XML 60 R33.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Commitments NRG has entered into long-term contractual arrangements related to energy products, including power purchases, gas transportation and storage, and fuel and transportation services. These contracts are not included in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2023. As of December 31, 2023, the Company's minimum commitments under such outstanding agreements are estimated as follows:
Period | (In millions)
2024 | $ | 573 |
2025 | 836 |
2026 | 540 |
2027 | 364 |
2028 | 292 |
Thereafter | 823 |
Total(a) | $ | 3,428 |
(a)The year 2024 does not include an additional $978 million of short-term commitments The Company's actual costs may be significantly higher than these estimated minimum unconditional long-term firm commitments with remaining term in excess of one year. For the years ended December 31, 2023, 2022 and 2021, the costs of fuel and purchased energy were $13.4 billion, $19.6 billion and $13.4 billion, respectively. First Lien Structure NRG has granted first liens to certain counterparties on a substantial portion of property and assets owned by NRG and the guarantors of its senior debt. NRG uses the first lien structure 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 hedges. To the extent that the underlying hedge positions for a counterparty are out-of-the-money to NRG, the counterparty would have a claim under the first lien program. As of December 31, 2023, all hedges under the first liens were in-the-money 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 accruals 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 accrual for the applicable legal matters, including regulatory and environmental matters as further discussed in Note 24, Regulatory Matters, and Note 25, Environmental Matters. 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 accruals 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. Environmental Lawsuits Sierra club et al. v. Midwest Generation LLC — In 2012, several environmental groups filed a complaint against Midwest Generation with the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("IPCB") alleging violations of environmental law resulting in groundwater contamination. In June 2019, the IPCB found in an interim order that Midwest Generation violated the law because it had improperly handled coal ash at four facilities in Illinois and caused or allowed coal ash constituents to impact groundwater. On September 9, 2019, Midwest Generation filed a Motion to Reconsider numerous issues, which the court granted in part and denied in part on February 6, 2020. In 2023, the IPCB held hearings to determine the appropriate relief. Midwest Generation has been working with the Illinois EPA to address the groundwater issues since 2010. Consumer Lawsuits Similar to other energy service companies operating in the industry, from time-to-time, the Company and/or its subsidiaries may be subject to consumer lawsuits in various jurisdictions where they sell natural gas and electricity. Variable Price Cases — In the cases set forth below, referred to as the Variable Price Cases, such actions involve consumers alleging that one of the Company’s ESCOs promised that consumers would pay the same or less than they would have paid if they stayed with their default utility or previous energy supplier. The underlying claims of each case are similar and the Company continues to deny the allegations and is vigorously defending these matters. These matters were known and accrued for at the time of each acquisition. XOOM Energy Mirkin v. XOOM Energy (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 2019) is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in New York. The Court denied XOOM's motion for summary judgment and granted class certification. The Second Circuit denied XOOM's request to appeal the class certification grants. XOOM plans to challenge Mirkin's expert testimony to further hamper Mirkin's ability to support its case. Direct Energy There was one putative class action pending against Direct Energy: Richard Schafer v. Direct Energy (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 2019; on appeal 2nd Cir. N.Y.) - The Second Circuit sent the matter back to the trial court in December 2021. After discovery, Direct Energy filed summary judgment. Direct Energy won summary judgment and Schafer appealed. The appeal is fully briefed. Oral argument occurred on October 25, 2023. The Second Circuit upheld the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Direct Energy. Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") Cases — In the cases set forth below, referred to as the TCPA Cases, such actions involve consumers alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended, by receiving calls, texts or voicemails without consent in violation of the federal Telemarketing Sales Rule, and/or state counterpart legislation. The underlying claims of each case are similar. The Company denies the allegations asserted by plaintiffs and intends to vigorously defend these matters. These matters were known and accrued for at the time of the acquisition. There are two putative class actions pending against Direct Energy: (1) Holly Newman v. Direct Energy, LP (D. Md Sept 2021) - Direct Energy filed its Motion to Dismiss asserting the ruling in the Brittany Burk v. Direct Energy (S.D. Tex. Feb 2019) preempts the Plaintiff's ability to file suit based on the same facts. The Court denied Direct Energy's motion stating the Court does not have the benefit of all of the facts that were in front of the Burk court to issue a similar ruling. On October 19, 2022, Direct Energy filed a Motion to Transfer Venue asking the Court to transfer the case to the Southern District where the Burk case was filed. On April 12, 2023, the Court granted Direct Energy’s Motion to Transfer Venue, moving to the case to the Southern District of Texas; and (2) Matthew Dickson v. Direct Energy (N.D. Ohio Jan. 2018) - The case was stayed pending the outcome of an appeal to the Sixth Circuit based on the unconstitutionality of the TCPA during the period from 2015-2020. The Sixth Circuit found the TCPA was in effect during that period and remanded the case back to the trial court. Direct Energy refiled its motions along with supplements. On March 25, 2022, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Direct Energy and dismissed the case. Dickson appealed. The Sixth Circuit found that Dickson has standing and reversed the trial court's dismissal of the case. The matter is back at the trial court. The parties will conduct further fact discovery and expert discovery and are likely to resubmit motions for further review by the Court. Sales Practice Lawsuits There are three litigation matters relating to claims made by Vivint Smart Home competitors against Vivint Smart Home alleging, among other things, that Vivint Smart Home's sales representatives used deceptive sales practices. These matters were known and accrued for at the time of the acquisition. The three matters are: (1) CPI Security Systems, Inc. ("CPI") v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc. (W.D.N.C. Sept. 2020). The CPI matter that was filed in 2020 went to trial, and in February 2023, the jury issued a verdict against Vivint Smart Home, in favor of CPI for $50 million of compensatory damages and an additional $140 million of punitive damages. Vivint Smart Home has filed its notice of appeal and is awaiting a briefing schedule. While Vivint Smart Home believes the CPI jury verdict is not legally or factually supported and intends to pursue post judgment remedies and file an appeal, there can be no assurance that such defense efforts will be successful; (2) ADT LLC, et al. ("ADT") v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc. f/k/a Mosaic Acquisition Corporation, et al.(S.D.Fl. Aug. 2020). The parties mediated in May 2023 and agreed on a settlement. In June 2023, the Court granted final approval of the settlement, which was paid in June 2023; and (3) Alert 360 Opco, Inc, et al. ("Alert 360") v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc., et al (N.D.Ok. March 2023). On March 1, 2023, Alert 360 filed a complaint against Vivint Smart Home alleging, among other things, deceptive sales practices. The parties settled the dispute in October 2023 and the case was dismissed. Patent Infringement Lawsuits SB IP Holdings LLC (“Skybell”) v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc. — O n October 23, 2023, a jury in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, issued a verdict against the Company in favor of Skybell for $45 million in damages for patent infringement. The patents that were the basis for the claims made by Skybell were ruled invalid by the U.S. International Trade Commission in November 2021. In accordance with advice by legal counsel, the Company does not believe the verdict is legally supported and will pursue post-judgment and appellate remedies along with any other legal options available. Contract Disputes Alarm.com — In September 2022, Vivint Smart Home sent Alarm.com a notice asserting that it was no longer obligated to pay certain license fees under the Patent Cross License Agreement between the parties on the basis that Vivint Smart Home no longer practices any claim under any valid Alarm.com patent and, therefore, no license fees are due. Alarm.com filed an arbitration demand against Vivint Smart Home alleging, among other things, breach of the agreement due to continued use of the patents in question. The parties have resolved all outstanding litigation and entered into a long-term intellectual property licensing agreement. STP — In July 2023, the partners in STP, CPS and Austin Energy, initiated a lawsuit and filed to intervene in the license transfer application with the NRC, claiming a right of first refusal exists in relation to the proposed sale of NRG South Texas' 44% interest in STP to Constellation. NRG believes the claims set forth by CPS and Austin Energy in the lawsuit and the NRC proceedings are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. For further discussion of the transaction, see Note 4, Acquisitions and Dispositions. Winter Storm Uri Lawsuits The Company has been named in certain property damage and wrongful death claims that have been filed in connection with Winter Storm Uri in its capacity as a generator and a REP. Most of the lawsuits related to Winter Storm Uri are consolidated into a single multi-district litigation matter in Harris County District Court. NRG's REPs have since been severed from the multi-district litigation and will be seeking dismissal in any remaining cases. As a power generator, the Company is named in various cases with claims ranging from: wrongful death; personal injury only; property damage and personal injury; property damage only; and subrogation. The First Court of Appeals conditionally granted the generators' mundamus relief, ordering the trial court to grant the generator defendents' Motions to Dismiss. The Company expected the Plaintiffs to challenge this ruling. The Company intends to vigorously defend these matters. Indemnifications and Other Contractual Arrangements 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 LaGen in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs claimed 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 sought damages for the alleged improper charges and a declaration as to which charges were proper under the contract. On February 4, 2019, NRG sold the South Central Portfolio, including the entities subject to this litigation. However, NRG has agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain losses suffered in connection with this litigation. In February 2020, the federal court dismissed this lawsuit without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On March 17, 2020, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge in Louisiana alleging substantially the same matters, which was dismissed on October 2, 2023 pursuant to a settlement agreement.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//450/tableOfContent Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147480327/954-440-50-1 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 5: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration