COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	Sep. 30, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Financial Assurance On March 14, 2023, PCT secured a surety bond in the amount of $25.0 million to provide financial assurance related to its performance under a certain vendor contract, which expires at the earlier of satisfaction of the obligation, termination of the related vendor contract, or one year from issuance (subject to renewal within one year). PCT may issue additional surety bonds in the future to provide financial assurance regarding performance under contracts with other parties. These financial instruments are issued in the normal course of business and are not considered company indebtedness. Because PCT currently has no liability for these financial assurance instruments, they are not reflected in its consolidated balance sheets. Legal Proceedings PCT is subject to legal and regulatory actions that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of business. The assessment as to whether a loss is probable or reasonably possible, and as to whether such loss or a range of such losses is estimable, often involves significant judgment about future events, and the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain. Other than as described below, there is no material pending or threatened litigation against PCT that remains outstanding as of September 30, 2023. Shareholder Securities Litigation Beginning on or about May 11, 2021, two putative class action complaints were filed against PCT, certain senior members of management and others, asserting violations of federal securities laws under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaints generally allege that the applicable defendants made false and/or misleading statements in press releases and public filings regarding the Technology, PCT’s business and PCT’s prospects. The first putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida by William C. Theodore against PCT and certain senior members of management (the “Theodore Lawsuit”). The second putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida by David Tennenbaum against PCT, certain senior members of management and others (the “Tennenbaum Lawsuit” and, together with the Theodore Lawsuit, the “Class Action Lawsuits”). On July 14, 2021, the court granted a motion to consolidate the Class Action Lawsuits and on July 27, 2021, Tennenbaum filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss his complaint without prejudice. On August 5, 2021, the Court entered an order appointing the Mariusz Ciecko and Robert Ciecko as Co-Lead Plaintiffs (“Lead Plaintiffs”) and Pomerantz LLP as Lead Counsel. On September 27, 2021, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint seeks to represent a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired PCT’s securities between November 16, 2020, and May 5, 2021, certification of the alleged class, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. The consolidated amended complaint relies on information included in a research report published by Hindenburg Research LLC. On November 12, 2021, PCT and the individual defendants affiliated with PCT (“PCT Defendants”) and Byron Roth each filed separate motions to dismiss Lead Plaintiffs’ amended complaint. Additional submissions by the parties were filed in December 2021 and January 2022. On August 4, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed the Class Action Lawsuits, without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on August 18, 2022 in which they seek to represent a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired PCT’s securities between November 16, 2020, and November 10, 2021. On September 15, 2022, the PCT Defendants and Byron Roth each filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and the parties filed additional responsive pleadings in October 2022. On June 15, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted the PCT Defendants’ motion solely with regard to named defendant Tamsin Ettefagh, but denied the motion as to all other defendants. On June 30, 2023, the PCT Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Further, on July 14, 2023, each of the PCT and Roth Defendants filed their respective Answers and Counterclaims. The Motion for Reconsideration remains pending. On September 29, 2023, Jay Southgate, a purported shareholder, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against PCT, and certain senior members of management, asserting violations of federal securities laws under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaints generally allege that the applicable defendants made false and/or misleading statements in press releases and public filings between August 8, 2023 and September 13, 2023, regarding the status of commissioning activities at the Ironton Facility, and specifically the impact of a power outage at the Ironton Facility in August 2023 and subsequent seal system failure in September 2023. The PCT Defendants intend to vigorously defend the Class Action Lawsuits. Given the stage of the litigation, PCT cannot reasonably estimate at this time whether there will be any loss, or if there is a loss, the possible range of loss, that may arise from the unresolved Class Action Lawsuits. Derivative Litigation On November 3, 2021, Byung-Gook Han, a purported PCT shareholder, derivatively and purportedly on behalf of PCT, filed a shareholder derivative action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Byung-Gook Han v. Otworth et. al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01569-UNA) against certain senior members of PCT’s management, PCT’s directors and Byron Roth, who was subsequently dismissed (collectively, the “Individual Han Defendants”), alleging violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and breaches of fiduciary duties and bringing claims for unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets (“Han Derivative Suit"). The Han Derivative Suit generally alleges that the Individual Han Defendants made materially false and misleading statements in press releases, webinars and other public filings regarding the Technology, PCT’s business, PCT’s prospects, and the background and experience of the Individual Han Defendants. The Han Derivative Suit seeks unspecified monetary damages, reform of the company's corporate governance and internal procedures, unspecified restitution from the Individual Han Defendants, and costs and fees associated with bringing the action. On January 19, 2022, the court in the Han Derivative Suit granted the parties’ joint stipulation to stay the Han Derivative Suit and administratively closed the matter pending the disposition of the motions to dismiss in the Class Action Lawsuits. Should the Han Derivative Suit be reopened in the future, the Individual Han Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the Han Derivative Suit. Given the stage of the litigation, PCT cannot reasonably estimate at this time whether there will be any loss, or if there is a loss, the possible range of loss, that may arise from the unresolved Han Derivative Suit. On January 27, 2022, Patrick Ayers, a purported PCT shareholder, derivatively and purportedly on behalf of PCT, filed a shareholder derivative action in the United States District Court of the District of Delaware, captioned Patrick Ayers v. Otworth et. al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00110, against certain members of PCT’s management, PCT’s directors and others (collectively, the “Individual Ayers Defendants”), alleging violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and breaches of fiduciary duties, as well as claims for unjust enrichment, gross mismanagement, contribution, and indemnification (“Ayers Derivative Suit"). The Ayers Derivative Suit generally alleges that the Individual Ayers Defendants made materially false and misleading statements in press releases, webinars and other public filings regarding the Technology, PCT’s business, PCT’s prospects, and the background and experience of the Individual Ayers Defendants. The Ayers Derivative Suit seeks unspecified monetary damages, declaratory relief, unspecified disgorgement and restitution from the Individual Ayers Defendants, and costs and fees associated with bringing the action. At this stage of the litigation, neither PCT nor the Individual Ayers Defendants have answered Ayers’ complaint, moved to dismiss the complaint, or otherwise responded to the complaint. On March 17, 2022, the court granted the parties’ joint stipulation to stay the Ayers Derivative Suit and administratively closed the matter pending the disposition of the motions to dismiss in the Class Action Lawsuits. Should the Ayers Derivative Suit be reopened in the future, the Individual Ayers Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the Ayers Derivative Suit. Given the stage of the litigation, PCT cannot reasonably estimate at this time whether there will be any loss, or if there is a loss, the possible range of loss, that may arise from the unresolved Ayers Derivative Suit. In the future, PCT may become party to additional legal matters and claims arising in the ordinary course of business. While PCT is unable to predict the outcome of the above or future matters, it does not believe, based upon currently available facts, that the ultimate resolution of any such pending matters will have a material adverse effect on its overall financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Denham-Blythe Arbitration On October 7, 2020, PCO, a subsidiary of PCT and Denham-Blythe Company, Inc. (“DB”) executed an Engineering, Procurement, and Construction Agreement for certain construction activities associated with the Ironton Facility (“EPC Contract”). On June 16, 2023, following unsuccessful efforts at mediating various disputes over certain unapproved change orders and payment applications, DB filed a demand for binding arbitration (“Arbitration Demand”) with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), seeking approximately $17.0 million related to certain fee applications, change orders and amounts currently held in retainage by PCO, and, on June 21, 2023, filed a mechanics lien in Lawrence County, Ohio for the same sum. On July 20, 2023, PCO filed its Answer and Counterclaim, in which PCO contends that various deficiencies in DB’s work resulted in damages to PCO in excess of DB’s $17.0 million Arbitration Demand, including, but not limited to, the following: DB’s insufficient and incomplete engineering drawings and packages, insufficient and unorganized material management, insufficient and inefficient contractor management, insufficient and rudimentary schedule management, incomplete and inefficient procurement procedures, and that the Company was required to undertake significant re-work at additional cost resulting from DB’s failure to adequately perform its obligations under the EPC Contract. On September 14, 2023, DB filed a motion with the AAA seeking to join ThermalTech Engineering, Inc., and ThermalTech Turnkey Solutions LLC, a subcontractor engaged by DB to provide engineering services for the Ironton Project. PCO and ThermalTech Engineering, Inc. have objected to the joinder and the matter remains pending. On August 30, 2023, DB filed a breach of contract claim against PCO and others in Lawrence County Ohio, alleging the same facts contained in its arbitration demand, as well as an action to foreclose on a lien filed in Lawrence County, Ohio. Concurrently DB requested the complaint be stayed pending the resolution of all issues in the arbitration. PCO intends to vigorously defend itself against DB’s claims and to pursue recovery of damages resulting from DB’s failure to perform adequately under the EPC Contract. Given the stage of the arbitration, PCT cannot reasonably estimate at this time whether there will be any loss, or if there is a loss, the possible range of loss, that may result from the Arbitration Demand. Other Matters On February 3, 2023, the Company received a books and records demand pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, from a purported stockholder of the Company, in connection with the stockholder’s investigation of, among other matters, potential breaches of fiduciary duty, mismanagement, self-dealing, corporate waste or other violations of law by the Company’s Board with respect to these matters. We are currently unable to predict the outcome of this matter. On October 6, 2023 and October 27, 2023, the Company received two additional books and records demands pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, from two purported stockholders of the Company, in connection with the stockholders’ investigation of, among other matters, potential breaches of fiduciary duty, mismanagement, self-dealing, corporate waste or other violations of law by the Company’s Board with respect to these matters. We are currently unable to predict the outcome of this matter.