Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2024

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments

NRG has entered into long-term contractual arrangements related to energy products, including power purchases, gas transportation and storage, fuel and transportation services and generation projects. These contracts are not included in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2024.

As of December 31, 2024, the Company's minimum commitments under such outstanding agreements are estimated as follows:


Period	(In millions)
2025	$	2,414
2026	2,422
2027	1,392
2028	941
2029	624
Thereafter	1,190
Total(a)	$	8,983

(a)The year 2025 does not include an additional $1.5 billion of short-term commitments. Increase from 2023 is primarily due to NPNS election for certain existing derivative contracts. For further discussion, see Note 6, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

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, 2024, 2023 and 2022, the costs of fuel and purchased energy were $12.2 billion, $13.4 billion and $19.6 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, 2024, 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 23, Regulatory Matters, and Note 24, 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 regarding 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 ("ESCOs") 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 Case

Mirkin v. XOOM Energy (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 2019) — XOOM Energy is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in New York, alleging that XOOM Energy 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 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 prevailed in its challenge to Mirkin's expert reports. The Court granted XOOM's motion to exclude both reports on damages. As a result, Mirkin has no method to establish damages for its class. The Court asked for further briefing on whether class certification can stand in light of the recent ruling. This matter was known and accrued for at the time of the XOOM acquisition.

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 Direct Energy 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 April 12, 2023, the Court granted Direct Energy’s Motion to Transfer Venue, moving to the case to the Southern District of Texas. The parties are proceeding with written discovery; 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 conducted fact and expert discovery and Direct Energy submitted its motion for summary judgment in August 2024.

Sales Practice Lawsuit

A Vivint Smart Home competitor has made a claim against Vivint Smart Home alleging, among other things, that Vivint Smart Home's sales representatives used deceptive sales practices. This matter was known and accrued for at the time of the Vivint Smart Home acquisition. CPI Security Systems, Inc. ("CPI") v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc. (W.D.N.C. Sept. 2020) 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 fully briefed the appeal and oral argument was conducted on January 28, 2025. While Vivint Smart Home believes the CPI jury verdict is not legally or factually supported and awaits the issuance of the appellate court’s opinion, there can be no assurance that such defense efforts will be successful. This matter was adequately accrued for as of December 31, 2024.

SB IP Holdings LLC (“Skybell”) v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc. — On 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. The Company does not believe the verdict is legally supported and is pursuing appellate remedies along with any other legal options available. At the time of the Vivint Smart Home acquisition, this matter was known and accrued for at the amount that was determined to be probable and reasonably estimable.

Contract Dispute

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. The parties entered into a settlement agreement in May 2024, and the litigation was dismissed. There was no incremental impact to NRG as a result of the settlement.

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 dismissed from the multi-district litigation. 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' mandamus relief, ordering the trial court to grant the generator defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The plaintiffs challenged the ruling and the matters are stayed pending appeals by the various parties. The Company intends to vigorously defend these matters.