Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	— Commitments and Contingencies Commitments First Lien Structure NRG has granted first liens to certain counterparties on substantially all of the Company's assets 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 September 30, 2012, in aggregate, the hedge portfolio under the lien was in-the-money. Contingencies Set forth below is a description of the Company's material legal proceedings. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to these legal proceedings and intends to defend them vigorously. Pursuant to the requirements of ASC 450, Contingencies and related guidance, 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. 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. California Department of Water Resources This matter concerns, among other contracts and other defendants, the California Department of Water Resources, or CDWR, and its wholesale power contract with subsidiaries of WCP (Generation) Holdings, Inc., or WCP. The case originated with a February 2002 complaint filed by the State of California alleging that many parties, including WCP subsidiaries, overcharged the State of California. For WCP, the alleged overcharges totaled approximately $940 million for 2001 and 2002. The complaint demanded that the FERC abrogate the CDWR contract and sought refunds associated with revenues collected under the contract. In 2003, the FERC rejected this complaint, denied rehearing, and the case was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where oral argument was held on December 8, 2004. On December 19, 2006, the Ninth Circuit decided that in the FERC's review of the contracts at issue, the FERC could not rely on the Mobile-Sierra standard presumption of just and reasonable rates, where such contracts were not reviewed by the FERC with full knowledge of the then existing market conditions. WCP and others sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court. WCP's appeal was not selected, but instead held by the Supreme Court. In the appeal that was selected by the Supreme Court, on June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled: (i) that the Mobile-Sierra public interest standard of review applied to contracts made under a seller's market-based rate authority; (ii) that the public interest “bar” required to set aside a contract remains a very high one to overcome; and (iii) that the Mobile-Sierra presumption of contract reasonableness applies when a contract is formed during a period of market dysfunction unless (a) such market conditions were caused by the illegal actions of one of the parties or (b) the contract negotiations were tainted by fraud or duress. In this related case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's decision agreeing that the case should be remanded to the FERC to clarify the FERC's 2003 reasoning regarding its rejection of the original complaint relating to the financial burdens under the contracts at issue and to alleged market manipulation at the time these contracts were formed. As a result, the U.S. Supreme Court then reversed and remanded the WCP CDWR case to the Ninth Circuit for treatment consistent with its June 26, 2008, decision in the related case. On October 20, 2008, the Ninth Circuit asked the parties in the remanded CDWR case, including WCP and the FERC, whether that Court should answer a question the U.S. Supreme Court did not address in its June 26, 2008, decision; whether the Mobile-Sierra doctrine applies to a third-party that was not a signatory to any of the wholesale power contracts, including the CDWR contract, at issue in that case. Without answering that reserved question, on December 4, 2008, the Ninth Circuit vacated its prior opinion and remanded the WCP CDWR case back to the FERC for proceedings consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's June 26, 2008, decision. On December 15, 2008, WCP and the other seller-defendants filed with the FERC a Motion for Order Governing Proceedings on Remand. On January 14, 2009, the CPUC filed an Answer and Cross Motion for an Order Governing Procedures on Remand and on January 28, 2009, WCP and the other seller-defendants filed their reply. At this time, the FERC has not acted on remand. On January 14, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in an unrelated proceeding involving the Mobile-Sierra doctrine that will affect the standard of review applied to the CDWR contract on remand before the FERC. In NRG Power Marketing v. Maine Public Utilities Commission, the Supreme Court held that the Mobile-Sierra presumption regarding the reasonableness of contract rates does not depend on the identity of the complainant who seeks a FERC investigation/refund. As part of the 2006 acquisition of Dynegy's 50% ownership interest in WCP, WCP and NRG assumed responsibility for any risk of loss arising from this case, unless any such loss was deemed to have resulted from certain acts of gross negligence or willful misconduct on the part of Dynegy, in which case any such loss would be shared equally between WCP and Dynegy. On March 22, 2012, NRG reached an agreement in principle with the CPUC to settle and resolve this matter, including all related claims, on behalf of NRG and on behalf of Dynegy. The agreement in principle was announced by the Company on March 23, 2012, as well as by the CPUC and by the California Governor's Office. The documented agreement was executed and submitted to the FERC on April 27, 2012 for its approval, and remains pending. The settlement agreement contains three material elements to be fulfilled over a four to six year period, depending upon several factors. First, the settlement agreement includes a $20 million cash payment due 30 days after the FERC approval. Second, it includes the construction and operation of a fee-based charging network, to be owned and operated by NRG subsidiary, eVgo, which will consist of at least 200 publicly available fast-charging electric vehicle stations installed at locations across California. Last, it calls for the wiring and associated work required to improve at least 10,000 individual parking spaces to allow for the charging of electric vehicles in at least 1,000 multi-family complexes, worksites, and public interest locations such as community colleges, public universities, and public or non-profit hospitals. Although these improved newly wired parking spaces will continue to be owned by the local property owner, eVgo will have an 18-month exclusive right to obtain customers from these locations starting from the date of each completed installation. The expected $20 million cash payment was accrued and expensed in the statement of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2012. In addition, the Company expects to spend approximately $100 million over the next four to six year period, during which the Company will fulfill the other elements of the settlement, and will capitalize a substantial majority of the costs as property, plant and equipment, representing the costs to construct the charging network and the wiring, which will be productive assets. The Company will expense the costs to operate the assets as incurred. On May 24, 2012, ECOtality, Inc. filed a lawsuit against the CPUC challenging the settlement, which was effectively dismissed on October 12, 2012. Louisiana Generating, LLC On February 11, 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice, or U.S. DOJ, acting at the request of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or U.S. EPA, commenced a lawsuit against Louisiana Generating, LLC, or LaGen, in federal district court in the Middle District of Louisiana alleging violations of the Clean Air Act, or CAA, at the Big Cajun II power plant. This is the same matter for which Notices of Violation, or NOVs, were issued to LaGen on February 15, 2005, and on December 8, 2006. Specifically, it is alleged that in the late 1990's, several years prior to NRG's acquisition of the Big Cajun II power plant from the Cajun Electric bankruptcy and several years prior to the NRG bankruptcy, modifications were made to Big Cajun II Units 1 and 2 by the prior owners without appropriate or adequate permits and without installing and employing the best available control technology, or BACT, to control emissions of nitrogen oxides and/or sulfur dioxides. The relief sought in the complaint includes a request for an injunction to: (i) preclude the operation of Units 1 and 2 except in accordance with the CAA; (ii) order the installation of BACT on Units 1 and 2 for each pollutant subject to regulation under the CAA; (iii) obtain all necessary permits for Units 1 and 2; (iv) order the surrender of emission allowances or credits; (v) conduct audits to determine if any additional modifications have been made which would require compliance with the CAA's Prevention of Significant Deterioration program; (vi) award to the U.S. DOJ its costs in prosecuting this litigation; and (vii) assess civil penalties of up to $27,500 per day for each CAA violation found to have occurred between January 31, 1997, and March 15, 2004, up to $32,500 for each CAA violation found to have occurred between March 15, 2004, and January 12, 2009, and up to $37,500 for each CAA violation found to have occurred after January 12, 2009. On April 27, 2009, LaGen filed an objection in the Cajun Electric Cooperative Power, Inc.'s bankruptcy proceeding in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Louisiana to seek to prevent the bankruptcy from closing. LaGen also filed a complaint, or adversary proceeding, in the same bankruptcy proceeding, seeking a judgment that: (i) it did not assume liability from Cajun Electric for any claims or other liabilities under environmental laws with respect to Big Cajun II that arose, or are based on activities that were undertaken, prior to the closing date of the acquisition; (ii) it is not otherwise the successor to Cajun Electric with respect to environmental liabilities arising prior to the acquisition; and (iii) Cajun Electric and/or the Bankruptcy Trustee are exclusively liable for any of the violations alleged in the February 11, 2009 lawsuit to the extent that such claims are determined to have merit. On April 15, 2010, the bankruptcy court signed an order granting LaGen's stipulation of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the adversary proceeding. The bankruptcy proceeding has since closed. On January 17, 2012, LaGen filed a demand for a jury trial. On January 20, 2012, the court scheduled a liability-phase trial for October 15, 2012, and a remedy-phase trial set to occur at a later date to be determined in the event of an adverse decision in a liability-phase trial. On October 17, 2012, prior to the start of the liability-phase trial which had been temporarily adjourned, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement on terms of a settlement which requires final approval by the U.S. DOJ. The terms of the agreement generally require LaGen to install certain emission control technologies, as well as pay a civil penalty of $3.5 million and complete mitigation projects of $10.5 million within five years of entry of the Consent Decree. The Company anticipates entry of a Consent Decree by the court approximately ninety days after lodging. The Company is adequately reserved for this settlement. Further discussion on this matter can be found in Note 16, Environmental Matters - South Central Region, of this Form 10-Q. In a related matter, soon after the filing of the above referenced U.S. DOJ lawsuit, LaGen sought insurance coverage from its insurance carrier, Illinois Union Insurance Company, or ILU. ILU denied coverage and thereafter LaGen filed a lawsuit (which was consolidated with a prior suit filed by ILU) seeking a declaration that ILU must provide coverage to LaGen for the defense costs incurred in defending the U.S. DOJ lawsuit. LaGen and ILU both filed motions for summary judgment and on January 30, 2012, the court issued an order granting LaGen's motion finding that ILU has a duty to defend LaGen. The trial court certified the summary judgment for immediate interlocutory appeal, and on May 25, 2012, ILU filed a petition with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit seeking to appeal the trial court's summary judgment ruling. The Fifth Circuit granted the petition on September 4, 2012. ILU filed a related notice of appeal on June 14, 2012, which also seeks review of the trial court's summary judgment ruling. The Company filed a motion to consolidate the two appeals which the court granted on October 24, 2012. Briefing on the appeals is currently ongoing. Energy Plus Holdings, LLC Purported Class Actions Energy Plus Holdings, LLC, or Energy Plus, is a defendant in five purported class action lawsuits, one in New York, one in New Jersey, one in Maryland and two in Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs in those lawsuits generally allege that Energy Plus misrepresents that its rates are competitive in the market; fails to disclose that its rates are substantially higher than those in the market and that Energy Plus has engaged in deceptive practices in its marketing of energy services. Plaintiffs generally seek that these matters be certified as class actions, with treble damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and any other relief that the court deems just and proper. In addition, on July 26, 2012, the Connecticut Attorney General and Office of Consumer Counsel filed a petition with the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority seeking to investigate Energy Plus' marketing practices. On August 7, 2012, Energy Plus Holdings LLC and Energy Plus Natural Gas LLC received a subpoena from the State of New York Office of Attorney General which generally seeks information and business records related to Energy Plus' sales, marketing and business practices. While we believe that these allegations are without merit, we are cooperating with the attorneys general and are exploring an amicable resolution of all matters. The Company does not currently anticipate any potential resolution to be material in nature and believes it is adequately reserved for any estimated losses. Purported Class Actions related to July 22, 2012 Announcement of NRG/GenOn Merger Agreement NRG Energy, Inc. has been named as a defendant in eight purported class actions pending in Texas and Delaware, related to its announcement of its agreement to acquire all outstanding shares of GenOn. These cases have been consolidated into one state court case in each of Delaware and Texas and a federal court case in Texas. The plaintiffs generally allege breach of fiduciary duties, as well as conspiracy, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs are generally seeking to: be certified as a class; enjoin the merger; direct the defendant to exercise their fiduciary duties; rescind the acquisition and be awarded attorneys' fees costs and other relief that the court deems appropriate. Plaintiffs have demanded that there be additional disclosures regarding the merger terms. On October 24, 2012, the parties to the Delaware state court case executed a Memorandum of Understanding to resolve the Delaware purported class action lawsuit.

— Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

First Lien Structure

NRG has granted first liens to certain counterparties on substantially all of the Company's assets 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 September 30, 2012, in aggregate, the hedge portfolio under the lien was in-the-money.

Contingencies

Set forth below is a description of the Company's material legal proceedings. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to these legal proceedings and intends to defend them vigorously. Pursuant to the requirements of ASC 450, Contingencies and related guidance, 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. 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.

California Department of Water Resources

This matter concerns, among other contracts and other defendants, the California Department of Water Resources, or CDWR, and its wholesale power contract with subsidiaries of WCP (Generation) Holdings, Inc., or WCP. The case originated with a February 2002 complaint filed by the State of California alleging that many parties, including WCP subsidiaries, overcharged the State of California. For WCP, the alleged overcharges totaled approximately $940 million for 2001 and 2002. The complaint demanded that the FERC abrogate the CDWR contract and sought refunds associated with revenues collected under the contract. In 2003, the FERC rejected this complaint, denied rehearing, and the case was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where oral argument was held on December 8, 2004.

On December 19, 2006, the Ninth Circuit decided that in the FERC's review of the contracts at issue, the FERC could not rely on the Mobile-Sierra standard presumption of just and reasonable rates, where such contracts were not reviewed by the FERC with full knowledge of the then existing market conditions. WCP and others sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court. WCP's appeal was not selected, but instead held by the Supreme Court. In the appeal that was selected by the Supreme Court, on June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled: (i) that the Mobile-Sierra public interest standard of review applied to contracts made under a seller's market-based rate authority; (ii) that the public interest “bar” required to set aside a contract remains a very high one to overcome; and (iii) that the Mobile-Sierra presumption of contract reasonableness applies when a contract is formed during a period of market dysfunction unless (a) such market conditions were caused by the illegal actions of one of the parties or (b) the contract negotiations were tainted by fraud or duress. In this related case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's decision agreeing that the case should be remanded to the FERC to clarify the FERC's 2003 reasoning regarding its rejection of the original complaint relating to the financial burdens under the contracts at issue and to alleged market manipulation at the time these contracts were formed. As a result, the U.S. Supreme Court then reversed and remanded the WCP CDWR case to the Ninth Circuit for treatment consistent with its June 26, 2008, decision in the related case. On October 20, 2008, the Ninth Circuit asked the parties in the remanded CDWR case, including WCP and the FERC, whether that Court should answer a question the U.S. Supreme Court did not address in its June 26, 2008, decision; whether the Mobile-Sierra doctrine applies to a third-party that was not a signatory to any of the wholesale power contracts, including the CDWR contract, at issue in that case. Without answering that reserved question, on December 4, 2008, the Ninth Circuit vacated its prior opinion and remanded the WCP CDWR case back to the FERC for proceedings consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's June 26, 2008, decision. On December 15, 2008, WCP and the other seller-defendants filed with the FERC a Motion for Order Governing Proceedings on Remand. On January 14, 2009, the CPUC filed an Answer and Cross Motion for an Order Governing Procedures on Remand and on January 28, 2009, WCP and the other seller-defendants filed their reply. At this time, the FERC has not acted on remand.

On January 14, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in an unrelated proceeding involving the Mobile-Sierra doctrine that will affect the standard of review applied to the CDWR contract on remand before the FERC. In NRG Power Marketing v. Maine Public Utilities Commission, the Supreme Court held that the Mobile-Sierra presumption regarding the reasonableness of contract rates does not depend on the identity of the complainant who seeks a FERC investigation/refund.

As part of the 2006 acquisition of Dynegy's 50% ownership interest in WCP, WCP and NRG assumed responsibility for any risk of loss arising from this case, unless any such loss was deemed to have resulted from certain acts of gross negligence or willful misconduct on the part of Dynegy, in which case any such loss would be shared equally between WCP and Dynegy.

On March 22, 2012, NRG reached an agreement in principle with the CPUC to settle and resolve this matter, including all related claims, on behalf of NRG and on behalf of Dynegy. The agreement in principle was announced by the Company on March 23, 2012, as well as by the CPUC and by the California Governor's Office. The documented agreement was executed and submitted to the FERC on April 27, 2012 for its approval, and remains pending. The settlement agreement contains three material elements to be fulfilled over a four to six year period, depending upon several factors. First, the settlement agreement includes a $20 million cash payment due 30 days after the FERC approval. Second, it includes the construction and operation of a fee-based charging network, to be owned and operated by NRG subsidiary, eVgo, which will consist of at least 200 publicly available fast-charging electric vehicle stations installed at locations across California. Last, it calls for the wiring and associated work required to improve at least 10,000 individual parking spaces to allow for the charging of electric vehicles in at least 1,000 multi-family complexes, worksites, and public interest locations such as community colleges, public universities, and public or non-profit hospitals. Although these improved newly wired parking spaces will continue to be owned by the local property owner, eVgo will have an 18-month exclusive right to obtain customers from these locations starting from the date of each completed installation. The expected $20 million cash payment was accrued and expensed in the statement of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2012. In addition, the Company expects to spend approximately $100 million over the next four to six year period, during which the Company will fulfill the other elements of the settlement, and will capitalize a substantial majority of the costs as property, plant and equipment, representing the costs to construct the charging network and the wiring, which will be productive assets. The Company will expense the costs to operate the assets as incurred. On May 24, 2012, ECOtality, Inc. filed a lawsuit against the CPUC challenging the settlement, which was effectively dismissed on October 12, 2012.

Louisiana Generating, LLC

On February 11, 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice, or U.S. DOJ, acting at the request of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or U.S. EPA, commenced a lawsuit against Louisiana Generating, LLC, or LaGen, in federal district court in the Middle District of Louisiana alleging violations of the Clean Air Act, or CAA, at the Big Cajun II power plant. This is the same matter for which Notices of Violation, or NOVs, were issued to LaGen on February 15, 2005, and on December 8, 2006. Specifically, it is alleged that in the late 1990's, several years prior to NRG's acquisition of the Big Cajun II power plant from the Cajun Electric bankruptcy and several years prior to the NRG bankruptcy, modifications were made to Big Cajun II Units 1 and 2 by the prior owners without appropriate or adequate permits and without installing and employing the best available control technology, or BACT, to control emissions of nitrogen oxides and/or sulfur dioxides. The relief sought in the complaint includes a request for an injunction to: (i) preclude the operation of Units 1 and 2 except in accordance with the CAA; (ii) order the installation of BACT on Units 1 and 2 for each pollutant subject to regulation under the CAA; (iii) obtain all necessary permits for Units 1 and 2; (iv) order the surrender of emission allowances or credits; (v) conduct audits to determine if any additional modifications have been made which would require compliance with the CAA's Prevention of Significant Deterioration program; (vi) award to the U.S. DOJ its costs in prosecuting this litigation; and (vii) assess civil penalties of up to $27,500 per day for each CAA violation found to have occurred between January 31, 1997, and March 15, 2004, up to $32,500 for each CAA violation found to have occurred between March 15, 2004, and January 12, 2009, and up to $37,500 for each CAA violation found to have occurred after January 12, 2009.

On April 27, 2009, LaGen filed an objection in the Cajun Electric Cooperative Power, Inc.'s bankruptcy proceeding in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Louisiana to seek to prevent the bankruptcy from closing. LaGen also filed a complaint, or adversary proceeding, in the same bankruptcy proceeding, seeking a judgment that: (i) it did not assume liability from Cajun Electric for any claims or other liabilities under environmental laws with respect to Big Cajun II that arose, or are based on activities that were undertaken, prior to the closing date of the acquisition; (ii) it is not otherwise the successor to Cajun Electric with respect to environmental liabilities arising prior to the acquisition; and (iii) Cajun Electric and/or the Bankruptcy Trustee are exclusively liable for any of the violations alleged in the February 11, 2009 lawsuit to the extent that such claims are determined to have merit. On April 15, 2010, the bankruptcy court signed an order granting LaGen's stipulation of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the adversary proceeding. The bankruptcy proceeding has since closed.

On January 17, 2012, LaGen filed a demand for a jury trial. On January 20, 2012, the court scheduled a liability-phase trial for October 15, 2012, and a remedy-phase trial set to occur at a later date to be determined in the event of an adverse decision in a liability-phase trial. On October 17, 2012, prior to the start of the liability-phase trial which had been temporarily adjourned, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement on terms of a settlement which requires final approval by the U.S. DOJ. The terms of the agreement generally require LaGen to install certain emission control technologies, as well as pay a civil penalty of $3.5 million and complete mitigation projects of $10.5 million within five years of entry of the Consent Decree. The Company anticipates entry of a Consent Decree by the court approximately ninety days after lodging. The Company is adequately reserved for this settlement. Further discussion on this matter can be found in Note 16, Environmental Matters - South Central Region, of this Form 10-Q.

In a related matter, soon after the filing of the above referenced U.S. DOJ lawsuit, LaGen sought insurance coverage from its insurance carrier, Illinois Union Insurance Company, or ILU. ILU denied coverage and thereafter LaGen filed a lawsuit (which was consolidated with a prior suit filed by ILU) seeking a declaration that ILU must provide coverage to LaGen for the defense costs incurred in defending the U.S. DOJ lawsuit. LaGen and ILU both filed motions for summary judgment and on January 30, 2012, the court issued an order granting LaGen's motion finding that ILU has a duty to defend LaGen. The trial court certified the summary judgment for immediate interlocutory appeal, and on May 25, 2012, ILU filed a petition with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit seeking to appeal the trial court's summary judgment ruling. The Fifth Circuit granted the petition on September 4, 2012. ILU filed a related notice of appeal on June 14, 2012, which also seeks review of the trial court's summary judgment ruling. The Company filed a motion to consolidate the two appeals which the court granted on October 24, 2012. Briefing on the appeals is currently ongoing.

Energy Plus Holdings, LLC Purported Class Actions

Energy Plus Holdings, LLC, or Energy Plus, is a defendant in five purported class action lawsuits, one in New York, one in New Jersey, one in Maryland and two in Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs in those lawsuits generally allege that Energy Plus misrepresents that its rates are competitive in the market; fails to disclose that its rates are substantially higher than those in the market and that Energy Plus has engaged in deceptive practices in its marketing of energy services. Plaintiffs generally seek that these matters be certified as class actions, with treble damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and any other relief that the court deems just and proper. In addition, on July 26, 2012, the Connecticut Attorney General and Office of Consumer Counsel filed a petition with the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority seeking to investigate Energy Plus' marketing practices. On August 7, 2012, Energy Plus Holdings LLC and Energy Plus Natural Gas LLC received a subpoena from the State of New York Office of Attorney General which generally seeks information and business records related to Energy Plus' sales, marketing and business practices. While we believe that these allegations are without merit, we are cooperating with the attorneys general and are exploring an amicable resolution of all matters. The Company does not currently anticipate any potential resolution to be material in nature and believes it is adequately reserved for any estimated losses.

Purported Class Actions related to July 22, 2012 Announcement of NRG/GenOn Merger Agreement

NRG Energy, Inc. has been named as a defendant in eight purported class actions pending in Texas and Delaware, related to its announcement of its agreement to acquire all outstanding shares of GenOn. These cases have been consolidated into one state court case in each of Delaware and Texas and a federal court case in Texas. The plaintiffs generally allege breach of fiduciary duties, as well as conspiracy, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs are generally seeking to: be certified as a class; enjoin the merger; direct the defendant to exercise their fiduciary duties; rescind the acquisition and be awarded attorneys' fees costs and other relief that the court deems appropriate. Plaintiffs have demanded that there be additional disclosures regarding the merger terms. On October 24, 2012, the parties to the Delaware state court case executed a Memorandum of Understanding to resolve the Delaware purported class action lawsuit.