Regulatory Matters (Notes)
|
12 Months Ended |
---|---|
Dec. 31, 2014
|
|
Regulatory Matters Disclosure [Abstract] | |
Regulatory Matters | Regulatory Matters NRG operates in a highly regulated industry and is subject to regulation by various federal and state agencies. As such, NRG is affected by regulatory developments at both the federal and state levels and in the regions in which NRG operates. In addition, NRG is subject to the market rules, procedures, and protocols of the various ISO and RTO markets in which NRG participates. These power markets are subject to ongoing legislative and regulatory changes that may impact NRG's wholesale and retail businesses. In addition to the regulatory proceedings noted below, NRG and its subsidiaries are a party to other regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business or have other regulatory exposure. 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. National Court Rejects FERC's Jurisdiction Over Demand Response — On May 23, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated FERC’s rules (known as Order No. 745) that allow demand response resources to participate in the FERC-jurisdictional energy markets. The Court of Appeals held that the Federal Power Act does not authorize FERC to exercise jurisdiction over demand response and that instead demand response is part of the retail market over which the states have jurisdiction. The specific order being challenged related to energy market compensation, but this ruling also calls into question whether demand response will be permitted to participate in the capacity markets in the future. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a stay of its decision in order to allow the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case. The U.S. Solicitor General, on behalf of FERC, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on January 15, 2015. On the same date, EnerNOC, Inc. and other private entities filed their own petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter. The Company filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on February 17, 2015, supporting the U.S. Solicitor General's and EnerNOC's position and urging the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari. The eventual outcome of this proceeding could result in refunds of payments made for non-jurisdictional services and resettlement of wholesale markets but it is not possible to estimate the impact on the Company at this time. East Region RMR Agreements for Elrama and Niles — In May 2012, GenOn filed with FERC an RMR rate schedule governing operation of unit 4 of the Elrama generating facility and unit 1 of the Niles generating facility. On December 8, 2014, FERC approved a contested settlement finalizing the payments associated with the RMR services provided. The Company has made appropriate refunds. Montgomery County Station Power Tax — On December 20, 2013, the Company received a letter from Montgomery County, Maryland requesting payment of an energy tax for the consumption of station power at the Dickerson Facility over the previous three years. Montgomery County seeks payment in the amount of $22 million, which includes tax, interest and penalties. The Company is disputing the applicability of the tax. On December 17, 2014, the Maryland Tax Court heard oral arguments from the parties. Additional briefing is underway. Retail MISO SECA — Green Mountain Energy previously provided competitive retail energy supply in the MISO region during the relevant period of January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2005. By order dated November 18, 2004, FERC eliminated certain regional through-and-out transmission rates charged by transmission owners in MISO and PJM. In order to temporarily compensate the transmission owners for lost revenues, FERC ordered MISO, PJM and their respective transmission owners to revamp the way that ISOs manage certain cross-system congestion costs, known as Seams Elimination Charge/Cost Adjustments/Assignments, or SECA, charges effective December 1, 2004, through March 31, 2006. The tariff amendments filed by MISO and the MISO transmission owners allocated certain SECA charges to various zones and sub-zones within MISO, including a sub-zone called the Green Mountain Energy Company Sub-zone. During several years of extensive litigation before FERC, several transmission owners sought to recover SECA charges from Green Mountain Energy. Green Mountain Energy denied responsibility for any SECA charges and did not pay any asserted SECA charges. On May 21, 2010, FERC issued two orders, including its Order on Initial Decision, in which FERC determined that approximately $22 million plus interest of SECA charges were owed not by Green Mountain Energy but rather by BP Energy — one of Green Mountain Energy's suppliers during the period at issue. On August 19, 2010, the transmission owners and MISO made compliance filings in accordance with FERC's Orders allocating SECA charges to a BP Energy Sub-zone, and making no allocation to a Green Mountain Energy Sub-zone. FERC has not yet ruled on those compliance filings. On September 30, 2011, FERC issued orders denying all requests for rehearing and again determined that SECA charges were not owed by Green Mountain Energy. Numerous parties, including BP Energy, sought judicial review of FERC's orders, and Green Mountain Energy was granted intervenor status in the consolidated appeals. Most appellants subsequently settled with the transmission owners and withdrew their appeals, including BP Energy, which agreed to pay approximately $24 million to the three transmission owners signing the agreement, with another $1 million offered to the remaining PJM transmission owners, should they choose to join the settlement; all chose to do so. FERC approved the settlement, and BP Energy moved to dismiss its appeals; its motions to dismiss were granted by the Court. West Region California Station Power — On December 18, 2012, in Calpine Corporation v. FERC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a decision by FERC disclaiming jurisdiction over how the states impose retail station power charges. The ruling of the Court of Appeals allowed the CPUC to establish retail charges for station power consumption. Due to reservation-of-rights language in the California utilities' state-jurisdictional station power tariffs, the ruling of the Court of Appeals may require California generators to pay state-imposed retail charges back to the date of enrollment by the facilities in the CAISO's station power program. On November 18, 2011, Southern California Edison Company, or SCE, filed with the CPUC, seeking authorization to begin charging generators retail station power charges, and to assess such charges retroactively, which the Company and other generators challenged. On August 14, 2014, the CPUC approved resolutions setting forth the method to be used by SCE and PG&E to determine station power charges. The resolutions establish 15-minute netting periods, to take effect August 30, 2010, which means that there would be no refund liability associated with station power consumption prior to August 30, 2010. The resolutions are pending rehearing. The Company has accrued sufficient funds to pay the charges for the Company's facilities. |