Litigation, Other Commitments and Contingencies, and Disclosures about Guarantees

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2024

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Litigation, Other Commitments and Contingencies, and Disclosures about Guarantees

Note 13 — Litigation, Other Commitments and Contingencies, and Disclosures about Guarantees

Litigation

Gulf Coast Spinning

In September 2015, a potential customer sued Cleco for failure to fully perform an alleged verbal agreement to lend or otherwise fund its startup costs of $6.5 million. Gulf Coast Spinning Company, LLC (Gulf Coast), the primary plaintiff, alleges that Cleco promised to assist it in raising approximately $60.0 million, which Gulf Coast needed to construct a cotton spinning facility near Bunkie, Louisiana (the Bunkie project). According to the petition filed by Gulf Coast in the 12th Judicial District Court for Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana, Cleco made such promises of funding assistance in order to cultivate a new industrial electric customer which would increase its revenues under a power supply agreement that it executed with Gulf Coast. Gulf Coast seeks unspecified damages arising from its inability to raise sufficient funds to complete the project, including lost profits.

Cleco filed an Exception of No Cause of Action arguing that the case should be dismissed. The 12th Judicial District

Court denied Cleco’s exception in December 2015, after considering briefs and arguments. In January 2016, Cleco appealed the 12th Judicial District Court’s denial of its exception by filing with the Third Circuit Court of Appeal. In June 2016, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal denied the request to have the case dismissed. In July 2016, Cleco filed a writ to the Louisiana Supreme Court seeking a review of the 12th Judicial District Court’s denial of Cleco’s exception. In November 2016, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied Cleco’s writ application.

In February 2016, the parties agreed to a stay of all proceedings pending discussions concerning settlement. In May 2016, the 12th Judicial District Court lifted the stay at the request of Gulf Coast. The parties are currently participating in discovery.

Diversified Lands loaned $2.0 million to Gulf Coast for the Bunkie project. The loan was secured by a mortgage on the Bunkie project site. Diversified Lands foreclosed on the Bunkie property in February 2020 and has also asserted claims personally against the former owner of Gulf Coast. These claims are based on contracts and credit documents executed by Gulf Coast, the obligations and performance of which were personally guaranteed by the former owner of Gulf Coast. Diversified Lands is seeking recovery of the indebtedness still owed by Gulf Coast to Diversified Lands following the February 2020 foreclosure, which action has been consolidated with the litigation filed by Gulf Coast in the 12th Judicial District Court for Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana. Discovery is ongoing and the trial date has been set for October 2024.

Cleco believes all allegations made by Gulf Coast are contradicted by the written documents executed by Gulf Coast, are otherwise without merit, and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims alleged by Gulf Coast.

Dispute with Saulsbury Industries

In October 2018, Cleco Power sued Saulsbury Industries, Inc., the former general contractor for the St. Mary Clean Energy Center project, seeking damages for Saulsbury Industries, Inc.’s failure to complete the St. Mary Clean Energy Center project on time and for costs incurred by Cleco Power in hiring a replacement general contractor. The action was filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. Saulsbury Industries, Inc. removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, on March 1, 2019. On September 14, 2020, Cabot Corporation was allowed to join the case pending in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish.

In January 2019, Cleco Power was served with a summons in Saulsbury Industries, Inc. v. Cabot Corporation and Cleco Power LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Saulsbury Industries, Inc. alleged that Cleco Power and Cabot Corporation caused delays in the St. Mary Clean Energy Center project, resulting in alleged impacts to Saulsbury Industries, Inc.’s direct and indirect costs. On June 5, 2019, Cleco Power and Cabot Corporation each filed separate motions to dismiss. On October 24, 2019, the District Court denied Cleco Power’s motion as premature and ruled that Saulsbury Industries, Inc. had six weeks to conduct discovery on specified jurisdictional issues. The Magistrate Judge presiding over the Western District of Louisiana consolidated cases issued a report and recommendation to the District Judge that the case instituted by Saulsbury Industries, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice and the case initiated by Cleco Power be remanded to the Ninth Judicial

District Court for Rapides Parish. Saulsbury Industries, Inc. did not oppose the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, and the District Judge issued a ruling that adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, which included reasoning consistent with Cleco Power’s arguments. Thus, the federal consolidated cases are now closed.

On October 10, 2019, Cleco Power was served with a summons in Saulsbury Industries, Inc. v. Cabot Corporation and Cleco Power LLC in the 16th Judicial District Court for St. Mary Parish. Saulsbury Industries, Inc. asserted the same claim as the Western District litigation and further asserts claims for payment on an open account. On December 9, 2019, Cleco Power moved to stay the case, arguing that the Rapides Parish suit should proceed. On February 14, 2020, the court granted Cleco Power’s motion. The 16th Judicial District Court for the St. Mary Parish case held a hearing on October 16, 2020, and the judge granted Cleco Power’s declinatory exceptions of lis pendens. Thus, the St. Mary’s Parish case has been dismissed. Saulsbury appealed this decision.

On May 17, 2022, the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, ruled in favor of Cleco Power and affirmed the decision of the 16th Judicial District Court for St. Mary Parish with respect to Cleco Power. However, the First Circuit Court reversed the 16th Judicial District Court for St. Mary Parish’s decision dismissing Cabot Corporation from the St. Mary Parish case. All parties filed applications for rehearing, which were denied on June 29, 2022.

Cabot Corporation applied for review by the Louisiana Supreme Court of the portion of the First Circuit Court's ruling that denied Cabot Corporation’s exception seeking dismissal from the St. Mary Parish litigation. On November 1, 2022, the Louisiana Supreme Court rendered a decision in favor of Cabot Corporation. The Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision reversed the First Circuit Court’s decision and reinstated the decision of the 16th Judicial District Court granting Cabot Corporation’s declinatory exceptions of lis pendens. The St. Mary Parish case has been dismissed in full.

The stay was lifted in the Rapides Parish case and the Rapides Parish case is proceeding. Cleco Power and Saulsbury are currently participating in discovery.

LPSC Audits and Reviews

Fuel Audits

Generally, Cleco Power’s cost of fuel used for electric generation and the cost of purchased power are recovered through the LPSC-established FAC that enables Cleco Power to pass on to its customers substantially all such expenses. Recovery of FAC costs is subject to periodic fuel audits by the LPSC, which are performed at least every other year.

In January 2023, Cleco Power received a notice of audit from the LPSC for the period of January 2020 to December 2022. The total amount of fuel expense included in the audit is $1.10 billion. Cleco Power has responded to multiple sets of LPSC data requests. Cleco Power has FAC filings for January 2023 and thereafter that remain subject to audit. Management is unable to predict or give a reasonable estimate of the possible range of the disallowance, if any, related to these filings. Historically, the disallowances have not been material. If a disallowance of fuel cost is ordered resulting in a refund, any such refund could have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows of the Registrants.

Environmental Audit

In 2009, the LPSC approved Cleco Power to recover certain costs of environmental compliance through an EAC. The costs eligible for recovery are those for prudently incurred air emissions credits associated with complying with federal, state, and local air emission regulations that apply to the generation of electricity reduced by the sale of such allowances. Also eligible for recovery are variable emission mitigation costs, which are the costs of reagents such as ammonia and limestone that are a part of the fuel mix used to reduce air emissions, among other things. Cleco Power has EAC filings for January 2023 and thereafter that remain subject to audit. Management is unable to predict or give a reasonable estimate of the possible range of the disallowance, if any, related to these filings. Historically, the disallowances have not been material. If a disallowance of environmental cost is ordered resulting in a refund to Cleco Power’s customers, any such refund could have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows of the Registrants.

Cleco Power incurs environmental compliance expenses for reagents associated with the compliance standards of MATS. These expenses are also eligible for recovery through Cleco Power’s EAC and are subject to periodic review by the LPSC. In May 2020, the EPA finalized a rule that concluded that it is not appropriate and necessary to regulate hazardous air pollutants from coal- and oil-fired electric generating units. However, the EPA concluded that coal- and oil-fired electric generating units would not be removed from the list of regulated sources of hazardous air pollutants and would remain subject to MATS. The EPA also determined that the results of its risk and technology review did not require any revisions to the emissions standards. Several petitions for review of the rule’s findings were filed between May and July 2020 in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. On January 20, 2021, the Presidential Administration issued an executive order, which directs federal agency heads to review regulations and other actions over the past four years to determine if they are inconsistent with the policies announced in the executive order. The order specifically directed the EPA to consider issuing a proposed rule to suspend, revise, or rescind the rule. The EPA determined the most environmentally protective course is to implement the rules in the executive order. On March 6, 2023, the EPA published in the Federal Register a final rule that reinstates the April 25, 2016, finding that it is appropriate and necessary to regulate hazardous air pollutants from coal and oil-fired electric generating units through MATS. On April 24, 2023, the EPA published in the Federal Register proposed amendments to MATS that are the result of the EPA’s review of the May 2020 residual risk and technology review of MATS. Management is unable to determine whether the outcome of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ review or the EPA’s review of the rule as a result of the executive order will result in changes to the MATS standards.

Energy Efficiency Audit

In 2013, the LPSC issued a General Order adopting rules promoting energy efficiency programs. Cleco Power began participating in energy efficiency programs in November 2014. Through an approved rate tariff, Cleco Power recovered $8.5 million and $6.8 million for the 2022 and 2021 program years, respectively.

In September 2023, Cleco Power received a notice of audit from the LPSC for the program years 2021 and 2022. On February 20, 2024, Cleco Power received the draft audit report from the LPSC Staff, which indicated no material findings. Cleco Power anticipates LPSC approval of the report in the second quarter of 2024.

On January 24, 2024, the LPSC voted to shift control of energy efficiency programs from utilities to an independent, third-party administrator selected by and accountable to the LPSC. This action will remove the provision whereby utilities were allowed to recover any lost revenues associated with unsold electricity. Cleco Power is subject to audits for program years 2023 and thereafter until the time these programs are shifted to the third-party administrator, which is expected in January 2026.

Dolet Hills Prudency Review

Cleco Power is seeking recovery for stranded and decommissioning costs associated with the retirement of the Dolet Hills Power Station as well as deferred fuel and other mine-related closure costs. On February 2, 2024, the ALJ released a final recommendation indicating a partial disallowance of the recovery of fuel costs and a refund of related costs previously recovered from customers. Management estimated that a loss resulting from a potential disallowance was probable, and as a result, an estimated contingent loss of $58.7 million was accrued in provision for rate refund at December 31, 2023.

On April 19, 2024, the LPSC approved an uncontested settlement containing the following provisions:

•a $40.0 million reduction in the regulatory asset associated with the Dolet Hills Power Station,

•refunding $20.0 million per year to Cleco Power’s retail customers as a credit to their bills during the third quarters of 2024, 2025, and 2026 for a total of $60.0 million, and

•allowing securitization of $305.0 million. If the securitization is not complete by September 1, 2024, Cleco Power is allowed to accrue a carrying charge through the earlier of the completion of the securitization or January 31, 2025.

In the second quarter of 2024, Cleco Power intends to file an application with the LPSC for a financing order for the securitization.

As a result of the settlement, the following was recorded in Cleco’s and Cleco Power’s Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements at March 31, 2024:

•a $40.0 million reduction in regulatory assets with an offsetting increase recorded as depreciation expense and

•a $1.3 million increase in the provision for rate refund and electric customer credits.

South Central Generating

Prior to the Cleco Cajun Acquisition, South Central Generating was involved in various litigation matters, including environmental and contract proceedings, before various courts regarding matters arising out of the ordinary course of business. Management is unable to estimate any potential losses regarding matters arising out of the ordinary course of business. Management is unable to estimate any potential losses Cleco may be ultimately responsible for with respect to any of the remaining matters. As part of the Cleco Cajun

Acquisition, NRG Energy indemnified Cleco for losses as of the closing date associated with some matters that existed as of the closing date, including pending litigation.

Other

Cleco is involved in various litigation matters, including regulatory, environmental, and administrative proceedings before various courts, regulatory commissions, arbitrators, and governmental agencies regarding matters arising in the ordinary course of business. The liability Cleco may ultimately incur with respect to any one of these matters may be in excess of amounts currently accrued. Management regularly analyzes current information and, as of March 31, 2024, believes the probable and reasonably estimable liabilities based on the eventual disposition of these matters for Cleco and Cleco Power are $7.7 million and $7.0 million, respectively. Cleco and Cleco Power have accrued these amounts.

Off-Balance Sheet Commitments and Guarantees

Cleco Holdings and Cleco Power have entered into various off-balance sheet commitments, in the form of guarantees and standby letters of credit, in order to facilitate their activities and the activities of Cleco Holdings’ subsidiaries and equity investees (affiliates). Cleco Holdings and Cleco Power have also agreed to contractual terms that require the Registrants to pay third parties if certain triggering events occur. These contractual terms generally are defined as guarantees.

Cleco Holdings entered into these off-balance sheet commitments in order to entice desired counterparties to contract with its affiliates by providing some measure of credit assurance to the counterparty in the event Cleco’s affiliates do not fulfill certain contractual obligations. If Cleco Holdings had not provided the off-balance sheet commitments, the desired counterparties may not have contracted with Cleco’s affiliates, or may have contracted with them at terms less favorable to its affiliates.

The off-balance sheet commitments are not recognized on Cleco’s and Cleco Power’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets because management has determined that Cleco’s and Cleco Power’s affiliates are able to perform the obligations under their contracts and that it is not probable that payments by Cleco or Cleco Power will be required.

Cleco Holdings provided guarantees and indemnities to Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States as a result of the sale of the Perryville generation facility in 2005. The remaining indemnities relate to environmental matters that may have been present prior to closing. These remaining indemnities have no time limitations. The maximum amount of the potential payment to Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States is $42.4 million. Management does not expect to be required to pay Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Gulf States under these guarantees.

On behalf of Acadia, Cleco Holdings provided guarantees and indemnities as a result of the sales of Acadia Unit 1 to Cleco Power and Acadia Unit 2 to Entergy Louisiana in 2010 and 2011, respectively. The remaining indemnities relate to the fundamental organizational structure of Acadia. These remaining indemnities have no time limitations or maximum potential future payments. Management does not expect to be required to pay Cleco Power or Entergy Louisiana under these guarantees.

Cleco Holdings provided indemnities to Cleco Power as a result of the transfer of Coughlin to Cleco Power in March

2014. Cleco Power also provided indemnities to Cleco Holdings as a result of the transfer of Coughlin to Cleco Power. The maximum amount of the potential payment to Cleco Power and Cleco Holdings, for their respective indemnities is $40.0 million, except for indemnities relating to the fundamental organizational structure of each respective entity, of which the maximum amount is $400.0 million. Management does not expect to be required to make any payments under these indemnities.

As part of the Amended Lignite Mining Agreement, Cleco Power and SWEPCO, joint owners of the Dolet Hills Power Station, have agreed to pay the loan and lease principal obligations of the lignite miner, DHLC, when due if DHLC does not have sufficient funds or credit to pay. Any amounts projected to be paid would be based on the forecasted loan and lease obligations to be incurred by DHLC, primarily for reclamation obligations. As of March 31, 2024, Cleco Power does not expect any payments to be made under this guarantee. Cleco Power has the right to dispute the incurrence of such loan and lease obligations through the review of the mining reclamation plan before the incurrence of such obligations. The Amended Lignite Mining Agreement does not affect the amount the Registrants can borrow under their credit facilities.

In April 2020, Cleco Power and SWEPCO mutually agreed not to develop additional mining areas for future lignite extraction and subsequently provided notice to the LPSC of the intent to cease mining at the Dolet Hills and Oxbow mines by June 2020. The mine closures are subject to LPSC review and approval. As of June 30, 2020, all lignite reserves intended to be extracted from the mines had been extracted. On October 6, 2020, Cleco Power and SWEPCO made a joint filing with the LPSC seeking authorization to close the Oxbow mine and to include and defer certain accelerated mine closing costs in fuel and related ratemaking treatment. For more information on the LPSC prudency review associated with the mine closure costs, see “— LPSC Audits and Reviews — Dolet Hills Prudency Review.”

Cleco has letters of credit to MISO pursuant to energy market requirements. The letters of credit automatically renew each year and have no impact on Cleco Holdings’ or Cleco Power’s revolving credit facility.

Generally, neither Cleco Holdings nor Cleco Power has recourse that would enable them to recover amounts paid under their guarantee or indemnification obligations. There are no assets held as collateral for third parties that either Cleco Holdings or Cleco Power could obtain and liquidate to recover amounts paid pursuant to the guarantees or indemnification obligations.

Other Commitments

Cleco has accrued for liabilities related to third parties, employee medical benefits, and AROs.

In April 2015, the EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register for regulating the disposal and management of CCRs from coal-fired power plants (CCR Rule). In August 2018, the D.C. Court of Appeals vacated several requirements in the CCR regulation, which included eliminating the previous acceptability of compacted clay material as a liner for impoundments. As a result, in August 2020, the EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register that would set deadlines for costly modifications including retrofitting of clay-lined impoundments with compliant liners or closure of the impoundments. In November 2020, demonstrations were

submitted to the EPA specifying its intended course of action for the ash disposal facilities at Big Cajun II, Rodemacher Unit 2, and the Dolet Hills Power Station in order to comply with the final CCR Rule. On January 11, 2022, Cleco Power and Cleco Cajun received communication from the EPA that the demonstrations had been deemed complete. Cleco Power withdrew the Dolet Hills demonstration due to the cessation of receiving waste. The two remaining demonstrations are still subject to EPA approval based on pending technical review.

As part of the Cleco Cajun Acquisition, NRG Energy agreed to indemnify Cleco for certain environmental costs up to $25.0 million associated with the CCR Rule, for both ARO and non-ARO related expenses. At March 31, 2024, Cleco Cajun had an indemnification asset totaling $18.6 million, which was substantially related to AROs associated with ash pond remediation. This asset is recorded in Assets held for sale on Cleco’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. As additional periodic expenses related to covered costs are incurred, the associated indemnification asset will be recognized. The indemnification asset is expected to be collected as indemnified costs, either recognized in the ARO or as periodic expenses, are incurred.

Risks and Uncertainties

Cleco could be subject to possible adverse consequences if Cleco’s counterparties fail to perform their obligations or if Cleco or its affiliates are not in compliance with loan agreements or bond indentures.

Access to capital markets is a significant source of funding for both short- and long-term capital requirements not satisfied by operating cash flows.

Changes in the regulatory environment or market forces could cause Cleco to determine its assets have suffered an other-than-temporary decline in value, whereby an impairment would be required, and Cleco’s financial condition could be materially adversely affected.