Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure	12. Commitments and Contingencies Litigation We are party to various litigation matters, including regulatory and administrative proceedings arising out of the normal course of business. On a quarterly basis, we review our litigation activities and determine if an unfavorable outcome to us is considered “remote,” “reasonably possible” or “probable” as defined by U.S. GAAP. Where we determine an unfavorable outcome is probable and is reasonably estimable, we accrue for potential litigation losses. The liability we may ultimately incur with respect to such litigation matters, in the event of a negative outcome, may be in excess of amounts currently accrued, if any; however, we do not expect that the reasonably possible outcome of these litigation matters would, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Where we determine an unfavorable outcome is not probable or reasonably estimable, we do not accrue for any potential litigation loss. The ultimate outcome of these litigation matters cannot presently be determined, nor can the liability that could potentially result from a negative outcome be reasonably estimated. As a result, we give no assurance that such litigation matters would, individually or in the aggregate, not have a material adverse effect to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Further, following the Effective Date, pending actions to enforce or otherwise effect repayment of liabilities preceding December 20, 2005, the petition date, as well as pending litigation against the U.S. Debtors related to such liabilities, generally have been permanently enjoined. Any unresolved claims will continue to be subject to the claims reconciliation process under the supervision of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. However, certain pending litigation related to pre-petition liabilities may proceed in courts, other than the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, to the extent the parties to such litigation have obtained relief from the permanent injunction. Pit River Tribe, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, et al. — On June 17, 2002, the Pit River Tribe filed suit against the BLM and other federal agencies in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California seeking to enjoin further exploration, construction and development of the Calpine Four-Mile Hill Project in the Glass Mountain and Medicine Lake geothermal areas. The complaint challenged the validity of the decisions of the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service to permit the development of the proposed project under two geothermal mineral leases previously issued by the BLM. The lawsuit also sought to invalidate the leases. Only declaratory and equitable relief was sought. On November 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision granting the plaintiffs relief by holding that the BLM had not complied with the National Environmental Policy Act, and other procedural requirements and, therefore, held that the lease extensions were invalid. As reported last quarter, on November 4, 2010, the United States District for the Eastern District of California entered an order remanding the matter to federal agencies to implement the Court‘s order. We consider this matter closed and anticipate it will take the federal agencies at least one year to implement the Court‘s order to conduct additional analysis. In addition, in May 2004, the Pit River Tribe and other interested parties filed two separate suits in the District Court seeking to enjoin exploration, construction, and development of the Telephone Flat leases and proposed project at Glass Mountain. These two cases have remained mostly inactive pending the outcome of the above described Pit River Tribe case. Now that the above Pit River Tribe case has been resolved, we anticipate the Pit River Tribe and other interested parties may seek to reactivate the two additional suits, and we are in communication with the U.S. Department of Justice regarding how to proceed. Environmental Matters We are subject to complex and stringent environmental laws and regulations related to the operation of our power plants. On occasion, we may incur environmental fees, penalties and fines associated with the normal operation of our power plants. We do not, however, have environmental violations or other matters that would have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows or that would significantly change our operations. A summary of our larger environmental matters are as follows: Environmental Remediation of Certain Assets Acquired from Conectiv — As part of the Conectiv Acquisition on July 1, 2010, we assumed environmental remediation liabilities related to certain of the assets located in New Jersey that are subject to the ISRA. We have accrued or paid $10 million related to these liabilities at June 30, 2011. Pursuant to the Conectiv Purchase Agreement, PHI is responsible for any amounts that exceed $10 million associated with New Jersey environmental remediation liabilities. Our accrual is included in our allocation of the Conectiv Acquisition purchase price. See Note 2 for disclosures related to our Conectiv Acquisition. Heat Input Limits at Deepwater Unit 1 — Prior to our acquisition, Conectiv was a party to certain pending penalty proceedings in the administrative courts of the State of New Jersey involving one of the older peaker power plants (Deepwater Unit 1). The NJDEP alleged that Deepwater Unit 1 had exceeded its permissible maximum heat input limit, which restricts the amount of fuel burned. Heat input limits are imposed on power plants to limit emissions of pollutants that are not subject to measurement by continuous emissions monitoring systems. These restrictions required one of our peaker power plants (Deepwater Unit 1) to operate at approximately 8 MW less than its full capacity of 86 MW. As part of the settlement reached with the NJDEP, we submitted an application to modify the Deepwater Unit 1 air permit to reclaim the 8 MW limitation and the application was recently approved. We received a permit to allow Deepwater Unit 1 to operate at approximately 86 MW versus the 78 MW restriction during the appeal process. We continue settlement discussions with NJDEP regarding the modification of permits for the other peaker power plants and those appeals remain pending. Other Contingencies Distribution of Calpine Common Stock under our Plan of Reorganization — Through the filing of this Report, approximately 464 million shares have been distributed to holders of allowed unsecured claims and approximately 21 million shares remain in reserve for distribution to holders of disputed claims whose claims ultimately become allowed under our Plan of Reorganization. To the extent that any of the reserved shares remain undistributed upon resolution of the remaining disputed claims, such shares will not be returned to us but rather will be distributed pro rata to claimants with allowed claims to increase their recovery. We are not required to issue additional shares above the 485 million shares authorized to settle unsecured claims, even if the shares remaining for distribution are not sufficient to fully pay all allowed unsecured claims. Holders of the CalGen Third Lien Debt made assertions that they continued to have lien rights to the assets of the CalGen entities until the pending claims asserted in the case styled: HSBC Bank USA, NA as Indenture Trustee, et al v. Calpine Corporation, et al. Case No. 1: 07-cv-03088, S.D.N.Y. are resolved either through court action or settlement. On June 2, 2011, we reached a settlement with holders of the CalGen Third Lien Debt which will be funded from the sale of a portion of the shares held in reserve. The balance of the reserve shares are expected to be distributed to the remaining unsecured creditors over the next few months in accordance with our Plan of Reorganization. The exact timing and number of shares to be distributed will be subject to our final calculation. The sale of shares or the distribution of the remaining shares does not represent the issuance of new or additional shares and will have no impact on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows. The bankruptcy court approved the settlement with the CalGen Third Lien Debt claimants on June 16, 2011. The settlement agreements with the CalGen Third Lien Debt claimants and the claims purchasers are expected to be fully implemented by early August.

12. Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

We are party to various litigation matters, including regulatory and administrative proceedings arising out of the normal course of business. On a quarterly basis, we review our litigation activities and determine if an unfavorable outcome to us is considered “remote,” “reasonably possible” or “probable” as defined by U.S. GAAP. Where we determine an unfavorable outcome is probable and is reasonably estimable, we accrue for potential litigation losses. The liability we may ultimately incur with respect to such litigation matters, in the event of a negative outcome, may be in excess of amounts currently accrued, if any; however, we do not expect that the reasonably possible outcome of these litigation matters would, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Where we determine an unfavorable outcome is not probable or reasonably estimable, we do not accrue for any potential litigation loss. The ultimate outcome of these litigation matters cannot presently be determined, nor can the liability that could potentially result from a negative outcome be reasonably estimated. As a result, we give no assurance that such litigation matters would, individually or in the aggregate, not have a material adverse effect to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Further, following the Effective Date, pending actions to enforce or otherwise effect repayment of liabilities preceding December 20, 2005, the petition date, as well as pending litigation against the U.S. Debtors related to such liabilities, generally have been permanently enjoined. Any unresolved claims will continue to be subject to the claims reconciliation process under the supervision of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. However, certain pending litigation related to pre-petition liabilities may proceed in courts, other than the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, to the extent the parties to such litigation have obtained relief from the permanent injunction.

Pit River Tribe, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, et al. — On June 17, 2002, the Pit River Tribe filed suit against the BLM and other federal agencies in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California seeking to enjoin further exploration, construction and development of the Calpine Four-Mile Hill Project in the Glass Mountain and Medicine Lake geothermal areas. The complaint challenged the validity of the decisions of the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service to permit the development of the proposed project under two geothermal mineral leases previously issued by the BLM. The lawsuit also sought to invalidate the leases. Only declaratory and equitable relief was sought.

On November 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision granting the plaintiffs relief by holding that the BLM had not complied with the National Environmental Policy Act, and other procedural requirements and, therefore, held that the lease extensions were invalid. As reported last quarter, on November 4, 2010, the United States District for the Eastern District of California entered an order remanding the matter to federal agencies to implement the Court‘s order. We consider this matter closed and anticipate it will take the federal agencies at least one year to implement the Court‘s order to conduct additional analysis.

In addition, in May 2004, the Pit River Tribe and other interested parties filed two separate suits in the District Court seeking to enjoin exploration, construction, and development of the Telephone Flat leases and proposed project at Glass Mountain. These two cases have remained mostly inactive pending the outcome of the above described Pit River Tribe case. Now that the above Pit River Tribe case has been resolved, we anticipate the Pit River Tribe and other interested parties may seek to reactivate the two additional suits, and we are in communication with the U.S. Department of Justice regarding how to proceed.

Environmental Matters

We are subject to complex and stringent environmental laws and regulations related to the operation of our power plants. On occasion, we may incur environmental fees, penalties and fines associated with the normal operation of our power plants. We do not, however, have environmental violations or other matters that would have a material impact on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows or that would significantly change our operations. A summary of our larger environmental matters are as follows:

Environmental Remediation of Certain Assets Acquired from Conectiv — As part of the Conectiv Acquisition on July 1, 2010, we assumed environmental remediation liabilities related to certain of the assets located in New Jersey that are subject to the ISRA. We have accrued or paid $10 million related to these liabilities at June 30, 2011. Pursuant to the Conectiv Purchase Agreement, PHI is responsible for any amounts that exceed $10 million associated with New Jersey environmental remediation liabilities. Our accrual is included in our allocation of the Conectiv Acquisition purchase price. See Note 2 for disclosures related to our Conectiv Acquisition.

Heat Input Limits at Deepwater Unit 1 — Prior to our acquisition, Conectiv was a party to certain pending penalty proceedings in the administrative courts of the State of New Jersey involving one of the older peaker power plants (Deepwater Unit 1). The NJDEP alleged that Deepwater Unit 1 had exceeded its permissible maximum heat input limit, which restricts the amount of fuel burned. Heat input limits are imposed on power plants to limit emissions of pollutants that are not subject to measurement by continuous emissions monitoring systems. These restrictions required one of our peaker power plants (Deepwater Unit 1) to operate at approximately 8 MW less than its full capacity of 86 MW. As part of the settlement reached with the NJDEP, we submitted an application to modify the Deepwater Unit 1 air permit to reclaim the 8 MW limitation and the application was recently approved. We received a permit to allow Deepwater Unit 1 to operate at approximately 86 MW versus the 78 MW restriction during the appeal process. We continue settlement discussions with NJDEP regarding the modification of permits for the other peaker power plants and those appeals remain pending.

Other Contingencies

Distribution of Calpine Common Stock under our Plan of Reorganization — Through the filing of this Report, approximately 464 million shares have been distributed to holders of allowed unsecured claims and approximately 21 million shares remain in reserve for distribution to holders of disputed claims whose claims ultimately become allowed under our Plan of Reorganization. To the extent that any of the reserved shares remain undistributed upon resolution of the remaining disputed claims, such shares will not be returned to us but rather will be distributed pro rata to claimants with allowed claims to increase their recovery. We are not required to issue additional shares above the 485 million shares authorized to settle unsecured claims, even if the shares remaining for distribution are not sufficient to fully pay all allowed unsecured claims. Holders of the CalGen Third Lien Debt made assertions that they continued to have lien rights to the assets of the CalGen entities until the pending claims asserted in the case styled: HSBC Bank USA, NA as Indenture Trustee, et al v. Calpine Corporation, et al. Case No. 1: 07-cv-03088, S.D.N.Y. are resolved either through court action or settlement. On June 2, 2011, we reached a settlement with holders of the CalGen Third Lien Debt which will be funded from the sale of a portion of the shares held in reserve. The balance of the reserve shares are expected to be distributed to the remaining unsecured creditors over the next few months in accordance with our Plan of Reorganization. The exact timing and number of shares to be distributed will be subject to our final calculation. The sale of shares or the distribution of the remaining shares does not represent the issuance of new or additional shares and will have no impact on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows. The bankruptcy court approved the settlement with the CalGen Third Lien Debt claimants on June 16, 2011. The settlement agreements with the CalGen Third Lien Debt claimants and the claims purchasers are expected to be fully implemented by early August.