Commitments and Contingencies

Operating Lease Commitments

Powerton and Joliet Leases

The Company leases 100% interests in the Powerton facility and Unit 7 and Unit 8 of the Joliet facility through 2034 and 2030, respectively, through its indirect subsidiary, Midwest Generation, LLC. The Company accounts for these leases as operating leases and records lease expense on a straight-line basis over the lease term. As further described in Note 3, Business Acquisitions and Dispositions, in connection with the acquisition of EME, the Company recorded the out-of-market value as a liability in out-of-market contracts of $159 million. The liability will be amortized through rent expense on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease. The Company expects to record lease expense, net of amortization of the out-of-market liability, of approximately $14 million per year through the term of the lease.

Future minimum lease commitments under the Powerton and Joliet operating leases for the years ending after December 31, 2016, are as follows:



Period	(In millions)
2017	$	1
2018	1
2019	1
2020	1
2021	3
Thereafter	234
Total	$	241

GenOn Mid-Atlantic Leases

The Company leases 100% interests in the Dickerson and Morgantown coal generation units and associated property through 2029 and 2034, respectively, through its indirect subsidiary, GenOn MidAtlantic, LLC. The Company accounts for these leases as operating leases and records lease expense on a straight-line basis over the lease term. In connection with the acquisition of GenOn, the Company recorded the out-of-market value as a liability in out-of-market contracts of $604 million. The liability is being amortized through rent expense on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease. The Company expects to record lease expense, net of amortization of the out-of-market liability, of approximately $43 million per year through the term of the lease.

Future minimum lease commitments under the GenOn Mid-Atlantic operating leases for the years ending after December 31, 2016 are as follows:



Period	(In millions)
2017	$	144
2018	105
2019	139
2020	105
2021	42
Thereafter	400
Total	$	935

REMA Leases

The Company, through its indirect subsidiary, NRG REMA, LLC, leases a 100% interest in the Shawville coal generation facility through 2026 and leases 16.5% and 16.7% interests in the Conemaugh and Keystone coal generation facilities through 2034, and expects to make payments under the leases through 2029 in accordance with the terms of the leases. The Company accounts for these leases as operating leases and records lease expense on a straight-line basis over the lease term. In connection with the acquisition of GenOn, the Company recorded the out-of-market value as a liability in out-of-market contracts of $186 million. The liability is being amortized through rent expense on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease. The Company expects to record lease expense, net of amortization of the out-of-market liability, of approximately $29 million per year through the term of the lease.

Future minimum lease commitments under the REMA operating leases for the years ending after December 31, 2016 are as follows:



Period	(In millions)
2017	$	63
2018	55
2019	65
2020	56
2021	47
Thereafter	231
Total	$	517

Other Operating Leases

NRG leases certain Company facilities and equipment under operating leases, some of which include escalation clauses, expiring on various dates through 2050. NRG also has certain tolling arrangements to purchase power, which qualify as operating leases. Certain operating lease agreements include provisions such as scheduled rent increases, leasehold incentives, and rent concessions over their lease term. The Company recognizes the effects of these scheduled rent increases, leasehold incentives, and rent concessions on a straight-line basis over the lease term unless another systematic and rational allocation basis is more representative of the time pattern in which the leased property is physically employed. Lease expense under operating leases was $102 million, $100 million, and $106 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015, and 2014, respectively.

Future minimum lease commitments under operating leases for the years ending after December 31, 2016 are as follows:



Period	(In millions)
2017	$	84
2018	76
2019	67
2020	61
2021	52
Thereafter	443
Total ^(a)	$	783

(a) Amounts in the table exclude future sublease income of $14 million associated with long-term leases for office locations.

Coal, Gas and Transportation Commitments

NRG has entered into long-term contractual arrangements to procure fuel and transportation services for the Company's generation assets and for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015, and 2014, the Company purchased $1.8 billion, $2.6 billion, and $3.5 billion, respectively, under such arrangements.

As of December 31, 2016, the Company's commitments under such outstanding agreements are as follows:



Period	(In millions)
2017	$	638
2018	251
2019	174
2020	140
2021	109
Thereafter	415
Total	$	1,727

Purchased Power Commitments

NRG has purchased power contracts of various quantities and durations that are not classified as derivative assets and liabilities and do not qualify as operating leases. These contracts are not included in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2016. Minimum purchase commitment obligations are as follows as of December 31, 2016:



Period	(In millions)
2017	$	25
2018	17
2019	13
2020	11
2021	21
Thereafter	—
Total ^(a)	$	87


(a)	As of December 31, 2016, the maximum remaining term under any individual purchased power contract is five years.

Lignite Contract with Texas Westmoreland Coal Co.

The Company's Limestone facility utilizes a blend of coal including lignite obtained from the Jewett mine, a surface mine adjacent to the Limestone facility, under a long-term contract with Texas Westmoreland Coal Co., or TWCC. The contract is a cost-plus arrangement with certain performance incentives and penalties. On August 18, 2016, NRG gave notice to TWCC terminating the active mining of lignite under the contract, effective on December 31, 2016.

Under the contract, TWCC continues to be responsible for reclamation activities. NRG is responsible for reclamation costs and has recorded an adequate ARO liability. The Railroad Commission of Texas has imposed a bond obligation of $95.5 million on TWCC for the reclamation of the mine. Pursuant to the contract with TWCC, NRG supports this obligation through surety bonds. Additionally, NRG is obligated to provide additional performance assurance if required by the Railroad Commission of Texas.

First Lien Structure

NRG has granted first liens to certain counterparties on a substantial portion of the Company's assets, excluding assets acquired in the GenOn and EME (including Midwest Generation) acquisitions, assets held by NRG Yield, Inc. and NRG's assets that have project-level financing, 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 hedge agreements for forward sales of power or MWh equivalents. The Company's lien counterparties may have a claim on NRG's assets to the extent market prices exceed the hedged price. As of December 31, 2016, hedges under the first lien were out-of-the-money for NRG on a counterparty aggregate basis.

Nuclear Insurance

STP maintains required insurance coverage for liability claims arising from nuclear incidents pursuant to the Price-Anderson Act. Effective January 1, 2017, the current liability limit per incident is $13.44 billion, subject to change to account for the effects of inflation and the number of licensed reactors. An inflation adjustment must be made at least once every five years with the next due no later than September 10, 2018. Under the Price-Anderson Act, owners of nuclear power plants in the U.S. are required to purchase primary insurance limits of $450 million for each operating site. In addition, the Price-Anderson Act requires an additional layer of protection through mandatory participation in a retrospective rating plan for power reactors resulting in an additional $13 billion in funds available for public liability claims. The current maximum assessment per incident, per reactor, is approximately $127 million, taking into account a 5% adjustment for administrative fees, payable at approximately $19 million per year, per reactor. NRG would be responsible for 44% of the maximum assessment, or $8 million per year, per reactor, and a maximum of $112 million per incident. In addition, the U.S. Congress retains the ability to impose additional financial requirements on the nuclear industry to pay liability claims that exceed $13 billion for a single incident. The liabilities of the co-owners of STP with respect to the retrospective premium assessments for nuclear liability insurance are joint and several.

STP purchases insurance for property damage and site decontamination cleanup costs from Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited, or NEIL, an industry mutual insurance company, of which STP is a member. STP has purchased $2.75 billion in limits for nuclear events and $1.5 billion in limits for non-nuclear events, the maximum available from NEIL. The upper $1.25 billion in limits (excess of the first $1.5 billion in limits) is a single limit blanket policy shared with two Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors, which have no affiliation with the Company. This shared limit is not subject to automatic reinstatement in the event of a loss. The NEIL policy covers both nuclear and non-nuclear property damage events, and a NEIL companion policy provides Accidental Outage coverage for the co-owners of STP's lost revenue following a property damage event, at a weekly indemnity limit of $2.52 million per unit up to a maximum of $274.4 million nuclear and $183.5 million non-nuclear, and is subject to an eight-week waiting period. NRG also purchases an Accidental Outage policy from NEIL, which provides protection for lost revenue due to an insurable event. This coverage allows for reimbursement up to $1.98 million per week per unit up to a maximum of $215.6 million nuclear and $144 million non-nuclear, and is subject to an eight-week waiting period. Under the terms of the NEIL policies, member companies may be assessed up to ten times their annual premium if the NEIL Board of Directors determines their surplus has been depleted due to the payment of property losses at any of the licensed reactors in a single policy year. NEIL requires that its members maintain an investment grade credit rating or insure their annual retrospective obligation by providing a financial guarantee, letter of credit, deposit premium, or an insurance policy. NRG has purchased an insurance policy from NEIL to guarantee the Company's obligation; however this insurance will only respond to retrospective premium adjustments assessed within twenty-four months after the policy term, whereas NEIL's Board of Directors can make such an adjustment up to 6 years after the policy expires.

Ivanpah Energy Production Guarantee

The Company's PPAs with PG&E with respect to the Ivanpah plant contain provisions for contract quantity and guaranteed energy production, which require that Ivanpah units 1 and 3 deliver to PG&E no less than the guaranteed energy production amount specified in the PPAs in any period of twenty-four consecutive months, or performance measurement period, during the term of the PPAs. In January 2017, the Company and PG&E executed amendments to the PPAs that provide, among other things, the ability to cure any failure to meet the guaranteed energy production amounts through performance and liquidated damage provisions. On February 2, 2017, PG&E filed a request with the CPUC to approve the amendments. Pending final and nonappealable CPUC approval, PG&E agreed to refrain from declaring any event of default with respect to any failure to deliver the guaranteed energy production amounts.

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 reserves 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 reserve for the matters discussed below. 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 reserves 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.

Midwest Generation Asbestos Liabilities — The Company, through its subsidiary, Midwest Generation, may be subject to potential asbestos liabilities as a result of its acquisition of EME. The Company is currently analyzing the scope of potential liability as it may relate to Midwest Generation. The Company believes that it has established an adequate reserve for these cases.

Actions Pursued by MC Asset Recovery — With Mirant Corporation's emergence from bankruptcy protection in 2006, certain actions filed by GenOn Energy Holdings and some of its subsidiaries against third parties were transferred to MC Asset Recovery, a wholly owned subsidiary of GenOn Energy Holdings. MC Asset Recovery is governed by a manager who is independent of NRG and GenOn. MC Asset Recovery is a disregarded entity for income tax purposes. Under the remaining action transferred to MC Asset Recovery, MC Asset Recovery seeks to recover damages from Commerzbank AG and various other banks, or the Commerzbank Defendants, for alleged fraudulent transfers that occurred prior to Mirant's bankruptcy proceedings. In December 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed MC Asset Recovery's complaint against the Commerzbank Defendants. In January 2011, MC Asset Recovery appealed the District Court's dismissal of its complaint against the Commerzbank Defendants to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, or the Fifth Circuit. In March 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal and reinstated MC Asset Recovery's amended complaint against the Commerzbank Defendants. On December 10, 2015, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Commerzbank Defendants. On December 29, 2015, MC Asset Recovery filed a notice to appeal this judgment with the Fifth Circuit. The appeal has been fully briefed by the parties and was argued before the Fifth Circuit on February 8, 2017.

Natural Gas Litigation — GenOn is party to several lawsuits, certain of which are class action lawsuits, in state and federal courts in Kansas, Missouri, Nevada and Wisconsin. These lawsuits were filed in the aftermath of the California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001 and the resulting FERC investigations and relate to alleged conduct to increase natural gas prices in violation of state antitrust law and similar laws. The lawsuits seek treble or punitive damages, restitution and/or expenses. The lawsuits also name as parties a number of energy companies unaffiliated with NRG. In July 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, which was handling four of the five cases, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against GenOn in those cases. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which reversed the decision of the District Court. GenOn along with the other defendants in the lawsuit filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the Court of Appeals' decision and the Supreme Court granted the petition. On April 21, 2015, the Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s holding that plaintiffs’ state antitrust law claims are not field-preempted by the federal Natural Gas Act and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court left open whether the claims were preempted on the basis of conflict preemption. The Supreme Court directed that the case be remanded to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada for further proceedings. On March 7, 2016, class plaintiffs filed their motions for class certification. Defendants filed their briefs in opposition to class plaintiffs' motions for class certification on June 24, 2016. On January 26, 2017, the court heard oral argument on several motions, including plaintiffs' motion on class certification. In May 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in one of the Kansas cases. Subsequently in December 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit. GenOn has agreed to indemnify CenterPoint against certain losses relating to these lawsuits.

In September 2012, the State of Nevada Supreme Court, which was handling the remaining case, affirmed dismissal by the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada of all plaintiffs' claims against GenOn. In February 2013, the plaintiffs in the Nevada case filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 2013, the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, thereby ending one of the five lawsuits.

Energy Plus Holdings — On August 7, 2012, Energy Plus Holdings received a subpoena from the NYAG which generally sought information and business records related to Energy Plus Holdings' sales, marketing and business practices. Energy Plus Holdings provided documents and information to the NYAG. On June 22, 2015, the NYAG issued another subpoena seeking additional information. Energy Plus Holdings provided responsive documents to this second subpoena. The Company does not expect the resolution of this matter to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operation, or cash flows.

Maryland Department of the Environment v. GenOn Chalk Point and GenOn Mid-Atlantic — On January 25, 2013, Food & Water Watch, the Patuxent Riverkeeper and the Potomac Riverkeeper (together, the Citizens Group) sent GenOn Mid-Atlantic a letter alleging that the Chalk Point, Dickerson and Morgantown generating facilities were violating the terms of the three National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits by discharging nitrogen and phosphorous in excess of the limits in each permit. On March 21, 2013, the MDE sent GenOn Mid-Atlantic a similar letter with respect to the Chalk Point and Dickerson generating facilities, threatening to sue within 60 days if the generating facilities were not brought into compliance. On June 11, 2013, the Maryland Attorney General on behalf of the MDE filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging violations of the CWA and Maryland environmental laws related to water.

In August 2016, the court approved a consent decree to settle the matter. The consent decree requires: (1) improving the wastewater treatment systems at the Chalk Point and Dickerson facilities which was completed in October 2016; (2) completing supplemental environmental projects worth $1 million; and (3) paying a civil penalty of $1 million. The Company has improved the wastewater treatment systems at the Chalk Point and Dickerson facilities and paid the civil penalty of $1 million.

Midwest Generation New Source Review Litigation — In August 2009, the EPA and the Illinois Attorney General, or the Government Plaintiffs, filed a complaint, or the Governments’ Complaint, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of CAA PSD requirements by Midwest Generation arising from maintenance, repair or replacement projects at six Illinois coal-fired electric generating stations performed by Midwest Generation or ComEd, a prior owner of the stations, including alleged failures to obtain PSD construction permits and to comply with BACT requirements. The Government Plaintiffs also alleged violations of opacity and PM standards at the Midwest Generation plants. Finally, the Government Plaintiffs alleged that Midwest Generation violated certain operating permit requirements under Title V of the CAA allegedly arising from such claimed PSD, opacity and PM emission violations. In addition to seeking penalties of up to $37,500 per violation, per day, the complaint seeks an injunction ordering Midwest Generation to install controls sufficient to meet BACT emission rates at the units subject to the complaint and other remedies, which could go well beyond the requirements of the CPS. Several environmental groups intervened as plaintiffs in this litigation and filed a complaint, or the Intervenors’ Complaint, which alleged opacity, PM and related Title V violations. Midwest Generation filed a motion to dismiss nine of the ten PSD counts in the Governments’ Complaint, and to dismiss the tenth PSD count to the extent the Governments’ Complaint sought civil penalties for that count. The trial court granted the motion in March 2010.

In June 2010, the Government Plaintiffs and Intervenors each filed an amended complaint. The Governments’ Amended Complaint again alleged that Midwest Generation violated PSD (based upon the same projects as alleged in their original complaint, but adding allegations that the Company was liable as the “successor” to ComEd), Title V and opacity and PM standards. It named EME and ComEd as additional defendants and alleged PSD violations (again, premised on the same projects) against them. The Intervenors’ Amended Complaint named only Midwest Generation as a defendant and alleged Title V and opacity/PM violations, as well as one of the ten PSD violations alleged in the Governments’ Amended Complaint. Midwest Generation again moved to dismiss all but one of the Government Plaintiffs’ PSD claims and the related Title V claims. Midwest Generation also filed a motion to dismiss the PSD claim in the Intervenors’ Amended Complaint and the related Title V claims. In March 2011, the trial court granted Midwest Generation’s partial motion to dismiss the Government Plaintiffs’ PSD claims. The trial court denied Midwest Generation’s motion to dismiss the PSD claim asserted in the Intervenors’ Amended Complaint, but noted that the plaintiffs would be required to convince the court that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled. The trial court did not address other counts in the amended complaints that allege violations of opacity and PM emission limitations under the Illinois State Implementation Plan and related Title V claims. The trial court also granted the motions to dismiss the PSD claims asserted against EME and ComEd.

Following the trial court ruling, the Government Plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s dismissals of their PSD claims, including the dismissal of nine of the ten PSD claims against Midwest Generation and of the PSD claims against the other defendants. Those PSD claim dismissals were affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in July 2013. In addition, in 2012, all but one of the environmental groups that had intervened in the case dismissed their claims without prejudice. As a result, only one environmental group remains a plaintiff intervenor in the case. The Company does not expect the resolution of this matter to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Potomac River Environmental Investigation — In March 2013, NRG Potomac River LLC received notice that the District of Columbia Department of Environment (now renamed the Department of Energy and Environment, or DOEE) was investigating potential discharges to the Potomac River originating from the Potomac River Generating facility site, a site where the generation facility is no longer in operation. In connection with that investigation, DOEE served a civil subpoena on NRG Potomac River LLC requesting information related to the site and potential discharges occurring from the site. NRG Potomac River LLC provided various responsive materials. In January 2016, DOEE advised NRG Potomac River LLC that DOEE believed various environmental violations had occurred as a result of discharges DOEE believes occurred to the Potomac River from the Potomac River Generating facility site and as a result of associated failures to accurately or sufficiently report such discharges. DOEE has indicated it believes that penalties are appropriate in light of the violations. NRG is currently reviewing the information provided by DOEE.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act Purported Class Actions — Three purported class action lawsuits have been filed against NRG Residential Solar Solutions, LLC — one in California and two in New Jersey. The plaintiffs generally allege misrepresentation by the call agents and violations of the TCPA, claiming that the defendants engaged in a telemarketing campaign placing unsolicited calls to individuals on the “Do Not Call List.” The plaintiffs seek statutory damages of up to $1,500 per plaintiff, actual damages and equitable relief. On July 8, 2016, NRG filed a Rule 11 Motion seeking dismissal of NRG from the California case. The Rule 11 Motion was denied on August 16, 2016. Class certification hearings are scheduled on June 5, 2017 and June 19, 2017 in the New Jersey and California cases respectively.

California Department of Water Resources and San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Sunrise Power Company LLC — On January 29, 2016, CDWR and SDG&E filed a lawsuit against Sunrise Power Company, along with NRG and Chevron Power Corporation. In June 2001, CDWR and Sunrise entered into a 10-year PPA under which Sunrise would construct and operate a generating facility and provide power to CDWR. At the time the PPA was entered into, Sunrise had a transportation services agreement, or TSA, to purchase natural gas from Kern River through April 30, 2018. In August 2003, CDWR entered into an agreement with Sunrise and Kern River in which CDWR accepted assignment of the TSA through the term of the PPA. After the PPA expired, Kern River demanded that any reassignment be to a party which met certain creditworthiness standards which Sunrise did not. As such, the plaintiffs have brought this lawsuit against the defendants alleging breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing and improper distributions. Plaintiffs generally claim damages of $1.2 million per month for the remaining 70 months of the TSA. On April 20, 2016, the defendants filed demurrers in response to the plaintiffs' complaint. The demurrers were granted on June 14, 2016; however, the plaintiffs were allowed to file amended complaints on July 1, 2016. On July 27, 2016, defendants filed demurrers to the amended complaints. On November 18, 2016, the court sustained the demurrers and allowed plaintiffs another opportunity to file a second amended lawsuit which they did on January 13, 2017.

Braun v. NRG Yield, Inc. — On April 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit against NRG Yield, Inc., the current and former members of its board of directors individually, and other parties in California Superior Court in Kern County, CA. Plaintiffs allege various violations of the Securities Act due to the defendants’ alleged failure to disclose material facts related to low wind production prior to the NRG Yield, Inc.'s June 22, 2015 Class C common stock offering. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, rescission, attorney’s fees and costs. On August 3, 2016, the court approved a stipulation entered into by the parties. The stipulation provided that the plaintiffs would file an amended complaint by August 19, 2016, which they did on August 18, 2016. The Defendants filed demurrers and a motion challenging jurisdiction on October 18, 2016. On February 24, 2017, the court approved the parties' stipulation which provides the plaintiffs' opposition is due on June 15, 2017 and defendants' reply is due on August 14, 2017.

Ahmed v. NRG Energy, Inc. and the NRG Yield Board of Directors — On September 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit against NRG Energy, Inc., the directors of NRG Yield, Inc., and other parties in the Delaware Chancery Court. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their respective fiduciary duties with regard to the recapitalization of NRG Yield, Inc. common stock in 2015. The plaintiffs generally seek economic damages, attorney’s fees and injunctive relief. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on December 21, 2016. Plaintiffs filed their objection to the motion to dismiss on February 15, 2017. Oral argument is scheduled for June 20, 2017.

GenOn Noteholders' Lawsuit — On December 13, 2016, certain indenture trustees for an ad hoc group of holders, or the Noteholders, of the GenOn Energy, Inc. 7.875% Senior Notes due 2017, 9.500% Notes due 2018, and 9.875% Notes due 2020, and the GenOn Americas Generation, LLC 8.50% Senior Notes due 2021 and 9.125% Senior Notes due 2031, or collectively, the GenOn Notes, along with certain of the Noteholders, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware against NRG and GenOn alleging certain claims related to a services agreement between NRG and GenOn. Plaintiffs generally seek recovery of all monies paid under the services agreement and any other damages that the court deems appropriate. On February 3, 2017, the court entered an order approving a Standstill Agreement whereby the parties agreed to suspend all deadlines in the case until March 1, 2017. This agreement may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties.