Litigation, Other Commitments and Contingencies, and Disclosures about Guarantees

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2024

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Litigation, Other Commitments and Contingencies, and Disclosures about Guarantees

Note 16 — 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.

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. This 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 August 2025.

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, in March 2019. In September 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. In June 2019, Cleco Power and Cabot Corporation each filed separate motions to dismiss. In October 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.

In October 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. In December 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 in October 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.

In May 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 in June 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. In November 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, it 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.

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 May 2024, the LPSC approved the audit report for program years 2021 and 2022, which indicated no material findings.

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 as of 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.

As a result of the settlement, the following was recorded in Cleco’s and Cleco Power’s Consolidated Financial Statements as of 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.

During the third quarter of 2024, approximately $20.0 million was refunded to Cleco Power’s retail customers as a credit to their bills in accordance with the settlement, as previously discussed.

On May 17, 2024, Cleco Power filed an application with the LPSC for a financing order authorizing the securitization. On November 27, 2024, the LPSC issued the financing order authorizing the securitization financing of costs related to the settlement, which became final and not subject to appeal on December 13, 2024. Management anticipates the securitization financing to close by the end of March 2025.

FERC Audits and Reviews

Generally, Cleco Power records wholesale transmission revenue through approved formula rates, Attachment O of the MISO tariff, and certain grandfathered agreements. The calculation of the rate formulas, as well as FERC accounting and reporting requirements, are subject to periodic audits by FERC. In the fourth quarter of 2024, as a part of FERC Docket No. 14-12-016 that reviewed MISO Attachment O rates, FERC ruled that the return on equity component of the rate was not justified. As a result, Cleco Power estimated and recorded a refund of $0.5 million to be refunded during 2025.

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 December 31, 2024, believes the probable and reasonably estimable liabilities based on the eventual disposition of these matters for Cleco and Cleco Power are $11.5 million and $11.0 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 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 December 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.

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.

Long-Term Purchase Obligations

Cleco Holdings has several unconditional long-term purchase obligations primarily related to information technology outsourcing, network monitoring, and software maintenance. Cleco Power has several unconditional long-term purchase obligations primarily related to the purchase of fuel, energy delivery facilities, information technology outsourcing, natural

gas storage, network monitoring, and software maintenance. The aggregate amount of payments required under such obligations at December 31, 2024, is as follows:

(THOUSANDS)	CLECO POWER		CLECO
For the year ending Dec. 31,
2025	$	30,330	$	61,511
2026	12,612		19,420
2027	11,368		11,454
2028	11,173		11,194
2029	10,604		10,604
Thereafter	36,730		36,730
Total long-term purchase obligations	$	112,817	$	150,913

Cleco’s payments under these agreements for the years ended December 31, 2024, 2023, and 2022 were $55.7 million, $79.2 million, and $52.9 million, respectively. Cleco Power’s payments under these agreements for the years ended December 31, 2024, 2023, and 2022 were $48.6 million, $70.5 million, and $49.0 million, respectively.

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 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 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 Rodemacher Unit 2 and the Dolet Hills Power Station in order to comply with the final CCR Rule. In January 2022, Cleco Power 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 remaining demonstrations are still subject to EPA approval based on pending technical review.

On May 8, 2024, the EPA published a final rule that would regulate CCR Management Units (MUs), which includes non-containerized accumulations of CCR on the land at facilities otherwise subject to federal CCR regulations. The final regulation mandates the conducting of facility evaluations at such facilities after the effective date of the rule to determine if CCR MUs are present. For any identified CCR MUs of a particular size, the regulation would require evaluating any impacts on groundwater along with planning for closure of any identified CCR MU sites. Cleco does not expect this final rule to have a material financial impact on its generating units and environmental obligations.

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.