Environmental Matters	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
Environmental Matters Disclosure [Abstract]
Environmental Matters	Environmental Matters This footnote should be read in conjunction with the complete description under Note 24, Environmental Matters, to the Company's 2017 Form 10-K. 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 in the near term with respect to federal laws under the current U.S. presidential administration. Air On August 31, 2018, EPA proposed replacing the Clean Power Plan (CPP) rule, which sought to broadly regulate CO2 emissions from the power sector, with the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, which if finalized, would require states to develop plans to seek heat rate improvements from coal-fired EGUs. The Company believes that the ACE rule replacing the CPP rule would on balance be positive for its generation fleet. 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. 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 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 December 2015, the D.C. Circuit remanded the MATS rule to the EPA without vacatur. On April 25, 2016, the EPA released a supplemental finding that the benefits of this regulation outweigh the costs to address the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that the EPA had not properly considered costs. This finding has been challenged in the D.C. Circuit. On April 18, 2017, the EPA asked the D.C. Circuit to postpone oral argument that had been scheduled for May 18, 2017 because the EPA is closely reviewing the supplemental finding to determine whether it should reconsider all or part of the rule. On April 27, 2017, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's request to postpone the oral argument and hold the case in abeyance. 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. Water In August 2014, the EPA finalized the regulation regarding the use of water for once through cooling at existing facilities to address impingement and entrainment concerns. NRG anticipates that more stringent requirements will be incorporated into some of its water discharge permits over the next several years as NPDES permits are renewed. Effluent Limitations Guidelines — In November 2015, the EPA revised the Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Steam Electric Generating Facilities, which would have imposed more stringent requirements (as individual permits were renewed) for wastewater streams from flue gas desulfurization, or FGD, fly ash, bottom ash, and flue gas mercury control. In April 2017, the EPA granted two petitions to reconsider the rule and also administratively stayed some of the deadlines. On September 18, 2017, the EPA promulgated a final rule that (i) postpones the compliance dates to preserve the status quo for FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water by two years to November 2020 until the EPA completes its next rulemaking and (ii) withdrew the April 2017 administrative stay. The legal challenges have been suspended while the EPA reconsiders and likely modifies the rule. Accordingly, the Company has largely eliminated its estimate of the environmental capital expenditures that would have been required to comply with permits incorporating the revised guidelines. The Company will revisit these estimates after the rule is revised. Byproducts, Wastes, Hazardous Materials and Contamination In April 2015, the EPA finalized the rule regulating byproducts of coal combustion (e.g., ash and gypsum) as solid wastes under the RCRA. In 2017, the EPA agreed to reconsider the rule. On July 30, 2018, the EPA promulgated a rule that amends the existing ash rule by extending some of the deadlines and providing more flexibility for compliance. On August 21, 2018, the DC Circuit found, among other things, that EPA had not adequately regulated unlined ponds and legacy ponds. Accordingly, we anticipate that EPA will promulgate new regulations to address these issues (including compliance deadlines) as it reconsiders other aspects of the existing rule. The EPA has stated that it intends to further revise the rule. East/West New Source Review — The EPA and various states have been investigating compliance of electric generating facilities with the pre-construction permitting requirements of the CAA known as “new source review,” or NSR. In 2007, Midwest Generation received an NOV from the EPA alleging that past work at Crawford, Fisk, Joliet, Powerton, Waukegan and Will County generating stations violated NSR and other regulations. These alleged violations are the subject of litigation described in Note 15, Commitments and Contingencies. Additionally, in April 2013, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection issued four NOVs alleging that past work at oil-fired combustion turbines at the Torrington Terminal, Franklin, Branford and Middletown generating stations violated regulations regarding NSR.

Environmental Matters

This footnote should be read in conjunction with the complete description under Note 24, Environmental Matters, to the Company's 2017 Form 10-K.

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 in the near term with respect to federal laws under the current U.S. presidential administration.

Air

On August 31, 2018, EPA proposed replacing the Clean Power Plan (CPP) rule, which sought to broadly regulate CO2 emissions from the power sector, with the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, which if finalized, would require states to develop plans to seek heat rate improvements from coal-fired EGUs. The Company believes that the ACE rule replacing the CPP rule would on balance be positive for its generation fleet.

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.

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 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 December 2015, the D.C. Circuit remanded the MATS rule to the EPA without vacatur. On April 25, 2016, the EPA released a supplemental finding that the benefits of this regulation outweigh the costs to address the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that the EPA had not properly considered costs. This finding has been challenged in the D.C. Circuit. On April 18, 2017, the EPA asked the D.C. Circuit to postpone oral argument that had been scheduled for May 18, 2017 because the EPA is closely reviewing the supplemental finding to determine whether it should reconsider all or part of the rule. On April 27, 2017, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's request to postpone the oral argument and hold the case in abeyance. 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.

Water

In August 2014, the EPA finalized the regulation regarding the use of water for once through cooling at existing facilities to address impingement and entrainment concerns. NRG anticipates that more stringent requirements will be incorporated into some of its water discharge permits over the next several years as NPDES permits are renewed.

Effluent Limitations Guidelines — In November 2015, the EPA revised the Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Steam Electric Generating Facilities, which would have imposed more stringent requirements (as individual permits were renewed) for wastewater streams from flue gas desulfurization, or FGD, fly ash, bottom ash, and flue gas mercury control. In April 2017, the EPA granted two petitions to reconsider the rule and also administratively stayed some of the deadlines. On September 18, 2017, the EPA promulgated a final rule that (i) postpones the compliance dates to preserve the status quo for FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water by two years to November 2020 until the EPA completes its next rulemaking and (ii) withdrew the April 2017 administrative stay. The legal challenges have been suspended while the EPA reconsiders and likely modifies the rule. Accordingly, the Company has largely eliminated its estimate of the environmental capital expenditures that would have been required to comply with permits incorporating the revised guidelines. The Company will revisit these estimates after the rule is revised.

Byproducts, Wastes, Hazardous Materials and Contamination

In April 2015, the EPA finalized the rule regulating byproducts of coal combustion (e.g., ash and gypsum) as solid wastes under the RCRA. In 2017, the EPA agreed to reconsider the rule. On July 30, 2018, the EPA promulgated a rule that amends the existing ash rule by extending some of the deadlines and providing more flexibility for compliance. On August 21, 2018, the DC Circuit found, among other things, that EPA had not adequately regulated unlined ponds and legacy ponds. Accordingly, we anticipate that EPA will promulgate new regulations to address these issues (including compliance deadlines) as it reconsiders other aspects of the existing rule. The EPA has stated that it intends to further revise the rule.

East/West

New Source Review — The EPA and various states have been investigating compliance of electric generating facilities with the pre-construction permitting requirements of the CAA known as “new source review,” or NSR. In 2007, Midwest Generation received an NOV from the EPA alleging that past work at Crawford, Fisk, Joliet, Powerton, Waukegan and Will County generating stations violated NSR and other regulations. These alleged violations are the subject of litigation described in Note 15, Commitments and Contingencies. Additionally, in April 2013, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection issued four NOVs alleging that past work at oil-fired combustion turbines at the Torrington Terminal, Franklin, Branford and Middletown generating stations violated regulations regarding NSR.