Remaining Claims of ComEd and Exelon.

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. 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. On March 9, 2018, the Consent Decree which provides that Midwest Generation will be required to (x) pay $500,000 to each of the State of Illinois and the Federal Government and (y) make and maintain certain operational improvements was lodged with the court.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act Purported Class Actions — Three purported class action lawsuits have been filed against NRG Residential Solar Solutions, LLC — one in California and two in New Jersey. The plaintiffs generally allege misrepresentation by the call agents and violations of the TCPA, claiming that the defendants engaged in a telemarketing campaign placing unsolicited calls to individuals on the “Do Not Call List.” The plaintiffs seek statutory damages of up to $1,500 per plaintiff, actual damages and equitable relief. On June 22, 2017, plaintiffs in the California case filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to substitute new plaintiffs. Defendants filed an opposition to this motion on June 26, 2017. The court granted plaintiffs' motion to substitute new plaintiffs and on August 1, 2017, defendants filed an answer to the second amended complaint. On August 31, 2017, the court in the California case agreed that the litigation should be stayed pending final court approval of the New Jersey settlement. On July 12, 2017, the parties in the New Jersey action reached an agreement in principle to resolve the class allegations which was confirmed by a term sheet signed by the parties on July 28, 2017. On September 27, 2017, plaintiffs in the New Jersey case filed their motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement which was approved by the court on November 17, 2017. On May 1, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class action settlement.

California Department of Water Resources and San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Sunrise Power Company LLC — On January 29, 2016, CDWR and SDG&E filed a lawsuit against Sunrise Power Company, along with NRG and Chevron Power Corporation. In June 2001, CDWR and Sunrise entered into a 10-year PPA under which Sunrise would construct and operate a generating facility and provide power to CDWR. At the time the PPA was entered into, Sunrise had a transportation services agreement, or TSA, to purchase natural gas from Kern River through April 30, 2018. In August 2003, CDWR entered into an agreement with Sunrise and Kern River in which CDWR accepted assignment of the TSA through the term of the PPA. After the PPA expired, Kern River demanded that any reassignment be to a party which met certain creditworthiness standards which Sunrise did not. As such, the plaintiffs brought this lawsuit against the defendants alleging breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing and improper distributions. Plaintiffs generally claim damages of $1.2 million per month for the remaining 70 months of the TSA. On April 20, 2016, the defendants filed objections in response to the plaintiffs' complaint. The objections were granted on June 14, 2016; however, the plaintiffs were allowed to file amended complaints on July 1, 2016. On July 27, 2016, defendants filed objections to the amended complaints. On November 18, 2016, the court sustained the objections and allowed plaintiffs another opportunity to file a second amended lawsuit which they did on January 13, 2017. On April 21, 2017, the court issued an order sustaining the objections without leave to amend. On July 14, 2017, CDWR filed a notice of appeal. On January 10, 2018, CDWR filed its appellate brief. Defendants filed their opposition brief on April 10, 2018.

Braun v. NRG Yield, Inc. — On April 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit against NRG Yield, Inc., the current and former members of its board of directors individually, and other parties in California Superior Court in Kern County, CA. Plaintiffs allege various violations of the Securities Act due to the defendants’ alleged failure to disclose material facts related to low wind production prior to the NRG Yield, Inc.'s June 22, 2015 Class C common stock offering. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, rescission, attorney’s fees and costs. The Defendants filed demurrers and a motion challenging jurisdiction on October 18, 2016. The case is currently stayed by agreement of the parties. On May 2, 2018, the court approved a joint stipulation which provides: (i) plaintiffs' opposition brief is due on or before July 30, 2018; (ii) defendants' reply brief is due on or before October 5, 2018; and (iii) a hearing on the motions is scheduled on October 30, 2018.

Griffoul v. NRG Residential Solar Solutions — On February 28, 2017, plaintiffs, consisting of New Jersey residential solar customers, filed a purported class action lawsuit in New Jersey state court. Plaintiffs allege violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Action and Truth-in-Consumer Contracts, Warranty and Notice Act with regard to certain provisions of their residential solar contracts. The plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief as to the proper allocation of the solar renewable energy credits. On June 6, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration or dismiss the lawsuit. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on June 29, 2017. On July 14, 2017, the court denied NRG's motion to compel arbitration or dismiss the case. On July 25, 2017, NRG filed a motion for reconsideration of the appeal, which was denied. On August 22, 2017, NRG filed a notice of appeal. After fully briefing the appeal, oral argument was heard on April 24, 2018.

Rice v. NRG — On April 14, 2017, plaintiffs filed a purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against NRG, First Energy Corporation and Matt Canastrale Contracting, Inc. Plaintiffs generally claim personal injury, trespass, nuisance and property damage related to the disposal of coal ash from GenOn's Elrama Power Plant and First Energy’s Mitchell and Hatfield Power Plants. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, medical monitoring and remediation of their property. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 14, 2017. On October 20, 2017, NRG filed its answers and affirmative defenses.

Washington-St. Tammany and Claiborne Electric Cooperative v. LaGen — On June 28, 2017, plaintiffs Washington-St. Tammany Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Claiborne Electric Cooperative, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Louisiana Generating, L.L.C., or LaGen, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs claim breach of contract against LaGen for allegedly improperly charging the plaintiffs for costs related to the installation and maintenance of certain pollution control technology. Plaintiffs seek damages for the alleged improper charges and a declaration as to which charges are proper under the contract. On September 14, 2017, the court issued a scheduling order setting this case for trial on October 21, 2019. LaGen filed its answer and affirmative defenses on November 17, 2017.

GenOn Chapter 11 Cases — On the Petition Date, the GenOn Entities filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court. Under the Restructuring Support Agreement to which the GenOn Entities, NRG and certain of GenOn's and GenOn Americas Generation's senior unsecured noteholders are parties, each of them supported the Bankruptcy Court's approval of the plan of reorganization. GenOn has a customary "fiduciary out" under the Restructuring Support Agreement. If the plan of reorganization is not consummated, NRG may not be entitled to the benefits of the Settlement Agreement provided under the Restructuring Support Agreement and it will remain subject to any claims of GenOn and the noteholders, including claims relating to or arising out of any shared services and any other relationships or transactions between the companies. See Note 3, Discontinued Operations and Dispositions, for additional information related to the Chapter 11 Cases.

GenOn Noteholders' Lawsuit — On December 13, 2016, certain indenture trustees for an ad hoc group of holders, or the Noteholders, of the GenOn Energy, Inc. 7.875% Senior Notes due 2017, 9.500% Notes due 2018, and 9.875% Notes due 2020, and the GenOn Americas Generation, LLC 8.50% Senior Notes due 2021 and 9.125% Senior Notes due 2031, along with certain of the Noteholders, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware against NRG and GenOn alleging certain claims related to the Services Agreement between NRG and GenOn. Plaintiffs generally seek return of all monies paid under the Services Agreement and any other damages that the court deems appropriate. On February 3, 2017, the court entered an order approving a Standstill Agreement whereby the parties agreed to suspend all deadlines in the case until March 1, 2017. The Standstill Agreement terminated on March 1, 2017. On April 30, 2017, the Noteholders filed an amended complaint that asserts (i) additional fraudulent transfer claims in relation to GenOn’s sale of the Marsh Landing project to NRG Yield LLC, (ii) alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by certain current and former officers and directors of GenOn in relation to the Services Agreement and the alleged usurpation of corporate opportunities concerning the Mandalay and Canal projects and (iii) claims against NRG for allegedly aiding and abetting such claimed breaches of fiduciary duties. In addition to NRG and GenOn, the amended complaint names NRG Yield LLC and certain current and former officers and directors of GenOn as defendants. The plaintiffs, among other things, generally seek return of all monies paid under the services agreement and any other damages that the court deems appropriate. On December 14, 2017, a settlement agreement was executed between GenOn and NRG which should ultimately resolve this lawsuit.

Morgantown v. GenOn Mid-Atlantic — On June 8, 2017, Morgantown and Dickerson Owner Lessors filed a lawsuit against GenOn Mid-Atlantic, LLC, NRG North America LLC, GenOn Americas Generation, LLC, NRG Americas, Inc., GenOn Energy Holdings, Inc., GenOn Energy, Inc., and NRG Energy, Inc. in New York State Supreme Court. The plaintiffs allege that they were overcharged by defendants for certain services outlined in a Services Agreement and that defendants caused a Qualified Credit Support portion of a Participation Agreement, or QCS Agreement, to be violated by causing the transfer of certain money outside the allowable confines set forth in the QCS Agreement. In addition, plaintiffs claim that the transfers were unfairly executed and done so in an effort to defraud plaintiffs and hinder their ability to continue to do business. As such, plaintiffs seek, among other things, the return of certain transferred funds and service charges paid and to bar defendants from executing additional transfers on plaintiffs’ behalf. On November 7, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order estimating the claims to be valued at $0. On December 14, 2017, a settlement agreement was executed between GenOn and NRG. On April 27, 2018, the parties executed a mutual release which in conjunction with the settlement agreement resolved this lawsuit.

BTEC v. NRG Texas Power — On July 18, 2017, BTEC New Albany LLC, or BTEC, filed a lawsuit against NRG Texas Power LLC, or NRG Texas Power, in the Harris County District Court in Texas. On January 15, 2013, the parties entered into a Membership Interest and Purchase Agreement, or MIPA, whereby BTEC agreed to dismantle, transport and rebuild an electric power generation facility at the former P.H. Robinson Electric Generating Station in Bacliff, Texas. The MIPA required BTEC to meet a Guaranteed Commercial Completion Date of May 31, 2016. But even a year later, BTEC had not satisfied all of the contractually-required acceptance criteria. As a result and given that the MIPA expiration date passed on May 31, 2017, NRG elected to terminate the contract in June 2017. BTEC claims that NRG Texas Power breached the MIPA by improperly terminating it, and seeks a declaratory judgment as to the rights and obligations of the parties. In addition, BTEC seeks damages, interest and attorney’s fees. On August 14, 2017, NRG Texas Power served its answer to the lawsuit. On September 7, 2017, NRG Texas Power filed a counterclaim seeking damages in excess of $48 million. On March 21, 2018, BTEC filed a Second Amended Petition in which they supplemented their previous claims and added a claim for specific performance.

GenOn Related Contingencies

Actions Pursued by MC Asset Recovery — With Mirant Corporation's emergence from bankruptcy protection in 2006, certain actions filed by GenOn Energy Holdings and some of its subsidiaries against third parties were transferred to MC Asset Recovery, a wholly owned subsidiary of GenOn Energy Holdings. MC Asset Recovery is governed by a manager who is independent of NRG and GenOn. MC Asset Recovery is a disregarded entity for income tax purposes. Under the remaining action transferred to MC Asset Recovery, MC Asset Recovery seeks to recover damages from Commerzbank AG and various other banks, or the Commerzbank Defendants, for alleged fraudulent transfers that occurred prior to Mirant's bankruptcy proceedings. In December 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed MC Asset Recovery's complaint against the Commerzbank Defendants. In January 2011, MC Asset Recovery appealed the District Court's dismissal of its complaint against the Commerzbank Defendants to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, or the Fifth Circuit. In March 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal and reinstated MC Asset Recovery's amended complaint against the Commerzbank Defendants. On December 10, 2015, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Commerzbank Defendants. On December 29, 2015, MC Asset Recovery filed a notice to appeal this judgment with the Fifth Circuit. On June 1, 2017, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment. On June 12, 2017, MC Asset Recovery petitioned the Fifth Circuit for rehearing. The petition for rehearing was denied and a court order and judgment affirming the District Court's judgments was entered on July 17, 2017. The bankruptcy court is scheduled to hear a Motion for a Final Decree in the Mirant bankruptcy on June 13, 2018.

Natural Gas Litigation — GenOn is party to several lawsuits, certain of which are class action lawsuits, in state and federal courts in Kansas, Missouri, Nevada and Wisconsin. These lawsuits were filed in the aftermath of the California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001 and the resulting FERC investigations and relate to alleged conduct to increase natural gas prices in violation of state antitrust law and similar laws. The lawsuits seek treble or punitive damages, restitution and/or expenses. The lawsuits also name as parties a number of energy companies unaffiliated with NRG. In July 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, which was handling four of the five cases, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against GenOn in those cases. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, or the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the decision of the District Court. GenOn along with the other defendants in the lawsuit filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the Ninth Circuit's decision and the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition. On April 21, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s holding that plaintiffs’ state antitrust law claims are not field-preempted by the federal Natural Gas Act and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court left open whether the claims were preempted on the basis of conflict preemption. The U.S. Supreme Court directed that the case be remanded to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada for further proceedings. On March 7, 2016, class plaintiffs filed their motions for class certification. On March 30, 2017, the court denied the plaintiffs' motions for class certification. On April 13, 2017, the plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit for interlocutory review of the court’s order denying class certification. On June 13, 2017, the Ninth Circuit granted plaintiffs' petition for interlocutory review. The appeal is fully briefed.

In May 2016 in one of the Kansas cases, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Subsequently in December 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit. The appeal was argued on February 16, 2018. On March 27, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision. On April 10, 2018, the defendants filed a petition for rehearing. GenOn has agreed to indemnify CenterPoint against certain losses relating to these lawsuits.

In September 2012, the State of Nevada Supreme Court, which was handling the remaining case, affirmed dismissal by the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada of all plaintiffs' claims against GenOn. In February 2013, the plaintiffs in the Nevada case filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, thereby ending one of the five lawsuits.

On February 26, 2018, GenOn filed objections to the proofs of claim filed in the Chapter 11 Cases by all of the plaintiffs in each of the four cases. GenOn filed that same day a motion seeking a schedule for a series of hearings to resolve the objections and asking the Bankruptcy Court to estimate all of the proofs of claim at zero dollars. The plaintiffs have objected to the request for Bankruptcy Court to estimate the proofs of claim. The Bankruptcy Court ordered briefing as to whether it had authority to resolve these claims.

Potomac River Environmental Investigation — In March 2013, NRG Potomac River LLC, a subsidiary of GenOn, received notice that the District of Columbia Department of Environment (now renamed the Department of Energy and Environment, or DOEE) was investigating potential discharges to the Potomac River originating from the Potomac River Generating facility site, a site where the generation facility is no longer in operation. In connection with that investigation, DOEE served a civil subpoena on NRG Potomac River LLC requesting information related to the site and potential discharges occurring from the site. NRG Potomac River LLC provided various responsive materials. In January 2016, DOEE advised NRG Potomac River LLC that DOEE believed various environmental violations had occurred as a result of discharges DOEE believes occurred to the Potomac River from the Potomac River Generating facility site and as a result of associated failures to accurately or sufficiently report such discharges. DOEE has indicated it believes that penalties are appropriate in light of the violations. NRG Potomac River LLC is currently reviewing the information provided by DOEE.

Natixis v. GenOn Mid-Atlantic — On February 16, 2018, Natixis Funding Corp. and Natixis, New York Branch filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against GenOn Mid-Atlantic, the owner lessors under GenOn Mid-Atlantic’s operating leases of the Dickerson and Morgantown coal generation units, and the lease indenture trustee under those leases. The plaintiffs’ allegations against GenOn Mid-Atlantic relate to a payment agreement between GenOn Mid-Atlantic and Natixis Funding Corp. to procure credit support for the payment of certain lease payments owed pursuant to the GenOn Mid-Atlantic operating leases for Morgantown and Dickerson. The plaintiffs seek approximately $34 million in damages arising from GenOn Mid-Atlantic’s purported breach of certain warranties in the payment agreement. On April 2, 2018, GenOn Mid-Atlantic removed the allegations against it to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On April 11, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a briefing schedule on a forthcoming motion to remand by Natixis Funding Corp. and a forthcoming motion to transfer by GenOn Mid-Atlantic.