e10vq
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
|
|
|
þ |
|
Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 |
For the quarterly period ended: March 31, 2010
|
|
|
o |
|
Transition report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 |
Commission File Number: 001-15891
NRG Energy, Inc.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
|
Delaware
|
|
41-1724239 |
(State or other jurisdiction
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer |
of incorporation or organization)
|
|
Identification No.) |
|
|
|
211 Carnegie Center, Princeton, New Jersey
|
|
08540 |
(Address of principal executive offices)
|
|
(Zip Code) |
(609) 524-4500
(Registrants telephone number, including area code)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed
by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or
for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its
corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted
pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months
(or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark whether the
registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated
filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of large accelerated
filer, accelerated filer and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the
Exchange Act. (Check one):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large accelerated filer þ
|
|
Accelerated filer o
|
|
Non-accelerated filer o
|
|
Smaller reporting company o |
|
|
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
|
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of
the Exchange Act).
Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed all documents and reports required to
be filed by Sections 12, 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 subsequent to the
distribution of securities under a plan confirmed by a court.
Yes þ No o
As
of May 5, 2010, there were 255,312,628 shares of common stock outstanding, par value $0.01
per share.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Index
2
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD LOOKING INFORMATION
This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NRG Energy, Inc., or NRG or the Company, includes
forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Act, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
or the Exchange Act. The words believes, projects, anticipates, plans, expects,
intends, estimates and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements.
These forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors
which may cause NRGs actual results, performance and achievements, or industry results, to be
materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by
such forward-looking statements. These factors, risks and uncertainties include the factors
described under Risks Factors Related to NRG Energy, Inc. in Part I, Item 1A, of the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K, for the year ended December 31, 2009, including the following:
|
|
|
General economic conditions, changes in the wholesale power markets and fluctuations in
the cost of fuel; |
|
|
|
Volatile power supply costs and demand for power; |
|
|
|
Hazards customary to the power production industry and power generation operations such
as fuel and electricity price volatility, unusual weather conditions, catastrophic
weather-related or other damage to facilities, unscheduled generation outages, maintenance
or repairs, unanticipated changes to fuel supply costs or availability due to higher demand,
shortages, transportation problems or other developments, environmental incidents, or
electric transmission or gas pipeline system constraints and the possibility that NRG may
not have adequate insurance to cover losses as a result of such hazards;
|
|
|
|
The effectiveness of NRGs risk management policies and procedures, and the ability of
NRGs counterparties to satisfy their financial commitments;
|
|
|
|
Counterparties collateral demands and other factors affecting NRGs liquidity position
and financial condition; |
|
|
|
NRGs ability to operate its businesses efficiently, manage capital expenditures and
costs tightly, and generate earnings and cash flows from its asset-based businesses in
relation to its debt and other obligations;
|
|
|
|
NRGs ability to enter into contracts to sell power and procure fuel on acceptable terms
and prices; |
|
|
|
The liquidity and competitiveness of wholesale markets for energy commodities; |
|
|
|
Government regulation, including compliance with regulatory requirements and changes in
market rules, rates, tariffs and environmental laws and increased regulation of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions;
|
|
|
|
Price mitigation strategies and other market structures employed by ISOs or RTOs that
result in a failure to adequately compensate NRGs generation units for all of its costs;
|
|
|
|
NRGs ability to borrow additional funds and access capital markets, as well as NRGs
substantial indebtedness and the possibility that NRG may incur additional indebtedness
going forward;
|
|
|
|
Operating and financial restrictions placed on NRG and its subsidiaries that are
contained in the indentures governing NRGs outstanding notes, in NRGs Senior Credit
Facility, and in debt and other agreements of certain of NRG subsidiaries and project
affiliates generally;
|
|
|
|
NRGs ability to implement its RepoweringNRG strategy of developing and building new
power generation facilities, including new nuclear, wind and solar projects;
|
|
|
|
NRGs ability to implement its econrg strategy of finding ways to meet the challenges of
climate change, clean air and protecting our natural resources while taking advantage of
business opportunities;
|
|
|
|
NRGs ability to implement its FORNRG strategy of increasing the return on invested
capital through operational performance improvements and a range of initiatives at plants
and corporate offices to reduce costs or generate revenues;
|
|
|
|
NRGs ability to achieve its strategy of regularly returning capital to shareholders; |
|
|
|
Reliant Energys ability to maintain market share; |
|
|
|
NRGs ability to successfully evaluate investments in new business and growth
initiatives; and
|
|
|
|
NRGs ability to successfully integrate and manage acquired businesses. |
Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they were made, and NRG undertakes no
obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new
information, future events or otherwise. The foregoing review of factors that could cause NRGs
actual results to differ materially from those contemplated in any forward-looking statements
included in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q should not be construed as exhaustive.
3
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
When the following terms and abbreviations appear in the text of this report, they have the
meanings indicated below:
|
|
|
Baseload capacity
|
|
Electric power generation capacity normally expected to serve loads on an
around-the-clock basis throughout the calendar year
|
|
|
|
BACT
|
|
Best Available Control Technology |
|
|
|
BTU
|
|
British Thermal Unit |
|
|
|
CAA
|
|
Clean Air Act |
|
|
|
CAGR
|
|
Compound annual growth rate |
|
|
|
CAIR
|
|
Clean Air Interstate Rule |
|
|
|
CAISO
|
|
California Independent System Operator |
|
|
|
Capital Allocation Plan
|
|
Share repurchase program |
|
|
|
Capital Allocation Program
|
|
NRGs plan of allocating capital between debt reduction, reinvestment in the
business, and share repurchases through the Capital Allocation Plan
|
|
|
|
CDWR
|
|
California Department of Water Resources |
|
|
|
C&I
|
|
Commercial, industrial and governmental/institutional |
|
|
|
CO2
|
|
Carbon dioxide |
|
|
|
CPS
|
|
CPS Energy |
|
|
|
CSF Debt
|
|
CSF I and CSF II issued notes and preferred interest, individually referred to
as CSF I Debt and CSF II Debt
|
|
|
|
CSRA
|
|
Credit Sleeve Reimbursement Agreement with Merrill Lynch in connection with
acquisition of Reliant Energy, as hereinafter defined
|
|
|
|
CSRA Amendment
|
|
Amendment of the existing CSRA with Merrill Lynch which became effective October
5, 2009
|
|
|
|
DNREC
|
|
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control |
|
|
|
DPUC
|
|
Department of Public Utility Control |
|
|
|
ERCOT
|
|
Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the Independent System Operator and the
regional reliability coordinator of the various electricity systems within Texas
|
|
|
|
Exchange Act
|
|
The Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended |
|
|
|
Expected Baseload Generation
|
|
The net baseload generation limited by economic factors (relationship between
cost of generation and market price) and reliability factors (scheduled and
unplanned outages)
|
|
|
|
FASB
|
|
Financial Accounting Standards Board the designated organization for
establishing standards for financial accounting and reporting |
|
|
|
FERC
|
|
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission |
|
|
|
GHG
|
|
Greenhouse Gases |
|
|
|
GWh
|
|
Gigawatt hour |
|
|
|
IGCC
|
|
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle |
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
ISO
|
|
Independent System Operator, also referred to as Regional Transmission
Organizations, or RTO
|
|
|
|
ISO-NE
|
|
ISO New England Inc. |
|
|
|
kV
|
|
Kilovolts |
|
|
|
kW
|
|
Kilowatts |
|
|
|
kWh
|
|
Kilowatt-hours |
|
|
|
LIBOR
|
|
London Inter-Bank Offer Rate |
|
|
|
LTIP
|
|
Long-Term Incentive Plan |
|
|
|
MACT
|
|
Maximum Achievable Control Technology |
|
|
|
Mass
|
|
Residential and small business |
|
|
|
Merit Order
|
|
A term used for the ranking of power stations in order of ascending marginal cost |
|
|
|
MIBRAG
|
|
Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft mbH |
|
|
|
MMBtu
|
|
Million British Thermal Units |
|
|
|
MVA
|
|
Megavolt-ampere |
|
|
|
MW
|
|
Megawatts |
|
|
|
MWh
|
|
Saleable megawatt hours net of internal/parasitic load megawatt-hours |
|
|
|
NAAQS
|
|
National Ambient Air Quality Standards |
|
|
|
NINA
|
|
Nuclear Innovation North America LLC |
|
|
|
NOx
|
|
Nitrogen oxide |
|
|
|
NPNS
|
|
Normal Purchase Normal Sale |
|
|
|
NRC
|
|
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission |
|
|
|
NSR
|
|
New Source Review |
|
|
|
NYISO
|
|
New York Independent System Operator |
|
|
|
OCI
|
|
Other comprehensive income |
|
|
|
Phase II 316(b) Rule
|
|
A section of the Clean Water Act regulating cooling water intake structures |
|
|
|
PJM
|
|
PJM Interconnection, LLC |
|
|
|
PJM market
|
|
The wholesale and retail electric market operated by PJM primarily in all or
parts of Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia
|
|
|
|
PML
|
|
NRG Power Marketing, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of NRG which procures
transportation and fuel for the Companys generation facilities, sells the power
from these facilities and supply for Reliant Energy, and manages all commodity
trading and hedging for NRG |
|
|
|
PPA
|
|
Power Purchase Agreement |
|
|
|
PUCT
|
|
Public Utility Commission of Texas |
|
|
|
Reliant Energy
|
|
NRGs retail business in Texas purchased on May 1, 2009, from Reliant Energy,
Inc. which is now known as RRI Energy, Inc., or RRI
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
Repowering
|
|
Technologies utilized to replace, rebuild, or redevelop major portions of an
existing electrical generating facility, not only to achieve a substantial
emissions reduction, but also to increase facility capacity, and improve system
efficiency
|
|
|
|
RepoweringNRG
|
|
NRGs program designed to develop, finance, construct and operate new, highly
efficient, environmentally responsible capacity
|
|
|
|
REPS
|
|
Reliant Energy Power Supply, LLC |
|
|
|
RERH
|
|
RERH Holding, LLC and its subsidiaries |
|
|
|
Revolving Credit Facility
|
|
NRGs $1 billion senior secured credit facility which matures on February 2, 2011
|
|
|
|
RGGI
|
|
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative |
|
|
|
RMR
|
|
Reliability Must-Run |
|
|
|
ROIC
|
|
Return on invested capital |
|
|
|
RRI
|
|
RRI Energy, Inc. (formerly Reliant Energy, Inc.) |
|
|
|
Sarbanes-Oxley
|
|
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended |
|
|
|
SEC
|
|
United States Securities and Exchange Commission |
|
|
|
Securities Act
|
|
The Securities Act of 1933, as amended |
|
|
|
Senior Credit Facility
|
|
NRGs senior secured facility, which is comprised of a Term Loan Facility and a
$1.3 billion Synthetic Letter of Credit Facility which matures on February 1,
2013, and a $1 billion Revolving Credit Facility, which matures on February 2,
2011
|
|
|
|
Senior Notes
|
|
The Companys $5.4 billion outstanding unsecured senior notes consisting of $1.2
billion of 7.25% senior notes due 2014, $2.4 billion of 7.375% senior notes due
2016 and $1.1 billion of 7.375% senior notes due 2017 and $700 million of 8.5%
senior notes due 2019
|
|
|
|
SO2
|
|
Sulfur dioxide |
|
|
|
STP
|
|
South Texas Project nuclear generating facility located near Bay City, Texas
in which NRG owns a 44% Interest
|
|
|
|
STPNOC
|
|
South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company |
|
|
|
Synthetic Letter of Credit Facility
|
|
NRGs $1.3 billion senior secured synthetic letter of credit facility which
matures on February 1, 2013
|
|
|
|
TANE
|
|
Toshiba American Nuclear Operating Company |
|
|
|
TANE Facility
|
|
NINAs $500 million credit facility with TANE which matures on February 24, 2012 |
|
|
|
TEPCO
|
|
The Tokyo Electric Power Company of Japan, Inc.
|
|
|
|
Term Loan Facility
|
|
A senior first priority secured term loan which matures on February 1, 2013, and
is included as part of NRGs Senior Credit Facility
|
|
|
|
TNEA
|
|
TEPCO Nuclear
Energy America LLC
|
|
|
|
Tonnes
|
|
Metric tonnes, which are units of mass or weight in the metric system each equal
to 2,205lbs and are the global measurement for GHG
|
|
|
|
TWh
|
|
Terawatt hour |
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
United States of America |
|
|
|
U.S. DOE
|
|
United States Department of Energy |
|
|
|
U.S. EPA
|
|
United States Environmental Protection Agency |
|
|
|
U.S. GAAP
|
|
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States |
|
|
|
VaR
|
|
Value at Risk |
6
ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
The FASB has established the FASB Accounting Standards Codification, or ASC, as the source of
authoritative U.S. GAAP. The FASB issues updates to the ASC through Accounting Standards Updates,
or ASUs. The following ASC topics and ASUs are referenced in this report:
|
|
|
ASC 280
|
|
ASC-280, Segment Reporting |
|
|
|
ASC 450
|
|
ASC-450, Contingencies |
|
|
|
ASC 740
|
|
ASC-740, Income Taxes |
|
|
|
ASC 805
|
|
ASC-805, Business Combinations |
|
|
|
ASC 810
|
|
ASC-810, Consolidation |
|
|
|
ASC 815
|
|
ASC-815, Derivatives and Hedging |
|
|
|
ASC 820
|
|
ASC-820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures |
|
|
|
ASC 980
|
|
ASC-980, Regulated Operations |
|
|
|
ASU 2009-15
|
|
ASU No. 2009-15, Accounting for Own-Share Lending Arrangements in Contemplation of
Convertible Debt Issuance or Other Financing
|
|
|
|
ASU 2009-17
|
|
ASU No. 2009-17, Consolidations: Improvements to Financial Reporting by
Enterprises Involved with Variable Interest Entities |
|
|
|
ASU 2010-02
|
|
ASU No. 2010-02, Consolidation (Topic 810): Accounting and Reporting for Decreases
in Ownership of a Subsidiarya Scope Clarification
|
|
|
|
ASU 2010-06
|
|
ASU No. 2010-06, Fair Value Measurement and Disclosures: Improving Disclosures
about Fair Value Measurements
|
|
|
|
ASU 2010-09
|
|
ASU No. 2010-09, Subsequent Events (Topic 815): Amendments to Certain Recognition
and Disclosure Requirements
|
|
|
|
ASU 2010-10
|
|
ASU No. 2010-10, Consolidation (Topic 810): Amendments for Certain Investment Funds |
7
PART I FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1 CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended March 31, |
(In millions, except for per share amounts) |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
Operating Revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating revenues |
|
$ |
2,215 |
|
|
$ |
1,658 |
|
|
Operating Costs and Expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of operations |
|
|
1,639 |
|
|
|
766 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
202 |
|
|
|
169 |
|
Selling, general and administrative |
|
|
130 |
|
|
|
95 |
|
Development costs |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
Total operating costs and expenses |
|
|
1,980 |
|
|
|
1,043 |
|
Gain on sale of assets |
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
258 |
|
|
|
615 |
|
|
Other Income/(Expense) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
Other income/(loss), net |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
Interest expense |
|
|
(153 |
) |
|
|
(138 |
) |
|
Total other expense |
|
|
(135 |
) |
|
|
(119 |
) |
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
496 |
|
Income tax expense |
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
298 |
|
|
Net Income attributable to NRG Energy, Inc. |
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
198 |
|
Dividends for preferred shares |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
Income Available for NRG Energy, Inc. Common Stockholders |
|
$ |
56 |
|
|
$ |
184 |
|
|
Earnings per share attributable to NRG Energy, Inc. Common Stockholders |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding basic |
|
|
254 |
|
|
|
237 |
|
Net Income per Weighted Average Common Share basic |
|
$ |
0.22 |
|
|
$ |
0.78 |
|
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding diluted |
|
|
257 |
|
|
|
275 |
|
Net Income per Weighted Average Common Share diluted |
|
$ |
0.22 |
|
|
$ |
0.70 |
|
|
See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.
8
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2010 |
|
December 31, 2009 |
(In millions, except shares) |
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
|
|
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
1,813 |
|
|
$ |
2,304 |
|
Funds deposited by counterparties |
|
|
509 |
|
|
|
177 |
|
Restricted cash |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
Accounts receivable trade, less allowance for doubtful accounts of $21 and $29, respectively |
|
|
700 |
|
|
|
876 |
|
Inventory |
|
|
549 |
|
|
|
541 |
|
Derivative instruments valuation |
|
|
2,724 |
|
|
|
1,636 |
|
Cash collateral paid in support of energy risk management activities |
|
|
533 |
|
|
|
361 |
|
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
307 |
|
|
|
311 |
|
|
Total current assets |
|
|
7,142 |
|
|
|
6,208 |
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation of $3,236 and $3,052, respectively |
|
|
11,627 |
|
|
|
11,564 |
|
|
Other Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity investments in affiliates |
|
|
421 |
|
|
|
409 |
|
Note receivable affiliate and capital leases, less current portion |
|
|
476 |
|
|
|
504 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
1,713 |
|
|
|
1,718 |
|
Intangible assets, net of accumulated amortization of $758 and $648, respectively |
|
|
1,686 |
|
|
|
1,777 |
|
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund |
|
|
382 |
|
|
|
367 |
|
Derivative instruments valuation |
|
|
975 |
|
|
|
683 |
|
Other non-current assets |
|
|
156 |
|
|
|
148 |
|
|
Total other assets |
|
|
5,809 |
|
|
|
5,606 |
|
|
Total Assets |
|
$ |
24,578 |
|
|
$ |
23,378 |
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt and capital leases |
|
$ |
152 |
|
|
$ |
571 |
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
595 |
|
|
|
697 |
|
Derivative instruments valuation |
|
|
2,354 |
|
|
|
1,473 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
174 |
|
|
|
197 |
|
Cash collateral received in support of energy risk management activities |
|
|
509 |
|
|
|
177 |
|
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities |
|
|
588 |
|
|
|
647 |
|
|
Total current liabilities |
|
|
4,372 |
|
|
|
3,762 |
|
|
Other Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt and capital leases |
|
|
7,846 |
|
|
|
7,847 |
|
Nuclear decommissioning reserve |
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
300 |
|
Nuclear decommissioning trust liability |
|
|
262 |
|
|
|
255 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
1,925 |
|
|
|
1,783 |
|
Derivative instruments valuation |
|
|
439 |
|
|
|
387 |
|
Out-of-market contracts |
|
|
277 |
|
|
|
294 |
|
Other non-current liabilities |
|
|
885 |
|
|
|
806 |
|
|
Total non-current liabilities |
|
|
11,938 |
|
|
|
11,672 |
|
|
Total Liabilities |
|
|
16,310 |
|
|
|
15,434 |
|
|
3.625% convertible perpetual preferred stock (at liquidation value, net of issuance costs) |
|
|
247 |
|
|
|
247 |
|
Commitments and Contingencies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders Equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred stock (at liquidation value, net of issuance costs) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
149 |
|
Common stock |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
Additional paid-in capital |
|
|
5,274 |
|
|
|
4,948 |
|
Retained earnings |
|
|
3,388 |
|
|
|
3,332 |
|
Less treasury stock, at cost 48,411,606 and 41,866,451 shares, respectively |
|
|
(1,323 |
) |
|
|
(1,163 |
) |
Accumulated other comprehensive income |
|
|
667 |
|
|
|
416 |
|
Noncontrolling interest |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
Total Stockholders Equity |
|
|
8,021 |
|
|
|
7,697 |
|
|
Total Liabilities and Stockholders Equity |
|
$ |
24,578 |
|
|
$ |
23,378 |
|
|
See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.
9
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
Three months ended March 31, |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
Cash Flows from Operating Activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
58 |
|
|
$ |
198 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distributions and equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(22 |
) |
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
202 |
|
|
|
169 |
|
Provision for bad debts |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of nuclear fuel |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
Amortization of financing costs and debt discount/premiums |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
Amortization of intangibles and out-of-market contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(34 |
) |
Changes in deferred income taxes and liability for unrecognized tax benefits |
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
299 |
|
Changes in nuclear decommissioning trust liability |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
Changes in derivatives |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
(304 |
) |
Changes in collateral deposits supporting energy risk management activities |
|
|
(172 |
) |
|
|
312 |
|
Gain on sale of assets |
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
Gain on sale of emission allowances |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
Amortization of unearned equity compensation |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
Changes in option premiums collected |
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
(270 |
) |
Cash used by changes in other working capital |
|
|
(182 |
) |
|
|
(233 |
) |
|
Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities |
|
|
114 |
|
|
|
139 |
|
|
Cash Flows from Investing Activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures |
|
|
(185 |
) |
|
|
(233 |
) |
Increase in restricted cash, net |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
Decrease in notes receivable |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
Purchases of emission allowances |
|
|
(34 |
) |
|
|
(35 |
) |
Proceeds from sale of emission allowances |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
Investments in nuclear decommissioning trust fund securities |
|
|
(78 |
) |
|
|
(83 |
) |
Proceeds from sales of nuclear decommissioning trust fund securities |
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
78 |
|
Proceeds from sale of assets |
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
Other |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash Used by Investing Activities |
|
|
(194 |
) |
|
|
(259 |
) |
|
Cash Flows from Financing Activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payment of dividends to preferred stockholders |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(14 |
) |
Net receipts from acquired derivatives that include financing elements |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of common stock |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Payment of deferred debt issuance costs |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
Payments for short and long-term debt |
|
|
(429 |
) |
|
|
(209 |
) |
|
Net Cash Used by Financing Activities |
|
|
(408 |
) |
|
|
(184 |
) |
|
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
Net Decrease in Cash and Cash Equivalents |
|
|
(491 |
) |
|
|
(306 |
) |
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Period |
|
|
2,304 |
|
|
|
1,494 |
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Period |
|
$ |
1,813 |
|
|
$ |
1,188 |
|
|
See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.
10
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
Note 1 Basis of Presentation
NRG Energy, Inc., or NRG or the Company, is primarily a wholesale power generation company
with a significant presence in major competitive power markets in the United States of America, or
U.S., as well as a major retail electricity provider in the ERCOT (Texas) market. NRG is engaged
in the ownership, development, construction and operation of power generation facilities, both
conventional and renewable, the transacting in and trading of fuel and transportation services, the
trading of energy, capacity and related products in the U.S. and select international markets, and
supply of electricity and energy services to retail electricity customers in the Texas market. The
Company also seeks to invest in and deploy new energy technologies.
The accompanying unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements have been
prepared in accordance with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissions, or SECs, regulations
for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q. Accordingly, they do not
include all of the information and notes required by generally accepted accounting principles for
complete financial statements. The following notes should be read in conjunction with the
accounting policies and other disclosures as set forth in the notes to the Companys financial
statements in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009. Interim results
are not necessarily indicative of results for a full year.
In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited interim condensed consolidated
financial statements contain all material adjustments consisting of normal and recurring accruals
necessary to present fairly the Companys consolidated financial position as of March 31, 2010, and
the results of operations and cash flows for the three months ended March 31, 2010, and 2009.
Use of Estimates
The preparation of consolidated financial statements in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions. These estimates and
assumptions impact the reported amount of assets and liabilities and disclosures of contingent
assets and liabilities as of the date of the consolidated financial statements. They also impact
the reported amount of net earnings during the reporting period. Actual results could be different
from these estimates.
Note 2 Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Other Cash Flow Information
NRGs investing activities do not include non-cash capital expenditures of $90 million which
were accrued at March 31, 2010.
Recent Accounting Developments
ASU No. 2009-17 On January 1, 2010, the Company adopted the provisions of ASU No. 2009-17,
Consolidations: Improvements to Financial Reporting by Enterprises Involved with Variable Interest
Entities, or ASU 2009-17. This guidance amends ASC 810 by altering how a company determines when
an entity that is insufficiently capitalized or not controlled through its voting interests should
be consolidated. The previous ASC 810 guidance required a quantitative analysis of the economic
risk/rewards of a Variable Interest Entity, or a VIE, to determine the primary beneficiary. ASU
2009-17 specifies that a qualitative analysis be performed, requiring the primary beneficiary to
have both the power to direct the activities of a VIE that most significantly impact the entities
economic performance, as well as either the obligation to absorb losses or the right to receive
benefits that could potentially be significant to the VIE. The Companys adoption of ASU 2009-17
on January 1, 2010, did not have an impact on its results of operations, financial position or cash
flows.
ASU No. 2010-10 In February 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-10, Consolidation (Topic
810): Amendments for Certain Investment Funds, or ASU 2010-10. The amendments to ASC 810 clarify
that related parties should be considered when evaluating the criteria for determining whether a
decision makers or service providers fee represents a variable interest. In addition, the
amendments clarify that a quantitative calculation should not be the sole basis for evaluating
whether a decision makers or service providers fee represents a variable interest. The Company
adopted the provisions of ASU 2010-10 effective January 1, 2010, with no impact on its results of
operations, financial position or cash flows.
11
Other effects of ASU 2009-17/ASU 2010-10 adoption NRG determined that one of its equity
method investments was a VIE as of January 1, 2010, upon adoption of this new guidance. NRG owns a
50% interest in Sherbino I Wind Farm LLC, or Sherbino, a 150MW wind farm operated as a joint
venture with BP Wind Energy North America Inc., or BP Wind. The Company has determined that
Sherbino is a VIE, but the Company is not the primary beneficiary, under the amended guidance in
ASU 2009-17 and ASU 2010-10. Therefore, NRG will continue to account for its investment in
Sherbino under the equity method. NRGs maximum exposure to loss is limited to its equity
investment, which is $101 million as of March 31, 2010.
Borrowings of an equity method investment In December 2008 Sherbino entered into a 15-year
term loan facility which is non-recourse to NRG. As of March 31, 2010 the outstanding principal
balance of the term loan facility was $133 million, and is secured by substantially all of
Sherbinos assets and membership interests.
ASU No. 2010-09 In February 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-09, Subsequent Events (Topic
855): Amendments to Certain Recognition and Disclosure Requirements, or ASU 2010-09. Under the
amendments of ASU 2010-09, an entity that is an SEC filer is not required to disclose the date
through which subsequent events have been evaluated. As this guidance provides only disclosure
requirements, the adoption of ASU 2010-09 effective January 1, 2010, did not impact the Companys
results of operations, financial position or cash flows.
Other The following accounting standards were adopted on January 1, 2010, with no impact on
the Companys results of operations, financial position or cash flows:
|
|
|
ASU No. 2009-15, Accounting for Own-Share Lending Arrangements in Contemplation of
Convertible Debt Issuance or Other Financing, or ASU 2009-15.
|
|
|
|
ASU No. 2010-02, Consolidation (Topic 810): Accounting and Reporting for Decreases in
Ownership of a Subsidiarya Scope Clarification, or ASU 2010-02.
|
|
|
|
ASU No. 2010-06, Fair Value Measurement and Disclosures: Improving Disclosures about Fair
Value Measurements, or ASU 2010-06.
|
Note 3 Comprehensive Income
The following table summarizes the components of the Companys comprehensive income, net of
tax:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
Three months ended March 31, |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
Net Income attributable to NRG Energy, Inc. |
|
$ |
58 |
|
|
$ |
198 |
|
|
Changes in derivative activity |
|
|
257 |
|
|
|
173 |
|
Foreign currency translation adjustment |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(18 |
) |
Unrealized gain on available-for-sale securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
Other comprehensive income |
|
$ |
251 |
|
|
|
156 |
|
|
Comprehensive income |
|
$ |
309 |
|
|
$ |
354 |
|
|
The following table summarizes the changes in the Companys accumulated other comprehensive
income, net of tax:
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income as of December 31, 2009 |
|
$ |
416 |
|
Changes in derivative activity |
|
|
257 |
|
Foreign currency translation adjustment |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income as of March 31, 2010 |
|
$ |
667 |
|
|
12
Note 4 Acquisitions and Dispositions
Acquisition of Reliant Energy
On May 1, 2009, NRG, through its wholly-owned subsidiary NRG Retail LLC, acquired Reliant
Energy from RRI Energy, Inc., or RRI, which consisted of the entire Texas electric retail business
operations of RRI, including the exclusive use of the trade name Reliant and related branding
rights. The acquisition of Reliant Energy was accounted for under the acquisition method of
accounting in accordance with ASC 805. Accordingly, NRG conducted an assessment of net assets
acquired and recognized identifiable assets acquired and liabilities assumed at their acquisition
date fair values. The accounting for this business combination was complete as of March 31, 2010.
NRG paid RRI $287.5 million in cash at closing, and made payments to RRI of $79 million as
remittances of acquired net working capital. In addition, the Company expects to remit
approximately $3 million of acquired net working capital to RRI by the second quarter 2010,
bringing the total cash consideration to approximately $370 million. NRG also recognized a $31
million non-cash gain at the acquisition date, on the settlement of a pre-existing relationship,
representing the in-the-money value to NRG of an agreement that permits Reliant Energy to call on
certain NRG gas plants when necessary for Reliant Energy to meet its load obligations. This
non-cash gain was considered a component of consideration in accordance with ASC 805, and together
with cash consideration, brings total consideration to approximately $401 million.
The following table summarizes the values assigned to the net assets acquired, including cash
acquired of $6 million, as of the acquisition date:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
Assets |
|
|
|
|
Current and non-current assets |
|
$ |
635 |
|
Property, plant and equipment |
|
|
72 |
|
Intangible assets subject to amortization: |
|
|
|
|
In-market customer contracts |
|
|
790 |
|
Customer relationships |
|
|
405 |
|
Trade names |
|
|
178 |
|
In-market energy supply contracts |
|
|
54 |
|
Other |
|
|
6 |
|
Derivative assets |
|
|
1,942 |
|
Deferred tax asset, net |
|
|
14 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets acquired |
|
$ |
4,096 |
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
Current and non-current liabilities |
|
$ |
556 |
|
Derivative liabilities |
|
|
2,996 |
|
Out-of-market energy supply and customer contracts |
|
|
143 |
|
|
Total liabilities assumed |
|
$ |
3,695 |
|
|
Net assets acquired |
|
$ |
401 |
|
|
13
Measurement period adjustments
The following measurement period adjustments to the provisional amounts, attributable to
refinement of the underlying appraisal assumptions, were recognized during 2009 subsequent to the
acquisition date and the first quarter of 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase/(Decrease) |
|
|
(In millions) |
Assets |
|
|
|
|
Intangible assets subject to amortization: |
|
|
|
|
In-market customer contracts |
|
$ |
57 |
|
Customer relationships |
|
|
(76 |
) |
In-market energy supply contracts |
|
|
17 |
|
Deferred tax asset, net |
|
|
3 |
|
|
Total assets acquired |
|
|
1 |
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
Current and non-current liabilities |
|
|
6 |
|
Out-of-market energy supply and customer contracts |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
Total liabilities assumed |
|
|
1 |
|
|
Net assets acquired |
|
$ |
|
|
|
Disposition of Padoma
On January 11, 2010, NRG sold its terrestrial wind development company, Padoma Wind Power LLC,
or Padoma, to Enel North America, Inc., or Enel. NRG retained its existing ownership interest in
its three Texas wind farms: Sherbino, Elbow Creek and Langford. In addition, NRG will maintain a
strategic partnership with Enel to evaluate potential opportunities in renewable energy, including
the opportunity to participate in wind projects currently in development. NRG recognized a gain on
the sale of Padoma of $23 million, which was recorded as a component of operating income in the
statement of operations.
Note 5 Fair Value of Financial Instruments
The estimated carrying values and fair values of NRGs recorded financial instruments are as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carrying Amount |
|
Fair Value |
|
|
March 31, |
|
December 31, |
|
March 31, |
|
December 31, |
|
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
1,813 |
|
|
$ |
2,304 |
|
|
$ |
1,813 |
|
|
$ |
2,304 |
|
Funds deposited by counterparties |
|
|
509 |
|
|
|
177 |
|
|
|
509 |
|
|
|
177 |
|
Restricted cash |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
Cash collateral paid in support of energy risk management activities |
|
|
533 |
|
|
|
361 |
|
|
|
533 |
|
|
|
361 |
|
Investment in available-for-sale securities (classified within other
non-current assets): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt securities |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
Marketable equity securities |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
Trust fund investments |
|
|
384 |
|
|
|
369 |
|
|
|
384 |
|
|
|
369 |
|
Notes receivable |
|
|
229 |
|
|
|
231 |
|
|
|
236 |
|
|
|
238 |
|
Derivative assets |
|
|
3,699 |
|
|
|
2,319 |
|
|
|
3,699 |
|
|
|
2,319 |
|
Long-term debt, including current portion |
|
|
7,883 |
|
|
|
8,295 |
|
|
|
7,832 |
|
|
|
8,211 |
|
Cash collateral received in support of energy risk management activities |
|
|
509 |
|
|
|
177 |
|
|
|
509 |
|
|
|
177 |
|
Derivative liabilities |
|
$ |
2,793 |
|
|
$ |
1,860 |
|
|
$ |
2,793 |
|
|
$ |
1,860 |
|
14
Recurring Fair Value Measurements
The following table presents assets and liabilities measured and recorded at fair value on the
Companys condensed consolidated balance sheet on a recurring basis and their level within the fair
value hierarchy:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
As of March 31, 2010 |
|
Level 1 |
|
Level 2 |
|
Level 3 |
|
Total |
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
1,813 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,813 |
|
Funds deposited by counterparties |
|
|
509 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
509 |
|
Restricted cash |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
Cash collateral paid in support of energy risk management activities |
|
|
533 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
533 |
|
Investment in available-for-sale securities (classified within other non-current assets): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
Marketable equity securities |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
Trust fund investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
U.S. government and federal agency obligations |
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23 |
|
Federal agency mortgage-backed securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63 |
|
Commercial mortgage-backed securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48 |
|
Marketable equity securities |
|
|
194 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
231 |
|
Foreign government fixed income securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Derivative assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commodity contracts |
|
|
995 |
|
|
|
2,593 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
3,688 |
|
Interest rate contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
4,087 |
|
|
$ |
2,715 |
|
|
$ |
157 |
|
|
$ |
6,959 |
|
|
Cash collateral received in support of energy risk management activities |
|
$ |
509 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
509 |
|
Derivative liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commodity contracts |
|
|
1,119 |
|
|
|
1,430 |
|
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
2,685 |
|
Interest rate contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
108 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
108 |
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
$ |
1,628 |
|
|
$ |
1,538 |
|
|
$ |
136 |
|
|
$ |
3,302 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Fair Value |
As of December 31, 2009 |
|
Level 1 |
|
Level 2 |
|
Level 3 |
|
Total |
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
2,304 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2,304 |
|
Funds deposited by counterparties |
|
|
177 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
177 |
|
Restricted cash |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Cash collateral paid in support of energy risk management activities |
|
|
361 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
361 |
|
Investment in available-for-sale securities (classified within other non-current assets): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
Marketable equity securities |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
Trust fund investments |
|
|
214 |
|
|
|
118 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
369 |
|
Derivative assets |
|
|
489 |
|
|
|
1,767 |
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
2,319 |
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
3,552 |
|
|
$ |
1,885 |
|
|
$ |
109 |
|
|
$ |
5,546 |
|
|
Cash collateral received in support of energy risk management activities |
|
$ |
177 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
177 |
|
Derivative liabilities |
|
|
501 |
|
|
|
1,283 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
1,860 |
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
$ |
678 |
|
|
$ |
1,283 |
|
|
$ |
76 |
|
|
$ |
2,037 |
|
|
15
There have been no transfers during the three months ended March 31, 2010, between Levels 1
and 2. The following table reconciles the beginning and ending balances for financial instruments
that are recognized at fair value in the consolidated financial statements using significant
unobservable inputs:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurement Using Significant Unobservable Inputs |
|
|
(Level 3) |
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
Trust Fund |
|
|
|
|
Three months ended March 31, 2010 |
|
Debt Securities |
|
Investments |
|
Derivatives(a) |
|
Total |
|
Beginning balance as of January 1, 2010 |
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
37 |
|
|
$ |
(13 |
) |
|
$ |
33 |
|
Total gains/(losses) (realized and unrealized) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Included in earnings |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
Purchases |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
Transfers in to Level 3(b) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(62 |
) |
|
|
(62 |
) |
Transfers out of Level 3(b) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
Ending balance as of March 31, 2010 |
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
37 |
|
|
$ |
(25 |
) |
|
$ |
21 |
|
|
The amount of the total gains for the period
included in earnings attributable to the change
in unrealized gains relating to assets still
held as of March 31, 2010 |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
25 |
|
|
$ |
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurement Using Significant Unobservable Inputs |
|
|
(Level 3) |
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
Trust Fund |
|
|
|
|
Three months ended March 31, 2009 |
|
Debt Securities |
|
Investments |
|
Derivatives(a) |
|
Total |
|
Beginning balance as of January 1, 2009 |
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
31 |
|
|
$ |
49 |
|
|
$ |
87 |
|
Total gains/(losses) (realized and unrealized) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Included in earnings |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
Included in nuclear decommissioning trust liability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
Purchases/(sales), net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
Transfers in/out of Level 3(b) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
Ending balance as of March 31, 2009 |
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
27 |
|
|
$ |
126 |
|
|
$ |
160 |
|
|
The amount of the total gains for the period included in
earnings attributable to the change in unrealized gains
relating to assets still held as of March 31, 2009 |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
29 |
|
|
$ |
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Consists of derivative assets and liabilities, net |
|
(b) |
|
Transfers in/out of Level 3 are related to the
availability of external broker quotes, and are all with Level 2. |
Realized and unrealized gains and losses included in earnings that are related to the
energy derivatives are recorded in operating revenues and cost of operations.
In determining the fair value of NRGs Level 2 and 3 derivative contracts, NRG applies a
credit reserve to reflect credit risk which is calculated based on credit default swaps. As of
March 31, 2010, the credit reserve resulted in a $2 million decrease in fair value which is
composed of a $3 million loss in other comprehensive income, or OCI, and a $1 million gain in
operating revenue and cost of operations.
Concentration of Credit Risk
In addition to the credit risk discussion as disclosed in Note 2, Summary of Significant
Accounting Policies, to the Companys financial statements in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2009, the following item is a discussion of the concentration of credit
risk for the Companys financial instruments. Credit risk relates to the risk of loss resulting
from non-performance or non-payment by counterparties pursuant to the terms of their contractual
obligations. NRG is exposed to counterparty credit risk through various activities including
wholesale sales, fuel purchases and retail supply and retail customer credit risk through its
retail load activities.
16
Counterparty Credit Risk
The Company monitors and manages counterparty credit risk through credit policies that
include: (i) an established credit approval process; (ii) a daily monitoring of counterparties
credit limits; (iii) the use of credit mitigation measures such as margin, collateral, credit
derivatives, prepayment arrangements, or volumetric limits; (iv) the use of payment netting
agreements; and (v) the use of master netting agreements that allow for the netting of positive and
negative exposures of various contracts associated with a single counterparty. Risks surrounding
counterparty performance and credit could ultimately impact the amount and timing of expected cash
flows. The Company seeks to mitigate counterparty credit risk with a diversified portfolio of
counterparties. The Company
also has credit protection within various agreements to call on additional collateral support if
and when necessary. Cash margin is collected and held at NRG to cover the credit risk of the
counterparty until positions settle.
As of March 31, 2010, total counterparty credit exposure to substantially all
counterparties was $1.7 billion and NRG held cash collateral against those positions of $509
million resulting in a net exposure of $1.2 billion. Total counterparty credit exposure is
discounted at the risk free rate.
The following table highlights the counterparty credit quality and the net counterparty credit
exposure by industry sector. Net counterparty credit exposure is defined as the aggregate net
asset position for NRG with counterparties where netting is permitted under the enabling agreement
and includes all cash flow, mark-to-market and Normal Purchase Normal Sale, or NPNS, and
non-derivative transactions. The exposure is shown net of collateral held, and includes amounts
net of receivables or payables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Exposure (a) |
Category |
|
(% of Total) |
|
Financial institutions |
|
|
67 |
% |
Utilities, energy, merchants, marketers and other |
|
|
30 |
|
Coal suppliers |
|
|
1 |
|
ISOs |
|
|
2 |
|
|
Total as of March 31, 2010 |
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Exposure (a) |
Category |
|
(% of Total) |
|
Investment grade |
|
|
80 |
% |
Non-Investment grade |
|
|
1 |
|
Non-rated |
|
|
19 |
|
|
Total as of March 31, 2010 |
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Counterparty credit exposure excludes California tolling,
Northeast load obligations, New England Reliability Must-Run, or
RMR, certain cooperative load contracts, and Texas Westmoreland
coal contracts. The aforementioned exposures were excluded for
various reasons including regulatory support or liens held against
the contracts which serve to reduce the risk of loss. NRG also
excludes uranium and coal transportation contracts from
counterparty credit exposure because of the illiquidity of the
reference markets. Credit exposure also excludes any exposure NRG
has to counterparties of non-recourse subsidiaries.
|
NRG has counterparty credit risk exposure to certain counterparties representing more
than 10% of total net exposure and the aggregate of such counterparties was $399 million.
Approximately 82% of NRGs positions relating to credit risk roll-off by the end of 2012. Changes
in hedge positions and market prices will affect credit exposure and counterparty concentration.
Given the credit quality, diversification and term of the exposure in the portfolio, NRG does not
anticipate a material impact on the Companys financial results or results of operations from
nonperformance by any of NRGs counterparties.
Retail Customer Credit Risk
NRG is exposed to retail credit risk through the Companys competitive electricity supply
business, which serves C&I customers and the Mass market in Texas. Retail credit risk results when
a customer fails to pay for services rendered. The losses could be incurred from nonpayment of
customer accounts receivable and any in-the-money forward value. NRG manages retail credit risk
through the use of established credit policies that include monitoring of the portfolio, and the
use of credit mitigation measures such as deposits or prepayment arrangements.
As of March 31, 2010, the Companys retail customer credit exposure to C&I customers was
diversified across many customers and various industries, with a significant portion of the
exposure with government entities.
17
NRG is also exposed to retail customer credit risk relating to its 1.5 million Mass customers,
which may result in a write-off of bad debt. During the quarter, the Company experienced improved
customer payment behavior, but current economic conditions may affect the Companys customers
ability to pay bills in a timely manner, which could increase customer delinquencies and may lead
to an increase in bad debt expense.
This footnote should be read in conjunction with the complete description under Note 5, Fair
Value of Financial Instruments, to the Companys financial statements in its Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009.
Note 6 Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Fund
NRGs nuclear decommissioning trust fund assets, which are for our portion of the
decommissioning of the South Texas Project, or STP, are comprised of securities classified as
available-for-sale and recorded at fair value based on actively quoted market prices. NRG accounts
for the nuclear decommissioning trust fund in accordance with ASC-980 Regulated Operations, or
ASC 980. Since the Company is in compliance with PUCT rules and regulations regarding
decommissioning trusts and the cost of decommissioning is the responsibility of the Texas
ratepayers, not NRG, all realized and unrealized gains or losses (including other
than-temporary-impairments) related to the Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Fund are recorded to the
Nuclear Decommissioning Trust Liability to the ratepayers and are not included in net income or
accumulated other comprehensive income, consistent with regulatory treatment.
The following table summarizes the aggregate fair values and unrealized gains and losses
(including other-than-temporary impairments) for the securities held in the trust funds as of March
31, 2010, and December 31, 2009, as well as information about the contractual maturities of those
securities. The cost of securities sold is determined on the specific identification method.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of March 31, 2010 |
|
As of December 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
average |
|
|
Fair |
|
Unrealized |
|
Unrealized |
|
maturities |
|
Fair |
|
Unrealized |
|
Unrealized |
|
maturities |
(In millions, except otherwise noted) |
|
Value |
|
gains |
|
losses |
|
(in years) |
|
Value |
|
gains |
|
losses |
|
(in years) |
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. government and federal agency
obligations |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
Federal agency mortgage-backed
securities |
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23 |
|
Commercial mortgage-backed securities |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
Corporate debt securities |
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
Marketable equity securities |
|
|
231 |
|
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
220 |
|
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign government fixed income
securities |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
382 |
|
|
$ |
105 |
|
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
367 |
|
|
$ |
95 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following tables summarize proceeds from sales of available-for-sale securities and the
related realized gains and losses from these sales.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended March 31, |
(In millions) |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
|
|
Realized gains |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
Realized losses |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
Proceeds from sale of securities |
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
78 |
|
|
18
Note 7 Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities
ASC 815 requires NRG to recognize all derivative instruments on the balance sheet as either
assets or liabilities and to measure them at fair value each reporting period unless they qualify
for a NPNS exception. If certain conditions are met, NRG may be able to designate certain
derivatives as cash flow hedges and defer the effective portion of the change in fair value of the
derivatives to accumulated OCI, until the hedged transactions occur and are recognized in earnings.
The ineffective portion of a cash flow hedge is immediately recognized in earnings.
For derivatives designated as hedges of the fair value of assets or liabilities, the changes
in fair value of both the derivative and the hedged transaction are recorded in current earnings.
For derivatives that are not designated as cash flow hedges or do not qualify for hedge
accounting treatment, the changes in the fair value will be immediately recognized in earnings.
Under the guidelines established per ASC 815, certain derivative instruments may qualify for the
NPNS exception and are therefore exempt from fair value accounting treatment. ASC 815 applies to
NRGs energy related commodity contracts, interest rate swaps, and foreign exchange contracts.
As the Company engages principally in the trading and marketing of its generation assets and
retail business, some of NRGs commercial activities qualify for hedge accounting under the
requirements of ASC 815. In order for the generation assets to qualify, the physical generation
and sale of electricity should be highly probable at inception of the trade and throughout the
period it is held, as is the case with the Companys baseload plants. For this reason, many trades
in support of NRGs baseload units normally qualify for NPNS or cash flow hedge accounting
treatment, and trades in support of NRGs peaking units asset optimization will generally not
qualify for hedge accounting treatment, with any changes in fair value likely to be reflected on a
mark-to-market basis in the statement of operations. Most of the retail load contracts either
qualify for the NPNS exception or fail to meet the criteria for a derivative and the majority of
the supply contracts are recorded under mark-to-market accounting. All of NRGs hedging and
trading activities are subject to limits within the Companys Risk Management Policy.
Energy-Related Commodities
To manage the commodity price risk associated with the Companys competitive supply activities
and the price risk associated with wholesale and retail power sales from the Companys electric
generation facilities, NRG may enter into a variety of derivative and non-derivative hedging
instruments, utilizing the following:
|
|
|
Forward contracts, which commit NRG to sell or purchase energy commodities or purchase
fuels in the future. |
|
|
|
Futures contracts, which are exchange-traded standardized commitments to purchase or sell
a commodity or financial instrument. |
|
|
|
Swap agreements, which require payments to or from counter-parties based upon the
differential between two prices for a predetermined contractual, or notional, quantity.
|
|
|
|
Option contracts, which convey the right or obligation to purchase or sell a commodity. |
|
|
|
Weather and hurricane derivative products used to mitigate a portion of Reliant Energys
lost revenue due to weather. |
As of March 31, 2010, NRG had cash flow hedge energy-related derivative financial instruments
extending through December 2013. The objectives for entering into derivative contracts designated
as hedges include:
|
|
|
Fixing the price for a portion of anticipated future electricity sales through the use of
various derivative instruments including gas collars and swaps at a level that provides an
acceptable return on the Companys electric generation operations.
|
|
|
|
Fixing the price of a portion of anticipated fuel purchases for the operation of NRGs
power plants. |
NRGs trading activities are subject to limits within the Companys Risk Management Policy.
These contracts are recognized on the balance sheet at fair value and changes in the fair value of
these derivative financial instruments are recognized in earnings.
19
Interest Rate Swaps
NRG is exposed to changes in interest rates through the Companys issuance of variable and
fixed rate debt. In order to manage the Companys interest rate risk, NRG enters into interest
rate swap agreements. As of March 31, 2010, NRG had interest rate derivative instruments extending
through June 2019, all of which had been designated as either cash flow or fair value hedges.
Volumetric Underlying Derivative Transactions
The following table summarizes the net notional volume buy/(sell) of NRGs open derivative
transactions broken out by commodity, excluding those derivatives that qualified for the NPNS
exception as of March 31, 2010, and December 31, 2009. Option contracts are reflected using delta
volume. Delta volume equals the notional volume of an option adjusted for the probability that the
option will be in-the-money at its expiration date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Volume |
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
Commodity |
|
Units |
|
(In millions) |
|
Emissions |
|
Short Ton |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
Coal |
|
Short Ton |
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
55 |
|
Natural Gas |
|
MMBtu |
|
|
(250 |
) |
|
|
(484 |
) |
Oil |
|
Barrel |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
Power(a) |
|
MWH |
|
|
(41 |
) |
|
|
(41 |
) |
Interest |
|
Dollars |
|
$ |
3,101 |
|
|
$ |
3,291 |
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Power volumes include capacity sales. |
Fair Value of Derivative Instruments
The Company has elected to disclose derivative assets and liabilities on a trade-by-trade
basis and does not offset amounts at the counterparty master agreement level. Also, collateral
received or paid on the Companys derivative assets or liabilities are recorded on a separate line
item on the balance sheet. The Company has chosen not to offset positions as permitted in ASC 815.
As of March 31, 2010, the Company recorded $533 million of cash collateral paid and $509 million
of cash collateral received on its balance sheet.
The following table summarizes the fair value within the derivative instrument valuation on
the balance sheet as of March 31, 2010, and December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
Derivatives Asset |
|
Derivatives Liability |
|
|
March 31, |
|
December 31, |
|
March 31, |
|
December 31, |
(In millions) |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
Derivatives Designated as Cash Flow or Fair Value Hedges: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate contracts current |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
65 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
Interest rate contracts long-term |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
106 |
|
Commodity contracts current |
|
|
521 |
|
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
Commodity contracts long-term |
|
|
759 |
|
|
|
508 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
Total Derivatives Designated as Cash Flow or Fair Value Hedges |
|
|
1,291 |
|
|
|
816 |
|
|
|
122 |
|
|
|
126 |
|
|
Derivatives Not Designated as Cash Flow or Fair Value Hedges: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commodity contracts current |
|
|
2,203 |
|
|
|
1,336 |
|
|
|
2,277 |
|
|
|
1,459 |
|
Commodity contracts long-term |
|
|
205 |
|
|
|
167 |
|
|
|
394 |
|
|
|
275 |
|
|
Total Derivatives Not Designated as Cash Flow or Fair Value
Hedges |
|
|
2,408 |
|
|
|
1,503 |
|
|
|
2,671 |
|
|
|
1,734 |
|
|
Total Derivatives |
|
$ |
3,699 |
|
|
$ |
2,319 |
|
|
$ |
2,793 |
|
|
$ |
1,860 |
|
|
20
Impact of Derivative Instruments on the Statement of Operations
The following table summarizes the amount of gain/(loss) resulting from fair value hedges
reflected in interest income/(expense) for interest rate contracts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of gain/(loss) recognized |
|
Three months ended March 31, |
(In millions) |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
Derivative |
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
Senior Notes (hedged item) |
|
$ |
(3 |
) |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
The following table summarizes the location and amount of gain/(loss) resulting from cash flow
hedges:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of |
|
|
|
Amount of |
|
|
Amount of |
|
Location of |
|
gain/(loss) |
|
Location of |
|
gain/(loss) |
|
|
gain/(loss) |
|
gain/(loss) |
|
reclassified from |
|
gain/(loss) |
|
recognized in |
|
|
recognized in OCI |
|
reclassified from |
|
Accumulated |
|
recognized in |
|
income |
(In millions) |
|
(effective portion) |
|
Accumulated |
|
OCI into Income |
|
income |
|
(ineffective |
Three months ended March 31, 2010 |
|
after tax |
|
OCI into Income |
|
after tax |
|
(ineffective portion) |
|
portion) |
|
Interest rate contracts |
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
Interest expense |
|
$ |
(2 |
) |
|
Interest expense |
|
$ |
|
|
Commodity contracts |
|
|
258 |
|
|
Operating revenue |
|
|
106 |
|
|
Operating revenue |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
Total |
|
$ |
257 |
|
|
|
|
$ |
104 |
|
|
|
|
$ |
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of |
|
|
|
Amount of |
|
|
Amount of |
|
Location of |
|
gain/(loss) |
|
Location of |
|
gain/(loss) |
|
|
gain/(loss) |
|
gain/(loss) |
|
reclassified from |
|
gain/(loss) |
|
recognized in |
|
|
recognized in OCI |
|
reclassified from |
|
Accumulated |
|
recognized in |
|
income |
(In millions) |
|
(effective portion) |
|
Accumulated |
|
OCI into Income |
|
income |
|
(ineffective |
Three months ended March 31, 2009 |
|
after tax |
|
OCI into Income |
|
after tax |
|
(ineffective portion) |
|
portion) |
|
Interest rate contracts |
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
Interest expense |
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
Interest expense |
|
$ |
|
|
Commodity contracts |
|
|
161 |
|
|
Operating revenue |
|
|
245 |
|
|
Operating revenue |
|
|
4 |
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
173 |
|
|
|
|
$ |
244 |
|
|
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
The following table summarizes the amount of gain/(loss) recognized in income for derivatives
not designated as cash flow or fair value hedges on commodity contracts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of gain/(loss) recognized in income or cost of operations for derivatives |
|
Three months ended March 31, |
(In millions) |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
Location of gain/(loss) recognized in income for derivatives: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating revenue |
|
$ |
71 |
|
|
$ |
323 |
|
Cost of operations |
|
$ |
(107 |
) |
|
$ |
(52 |
) |
|
Credit Risk Related Contingent Features
Certain of the Companys hedging agreements contain provisions that require the Company to
post additional collateral if the counterparty determines that there has been deterioration in
credit quality, generally termed adequate assurance under the agreements, or require the Company
to post additional collateral if there was a one notch downgrade in the Companys credit rating.
The collateral required for contracts that have adequate assurance clauses that are in a net
liability position as of March 31, 2010, was $42 million. The collateral required or contracts
with credit rating contingent features that are in a net liability position as of March 31, 2010,
was $16 million. The Company is also a party to certain marginable agreements where NRG has a net
liability position but the counterparty has not called for the collateral due, which is
approximately $7 million as of March 31, 2010.
On April 28, 2010, Merrill Lynch agreed to continue to provide credit support to four Reliant
Energy counterparties under the Amended CSRA through December 15, 2010. The Company intends to
have no Reliant Energy counterparties under the Amended CSRA by December 15, 2010.
See Note 5, Fair Value of Financial Instruments, to this Form 10-Q for discussion regarding
concentration of credit risk.
21
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income
The following table summarizes the effects of ASC 815 on NRGs accumulated OCI balance
attributable to hedged derivatives, net of tax:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Energy |
|
Interest |
|
|
Three months ended March 31, 2010 |
|
Commodities |
|
Rate |
|
Total |
|
Accumulated OCI balance at December 31, 2009 |
|
$ |
461 |
|
|
$ |
(55 |
) |
|
$ |
406 |
|
Realized from OCI during the period: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Due to realization of previously deferred amounts |
|
|
(106 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
(104 |
) |
Mark-to-market of cash flow hedge accounting contracts |
|
|
364 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
361 |
|
|
Accumulated OCI balance at March 31, 2010, net of $398 tax |
|
$ |
719 |
|
|
$ |
(56 |
) |
|
$ |
663 |
|
|
Gains/(losses) expected to be realized from OCI during the next 12 months, net of $228 tax |
|
$ |
432 |
|
|
$ |
(43 |
) |
|
$ |
389 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Energy |
|
Interest |
|
|
Three months ended March 31, 2009 |
|
Commodities |
|
Rate |
|
Total |
|
Accumulated OCI balance at December 31, 2008 |
|
$ |
406 |
|
|
$ |
(91 |
) |
|
$ |
315 |
|
Realized from OCI during the period: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Due to realization of previously deferred amounts |
|
|
(112 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(111 |
) |
- Due to discontinuation of cash flow hedge accounting |
|
|
(133 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(133 |
) |
Mark-to-market of cash flow hedge accounting contracts |
|
|
406 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
417 |
|
|
Accumulated OCI balance at March 31, 2009, net of $305 tax |
|
$ |
567 |
|
|
$ |
(79 |
) |
|
$ |
488 |
|
|
Accounting guidelines require a high degree of correlation between the derivative and the
hedged item throughout the period in order to qualify as a cash flow hedge. As of July 31, 2008,
the Companys regression analysis for natural gas prices to ERCOT power prices, while positively
correlated, did not meet the required threshold for cash flow hedge accounting for calendar years
2012 and 2013. As a result, the Company de-designated its 2012 and 2013 ERCOT cash flow hedges as
of July 31, 2008, and prospectively marked these derivatives to market. On April 1, 2009, the
required correlation threshold for cash flow hedge accounting was achieved for these transactions,
and accordingly, these hedges were re-designated as cash flow hedges.
As discussed in Note 3, Acquisitions, to the Companys financial statements in its Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, on October 5, 2009, the Company amended
the CSRA with Merrill Lynch. In connection with the CSRA Amendment, NRG net settled certain
in-the-money transactions with Morgan Stanley. As these transactions were net settled, $245
million in accumulated OCI was frozen and will be recognized into income when the underlying power
from the baseload plants is generated.
Statement of Operations
In accordance with ASC 815, unrealized gains and losses associated with changes in the fair
value of derivative instruments not accounted for as cash flow hedge derivatives and
ineffectiveness of hedge derivatives are reflected in current period earnings.
22
The following table summarizes the pre-tax effects of economic hedges that did not qualify for
cash flow hedge accounting, ineffectiveness on cash flow hedges, and trading activity on NRGs
statement of operations. These amounts are included within operating revenues and cost of
operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
March 31, |
(In millions) |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
Unrealized mark-to-market results |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reversal of previously recognized unrealized gains on settled positions related to economic
hedges |
|
$ |
(40 |
) |
|
$ |
(16 |
) |
Reversal of loss positions acquired as part of the Reliant Energy acquisition as of May 1, 2009 |
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
|
|
Reversal of previously recognized unrealized losses/(gains) on settled positions related to
trading activity |
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
(69 |
) |
Net unrealized (losses)/gains on open positions related to economic hedges |
|
|
(118 |
) |
|
|
349 |
|
(Losses)/gains on ineffectiveness associated with open positions treated as cash flow hedges |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
4 |
|
Net unrealized gains on open positions related to trading activity |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
Total unrealized (losses)/gains |
|
$ |
(38 |
) |
|
$ |
275 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
March 31, |
(In millions) |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
Revenue from operations energy commodities |
|
$ |
69 |
|
|
$ |
327 |
|
Cost of operations |
|
|
(107 |
) |
|
|
(52 |
) |
|
Total impact to statement of operations |
|
$ |
(38 |
) |
|
$ |
275 |
|
|
Reliant Energys loss positions were acquired as of May 1, 2009, and valued using forward
prices on that date. The $90 million roll-off amounts were offset by realized losses at the
settled prices and are reflected in the cost of operations during the same period.
The $118 million loss from economic hedge positions is the result of a decrease in value of
forward purchases and sales of natural gas, electricity and fuel due to decrease in forward power
and gas prices.
For the period ended March 31, 2009, the $349 million gain from economic hedge positions
includes $217 million recognized in earnings from previously deferred amounts in accumulated OCI as
the Company discontinued cash flow hedge accounting for certain 2009 transactions in Texas and New
York due to lower expected generation, and $132 million of increase in value of forward sales of
electricity and fuel due to forward power and gas prices. The $4 million gain is primarily from
hedge accounting ineffectiveness related to gas trades in Texas which was driven by decreasing
forward gas prices while forward power prices decreased at a slower pace.
Discontinued Normal Purchase and Sale for Coal Purchases Due to lower coal-fired generation
during the first quarter 2009, the Companys coal consumption was lower than forecasted. The
Company net settled some of its coal purchases under NPNS designation and thus was no longer able
to assert physical delivery under these coal contracts. The forward positions previously treated
as accrual accounting were reclassified into mark-to-market accounting during the first quarter and
prospectively. The impact of discontinuance of coal NPNS designated transactions resulted in a
derivative loss of $29 million that was reflected in the cost of operations for the three months
ended March 31, 2009.
Note 8 Long-Term Debt
Senior Credit Facility
In March 2010, NRG made a repayment of approximately $229 million to its first lien lenders
under the Term Loan Facility. This payment resulted from the mandatory annual offer of a portion
of NRGs excess cash flow (as defined in the Senior Credit Facility) for the prior year.
23
Debt Related to Capital Allocation Program
On March 3, 2010, the Company completed the early unwinding of the CSF I Debt by remitting a
cash payment to Credit Suisse, or CS, of $242 million to settle the outstanding principal and
interest, as compared to $249 million that would have been due at maturity in June 2010. As part
of the unwind, CS returned to NRG 6,600,000 shares of NRG common stock borrowed under the Share
Lending Agreement, or SLA, between the parties and released all 12,441,973 shares of NRG common
stock held as collateral for the CSF I Debt. The 6,600,000 shares of NRG common stock were
returned to treasury stock and will no longer be treated as outstanding for corporate law purposes.
The Company has now settled all obligations related to the CSF I and II Debt entered into in 2006,
as amended from time to time, as well as the SLA entered into in February 2009.
Dunkirk Power LLC Tax-Exempt Bonds
On February 1, 2010, the Company fixed the rate on the Dunkirk bonds originally issued in
April 2009, at 5.875%. Interest on the bonds will be payable semiannually. In addition, the $59
million letter of credit issued by NRG in support of the bonds was cancelled and replaced with an
NRG guarantee.
GenConn Energy LLC related financings
NRG Connecticut Peaking Development LLC made funding requests under the equity bridge loan, or
EBL, during the quarter. The EBL is backed by a letter of credit issued by NRG under its Synthetic
Letter of Credit Facility equal to 104% of the amount outstanding. The proceeds of the EBL
received through March 31, 2010, were $114 million and the remaining amounts will be drawn as
necessary to fund interest on the EBL as the maximum amount permitted to be drawn for project costs
for both projects has been met.
Borrowings of an equity method investment In April 2009, GenConn secured financing for 50%
of the Devon and Middletown project construction costs through a seven-year term loan facility, and
also entered into a five-year revolving working capital loan and letter of credit facility, which
collectively with the term loan is referred to as the GenConn Facility. The aggregate credit
amount secured under the GenConn Facility, which is non-recourse to NRG, is $291 million, including
$48 million for the revolving facility. In August 2009, GenConn began to draw under the GenConn
Facility to cover costs related to the Devon project. As of March 31, 2010, $75 million had been
drawn.
Note 9 Changes in Capital Structure
The following table reflects the changes in NRGs common stock issued and outstanding during
the three months ended March 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Authorized |
|
Issued |
|
Treasury |
|
Outstanding |
|
Balance as of December 31, 2009 |
|
|
500,000,000 |
|
|
|
295,861,759 |
|
|
|
(41,866,451 |
) |
|
|
253,995,308 |
|
Shares issued under LTIP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
150,853 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
150,853 |
|
Shares issued under NRG Employee Stock Purchase Plan, or ESPP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54,845 |
|
|
|
54,845 |
|
Shares returned by affiliate of CS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,600,000 |
) |
|
|
(6,600,000 |
) |
4% Preferred Stock conversion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,701,450 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,701,450 |
|
|
Balance as of March 31, 2010 |
|
|
500,000,000 |
|
|
|
303,714,062 |
|
|
|
(48,411,606 |
) |
|
|
255,302,456 |
|
|
Employee Stock Purchase Plan
As of March 31, 2010, there were 363,623 shares of treasury stock reserved for issuance under
the ESPP.
4% Preferred Stock
As of January 21, 2010, the Company completed the redemption of all remaining outstanding
shares of 4% Preferred Stock, with holders converting 154,029 Preferred Stock shares into 7,701,450
shares of common stock and the Company redeeming 28 Preferred Stock shares for $28 thousand in
cash.
Share Lending Agreements
As part of the CSF I Debt unwind, CS returned to NRG 6,600,000 shares of NRG common stock
borrowed under the SLA between the parties. The 6,600,000 shares of NRG common stock were returned
to treasury stock and will no longer be treated as outstanding for corporate law purposes. See
Note 8, Long-Term Debt, to this Form 10-Q for more information.
24
Note 10 Equity Compensation
Non-Qualified Stock Options, or NQSOs
The following table summarizes the Companys NQSO activity as of March 31, 2010, and changes
during the three months then ended:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted |
|
Aggregate Intrinsic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
Value |
|
|
Shares |
|
Exercise Price |
|
(In millions) |
|
Outstanding as of December 31, 2009 |
|
|
4,793,585 |
|
|
$ |
25.07 |
|
|
|
|
|
Granted |
|
|
754,200 |
|
|
|
23.79 |
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised |
|
|
(109,165 |
) |
|
|
22.15 |
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited |
|
|
(214,241 |
) |
|
|
30.82 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at March 31, 2010 |
|
|
5,224,379 |
|
|
|
24.71 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
Exercisable at March 31, 2010 |
|
|
3,302,851 |
|
|
$ |
23.68 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
The weighted average grant date fair value of NQSOs granted for the three months ended March
31, 2010, was $10.67.
Restricted Stock Units, or RSUs
The following table summarizes the Companys non-vested RSU awards as of March 31, 2010, and
changes during the three months then ended:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grant-Date |
|
|
Units |
|
Fair Value Per Unit |
|
Non-vested as of December 31, 2009 |
|
|
1,614,769 |
|
|
$ |
30.78 |
|
Granted |
|
|
352,600 |
|
|
|
23.66 |
|
Vested |
|
|
(65,000 |
) |
|
|
27.92 |
|
Forfeited |
|
|
(65,570 |
) |
|
|
30.12 |
|
|
Non-vested as of March 31, 2010 |
|
|
1,836,799 |
|
|
$ |
29.53 |
|
|
Performance Units, or PUs
The following table summarizes the Companys non-vested PU awards as of March 31, 2010, and
changes during the three months then ended:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grant- Date |
|
|
Units |
|
Fair Value Per Unit |
|
Non-vested as of December 31, 2009 |
|
|
617,300 |
|
|
$ |
24.27 |
|
Granted |
|
|
348,500 |
|
|
|
23.81 |
|
Forfeited |
|
|
(172,200 |
) |
|
|
22.20 |
|
|
Non-vested as of March 31, 2010 |
|
|
793,600 |
|
|
$ |
24.52 |
|
|
In the three months ended March 31, 2010, there were no performance unit payouts in accordance
with the terms of the performance units.
Deferral Stock Units, or DSUs
The following table summarizes the Companys outstanding DSU awards as of March 31, 2010, and
changes during the three months then ended:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grant- Date |
|
|
Units |
|
Fair Value Per Unit |
|
Outstanding as of December 31, 2009 |
|
|
304,049 |
|
|
$ |
19.34 |
|
Granted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conversions |
|
|
(1,012 |
) |
|
|
21.72 |
|
|
Outstanding as of March 31, 2010 |
|
|
303,037 |
|
|
$ |
19.33 |
|
|
25
Note 11 Earnings Per Share
Basic earnings per share attributable to NRG common stockholders is computed by dividing net
income attributable to NRG Energy Inc. adjusted for accumulated preferred stock dividends by the
weighted average number of common shares outstanding. Shares issued and treasury shares
repurchased during the year are weighted for the portion of the year that they were outstanding.
Diluted earnings per share attributable to NRG common stockholders is computed in a manner
consistent with that of basic earnings per share while giving effect to all potentially dilutive
common shares that were outstanding during the period.
On March 3, 2010, as part of the CSF I Debt unwind, CS returned 6,600,000 shares of NRG common
stock borrowed under the SLA between the parties. These shares had not been treated as outstanding
for earnings per share purposes because CS was required to return all borrowed shares (or identical
shares) upon termination of the SLA. See Note 8, Long-Term Debt, to this Form 10-Q, for more
information on the SLA.
The reconciliation of NRGs basic earnings per common share to diluted earnings per share for
the three months ended March 31, 2010, and 2009 is shown in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended March 31, |
(In millions, except per share data) |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
Basic earnings per share attributable to NRG common stockholders |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Numerator: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income attributable to NRG Energy, Inc. |
|
$ |
58 |
|
|
$ |
198 |
|
Preferred stock dividends |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
Net income attributable to NRG Energy, Inc. available to common stockholders |
|
$ |
56 |
|
|
$ |
184 |
|
|
Denominator: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding |
|
|
253.8 |
|
|
|
237.1 |
|
Basic earnings per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income attributable to NRG Energy, Inc. |
|
$ |
0.22 |
|
|
$ |
0.78 |
|
|
Diluted earnings per share attributable to NRG common stockholders |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Numerator: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income available to common stockholders |
|
$ |
56 |
|
|
$ |
184 |
|
Add preferred stock dividends for dilutive preferred stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
Net income attributable to NRG Energy, Inc. available to common stockholders |
|
$ |
56 |
|
|
$ |
194 |
|
|
Denominator: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding |
|
|
253.8 |
|
|
|
237.1 |
|
Incremental shares attributable to the issuance of equity compensation (treasury
stock method) |
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
Incremental shares attributable to assumed conversion features of outstanding
preferred stock (if-converted method) |
|
|
1.5 |
|
|
|
37.3 |
|
|
Total dilutive shares |
|
|
256.5 |
|
|
|
275.4 |
|
Diluted earnings per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income attributable to NRG Energy, Inc. |
|
$ |
0.22 |
|
|
$ |
0.70 |
|
|
The following table summarizes NRGs outstanding equity instruments that are anti-dilutive and
were not included in the computation of the Companys diluted earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended March 31, |
(In millions of shares) |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
Equity compensation NQSOs and PUs |
|
|
6.1 |
|
|
|
5.4 |
|
Embedded derivative of 3.625% redeemable perpetual preferred stock |
|
|
16.0 |
|
|
|
16.0 |
|
Embedded derivatives of CSF II Debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.6 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
22.1 |
|
|
|
29.0 |
|
|
26
Note 12 Segment Reporting
NRGs segment structure reflects core areas of operation which are primarily segregated based
on the Companys wholesale power generation, retail, thermal and chilled water business, and
corporate activities. In May 2009, NRGs segment structure changed to reflect the Companys
acquisition of Reliant Energy, which has been incorporated as a separate reporting segment per
ASC-280, Segment Reporting. Within NRGs wholesale power generation operations, there are distinct
components with separate operating results and management structures for the following geographical
regions: Texas, Northeast, South Central, West and International. The Companys corporate
activities include wind, solar and nuclear development.
In the second quarter 2009, management changed its method for allocating corporate general and
administrative expenses to the segments. Corporate general and administrative expenses had been
allocated based on budgeted segment revenues. Beginning in the second quarter 2009, corporate
general and administrative expenses have been allocated based on forecasted earnings/(losses)
before interest expense, income taxes, depreciation and amortization expense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
Wholesale Power Generation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
Reliant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2010 |
|
Energy |
|
Texas (a) |
|
Northeast |
|
Central |
|
West |
|
International |
|
Thermal |
|
Corporate |
|
Elimination |
|
Total |
|
Operating revenues |
|
$ |
1,176 |
|
|
$ |
870 |
|
|
$ |
279 |
|
|
$ |
143 |
|
|
$ |
35 |
|
|
$ |
35 |
|
|
$ |
36 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
(361 |
) |
|
$ |
2,215 |
|
Depreciation and
amortization |
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
117 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
202 |
|
Equity in earnings of
unconsolidated
affiliates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
Income/(loss) before
income taxes |
|
|
(188 |
) |
|
|
375 |
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
(132 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
123 |
|
|
Net income/(loss)
attributable to NRG
Energy, Inc. |
|
$ |
(188 |
) |
|
$ |
375 |
|
|
$ |
52 |
|
|
$ |
(4 |
) |
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
(195 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
58 |
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
1,910 |
|
|
$ |
13,936 |
|
|
$ |
1,871 |
|
|
$ |
891 |
|
|
$ |
357 |
|
|
$ |
769 |
|
|
$ |
206 |
|
|
$ |
23,932 |
|
|
$ |
(19,294 |
) |
|
$ |
24,578 |
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Includes inter-segment sales of $360 million, comprised of $216
million of inter-segment physical sales, $135 million
inter-segment unrealized gains on derivatives and $9 million of
financial revenue on derivatives with Reliant Energy. |
If the Company continued using the previous allocation method for corporate general and
administrative expenses, the effect to net income/(loss) of each segment for the three months ended
March 31, 2010, would have been as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income/(loss)
attributable to NRG
Energy, Inc. as
reported |
|
$ |
(188 |
) |
|
$ |
375 |
|
|
$ |
52 |
|
|
$ |
(4 |
) |
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
(195 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
58 |
|
Increase/(decrease)
in net
income/(loss)
attributable to NRG
Energy, Inc. |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted net
income/(loss)
attributable to NRG
Energy, Inc. |
|
$ |
(199 |
) |
|
$ |
385 |
|
|
$ |
54 |
|
|
$ |
(5 |
) |
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
(195 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
58 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Wholesale Power Generation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2009 |
|
Texas |
|
Northeast |
|
Central |
|
West |
|
International |
|
Thermal |
|
Corporate |
|
Elimination |
|
Total |
|
Operating revenues |
|
$ |
925 |
|
|
$ |
464 |
|
|
$ |
162 |
|
|
$ |
28 |
|
|
$ |
34 |
|
|
$ |
42 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
$ |
1,658 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
117 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
169 |
|
Equity in earnings of
unconsolidated affiliates |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
Income/(loss) from
continuing operations before
income taxes |
|
|
378 |
|
|
|
211 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
(109 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
496 |
|
|
Net income/(loss)
attributable to NRG Energy,
Inc. |
|
$ |
217 |
|
|
$ |
211 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
(3 |
) |
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
(244 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
198 |
|
|
27
Note 13 Income Taxes
Effective Tax Rate
The income tax provision consisted of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
March 31, |
(In millions, except otherwise noted) |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
Income tax expense |
|
$ |
65 |
|
|
$ |
298 |
|
Effective tax rate |
|
|
52.7 |
% |
|
|
60.0 |
% |
|
For the three months ended March 31, 2010, NRGs overall effective tax rate was different than
the statutory rate of 35% primarily due to state and local income taxes as well as recording
federal and state tax expense and interest for unrecognized tax benefits. For the three months
ended March 31, 2009, NRGs effective tax rate was increased primarily due to the impact of state
and local income taxes in addition to an increase in valuation allowance as a result of capital
losses generated in the quarter for which there were no projected capital gains or available tax
planning strategies.
Unrecognized tax benefits
As of March 31, 2010, NRG has recorded a $423 million non-current tax liability for
unrecognized tax benefits, primarily resulting from taxable earnings for the period for which there
are no net operating losses available to offset for financial statement purposes. NRG has accrued
interest related to these unrecognized tax benefits of approximately $14 million for the three
months ended March 31, 2010, and has accrued approximately $31 million since adoption. The Company
recognizes interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits in income tax expense.
The Company continues to be under examination by the Internal Revenue Service for the years
2004 through 2006.
Tax Receivable and Payable
As of March 31, 2010, NRG recorded a current tax payable of approximately $40 million that
represents a tax liability due for domestic state taxes of approximately $28 million, as well as
foreign taxes payable of approximately $12 million. In addition, NRG has a domestic tax receivable
of $153 million, of which $102 million reflects federal cash grants receivable for the Blythe solar
and Langford wind facilities.
Note 14 Benefit Plans and Other Postretirement Benefits
NRG Defined Benefit Plans
NRG sponsors and operates three defined benefit pension and other postretirement plans. The
NRG Plan for Bargained Employees and the NRG Plan for Non-Bargained Employees are maintained solely
for eligible legacy NRG participants. A third plan, the Texas Genco Retirement Plan, is maintained
for participation solely by eligible employees. The total amount of employer contributions paid
for the three months ended March 31, 2010, was $5 million. NRG expects to make approximately $13
million in further contributions for the remainder of 2010.
The net periodic pension cost related to all of the Companys defined benefit pension plans
includes the following components:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Defined Benefit Pension |
(In millions) |
|
Plans |
Three months ended March 31, |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
Service cost benefits earned |
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
Interest cost on benefit obligation |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
Expected return on plan assets |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
Net periodic benefit cost |
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
28
The net periodic cost related to all of the Companys other post retirement benefits plans
include the following components:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Postretirement |
(In millions) |
|
Benefits Plans |
Three months ended March 31, |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
Service cost benefits earned |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
Interest cost on benefit obligation |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
Net periodic benefit cost |
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
STP Defined Benefit Plans
NRG has a 44% undivided ownership interest in STP. South Texas Project Nuclear Operating
Company, or STPNOC, which operates and maintains STP, provides its employees a defined benefit
pension plan as well as postretirement health and welfare benefits. Although NRG does not sponsor
the STP plan, it reimburses STPNOC for 44% of the contributions made towards its retirement plan
obligations. There were no employer contributions reimbursed to STPNOC for the three months ended
March 31, 2010. The Company recognized net periodic costs related to its 44% interest in STP
defined benefits plans of $2 million and $3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010, and
2009, respectively.
Note 15 Commitments and Contingencies
First and Second Lien Structure
NRG has granted first and second liens to certain counterparties on substantially all of the
Companys 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 Companys lien counterparties
may have a claim on NRGs assets to the extent market prices exceed the hedged price. As of March
31, 2010, and April 23, 2010, all hedges under the first and second liens were in-the-money on a
counterparty aggregate basis.
RepoweringNRG Initiatives
NRG
has capitalized $33 million through March 31, 2010, for the repowering of its El Segundo
generating facility in California. Air permitting litigation unrelated to the El Segundo project
has delayed receipt of certain required permits, including an air permit, which will prevent the El
Segundo project from meeting its original completion date of June 2011. Legislation enacted on
January 1, 2010 has allowed the affected air district to issue air permits like El Segundos. A
revised draft air permit was issued in April 2010, allowing the project permitting to proceed. The
Company is working with the counterparty to consider certain PPA modifications including the
commercial operations date, currently expected to be the summer of 2013.
Contingencies
Set forth below is a description of the Companys material legal proceedings. The Company
believes that it has valid defenses to these legal proceedings and intends to defend them
vigorously. NRG records reserves for estimated losses from contingencies when information
available indicates that a loss is probable and the amount of the loss, or range of loss, can be
reasonably estimated. 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 Companys liabilities and contingencies could be at amounts that are different
from its currently recorded reserves and that such difference could be material.
29
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 managements
opinion, the disposition of these ordinary course matters will not materially adversely affect
NRGs 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 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or 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 FERCs 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. WCPs 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 sellers 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 Circuits decision agreeing that the case
should be remanded to the FERC to clarify the FERCs 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 Courts 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 Public Utilities
Commission of the State of California 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, while NRG cannot predict with certainty whether WCP will be required to make
refunds for rates collected under the CDWR contract or estimate the range of any such possible
refunds, a reconsideration of the CDWR contract by the FERC with a resulting order mandating
significant refunds could have a material adverse impact on NRGs financial position, statement of
operations, and statement of cash flows. As part of the 2006 acquisition of Dynegys 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 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.
Louisiana Generating, LLC
On February 11, 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice 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 1990s, several years prior to NRGs 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
30
allowances or credits; (v) conduct audits to determine if any additional modifications have
been made which would require compliance with the CAAs Prevention of Significant Deterioration
program; (vi) award to the Department of Justice 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 made several filings. It 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. It also filed a complaint in
the same bankruptcy proceeding in the same court 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; and
(iii) Cajun Electric and/or the Bankruptcy Trustee are exclusively liable for the violations
alleged in the February 11, 2009, lawsuit to the extent that such claims are determined to have
merit. On June 8, 2009, the parties filed a joint status report setting forth their views of the
case and proposing a trial schedule. On June 18, 2009, LaGen filed a motion to bifurcate the
Department of Justice lawsuit into separate liability and remedy phases, and on June 30, 2009, the
Department of Justice filed its opposition. On August 24, 2009, LaGen filed a motion to dismiss
this lawsuit, and on September 25, 2009, the Department of Justice filed its opposition to the
motion to dismiss. On April 15, 2010, the bankruptcy court signed an order granting LaGens
stipulation of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of its adversary bankruptcy action.
On February 18, 2010, the LDEQ filed a motion to intervene in the above lawsuit and a
complaint against LaGen for alleged violations of Louisianas Prevention of Significant
Deterioration, or PSD regulations and Louisianas Title V operating permit program. LDEQ seeks
substantially similar relief to that requested by the Department of Justice. On February 19, 2010,
the district court granted LDEQs motion to intervene. On April 26, 2010, LaGen filed a motion to
dismiss LDEQs complaint. On April 28, 2010, the district court entered a Joint Case Management
Order in this matter. As a result of entering this order, LaGens motion for bifurcation was
effectively granted. As such, the first trial on liability will take place on or about May 2011.
The second trial on the remedy will take place on or about March 2012.
Nuclear Innovation North America, LLC
On December 6, 2009, CPS commenced a lawsuit against two NINA entities asking the court to
declare the rights, obligations, and remedies of the parties pursuant to the 1997 and 2007
agreements between the parties should CPS unilaterally withdraw from the proposed STP Units 3 and 4
Project. On December 23, 2009, and on two occasions thereafter, CPS amended its original December
6 complaint adding NRG, Toshiba Corporation, and NINA as defendants and not only continued to
request that the court declare the rights, obligations, and remedies of the parties under the two
operative governing agreements, but also sought $32 billion in damages. The amended complaint
alleged that NRG, Toshiba, and NINA had been involved in a conspiracy to defraud CPS, that they
purposefully misled CPS in inducing it to be a partner in the STP Units 3 and 4 Project, that they
maliciously interfered with CPS contracts and business relationships, and that they willfully
disparaged CPS. On March 1, 2010, NINA and CPS entered into a Project Agreement, Settlement
Agreement and Mutual Release. As part of the agreement, NINA increased its ownership in the STP
Units 3 and 4 Project from 50% to 92.375% and assumed full management control of the Project. NRG
also will pay $80 million to CPS, subject to receipt of a conditional U.S. DOE loan guarantee. The
first $40 million would be promptly paid after receipt of the guarantee with the remaining $40
million paid six months later. An additional $10 million will be donated by NRG over four years in
annual payments of $2.5 million to the Residential Energy Assistance Partnership, or REAP, in San
Antonio. The first $2.5 million payment to REAP was made on March 17, 2010. In connection with
the agreement, the Company capitalized $90 million to construction in progress within property,
plant and equipment, and as of March 31, 2010, $80 million in other current liabilities and $7.5
million in other non-current liabilities remains on the condensed consolidated balance sheet for
the obligations to CPS and REAP. On March 2, 2010, the court entered an agreed order dismissing
the case with prejudice, thereby ending the litigation.
Dunkirk Construction Litigation
In 2005, NRG entered into a Consent Decree with the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation whereby it agreed to reduce certain emissions generated by its Huntley and Dunkirk
power plants. Pursuant to the Consent Decree, on November 21, 2007, Clyde Bergemann EEC, or CBEEC,
and NRG entered into a firm fixed price contract for the supply of equipment, material and services
for six fabric filters for NRGs Dunkirk Electric Power Generating Station. Subsequent to
contracting with NRG, CBEEC subcontracted with Hohl Industrial Services, Inc., or Hohl, to perform
steel erection and equipment installation at Dunkirk.
On August 28, 2009, Hohl filed its original complaint against NRG, its subsidiary Dunkirk
Power LLC, or Dunkirk Power, and CBEEC among others for claims of breach of contract, quantum
meruit, unjust enrichment and foreclosure of mechanics liens. As part of CBEECs contractual
obligation to NRG, CBEEC agreed to defend NRG, under a reservation of rights. CBEEC filed an
answer to the above complaint on behalf of itself, NRG, and Dunkirk Power on October 5, 2009. On
December 16, 2009, CBEEC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of itself, NRG, and Dunkirk
Power. On February 1, 2010, NRG and Dunkirk Power
31
filed a Motion for Leave to file an Amended Answer with Cross-Claims against CBEEC. NRG
asserted breach of contract claims seeking liquidated damages for the delays caused by CBEEC. NRG
also retained its own counsel to represent its interest in the cross-claims and reserved its rights
to seek reimbursement from CBEEC. On February 17, 2010, CBEEC filed an Amended Answer with
Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaims and Cross-Claims against NRG, in which it sought $30 million
alleging breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and foreclosure of two mechanics
liens, as a result of alleged delays caused by NRG and Dunkirk Power. On March 5, 2010, CBEEC and
NRG resolved their disputed cross-claims. In April 2010, the other parties to this litigation
settled their disputes which settlement is expected to be final in the third quarter of 2010.
Excess Mitigation Credits
From January 2002 to April 2005, CenterPoint Energy applied excess mitigation credits, or
EMCs, to its monthly charges to retail electric providers as ordered by the Public Utility
Commission of Texas, or PUCT. The PUCT imposed these credits to facilitate the transition to
competition in Texas, which had the effect of lowering the retail electric providers monthly
charges payable to CenterPoint Energy. As indicated in its Petition for Review filed with the
Supreme Court of Texas on June 2, 2008, CenterPoint Energy has claimed that the portion of those
EMCs credited to Reliant Energy Retail Services, LLC, or RERS, a retail electric provider and NRG
subsidiary acquired from RRI, totaled $385 million for RERSs Price to Beat Customers. It is
unclear what the actual number may be. Price to Beat was the rate RERS was required by state law
to charge residential and small commercial customers that were transitioned to RERS from the
incumbent integrated utility company commencing in 2002. In its original stranded cost case
brought before the PUCT on March 31, 2004, CenterPoint Energy sought recovery of all EMCs that were
credited to all retail electric providers, including RERS, and the PUCT ordered that relief in its
Order on Rehearing in Docket No. 29526, on December 17, 2004. After an appeal to state district
court, the court entered a final judgment on August 26, 2005, affirming the PUCTs order with
regard to EMCs credited to RERS. Various parties filed appeals of that judgment with the Court of
Appeals for the Third District of Texas with the first such appeal filed on the same date as the
state district court judgment and the last such appeal filed on October 10, 2005. On April 17,
2008, the Court of Appeals for the Third District reversed the lower courts decision ruling that
CenterPoint Energys stranded cost recovery should exclude only EMCs credited to RERS for its
Price to Beat customers. On June 2, 2008, CenterPoint Energy filed a Petition for Review with
the Supreme Court of Texas and on June 19, 2009, the Court agreed to consider the CenterPoint
Energy appeal as well as two related petitions for review filed by other entities. Oral argument
occurred on October 6, 2009.
In November 2008, CenterPoint Energy and RRI, on behalf of itself and affiliates including
RERS, agreed to suspend unexpired deadlines, if any, related to limitations periods that might
exist for possible claims against REI and its affiliates if CenterPoint Energy is ultimately not
allowed to include in its stranded cost calculation those EMCs previously credited to RERS.
Regardless of the outcome of the Texas Supreme Court proceeding, NRG believes that any possible
future CenterPoint Energy claim against RERS for EMCs credited to RERS would lack legal merit. No
such claim has been filed.
Note 16 Regulatory Matters
NRG operates in a highly regulated industry and is subject to regulation by various federal
and state agencies. As such, NRG is affected by regulatory developments at both the federal and
state levels and in the regions in which NRG operates. In addition, NRG is subject to the market
rules, procedures and protocols of the various ISO markets in which NRG participates. These power
markets are subject to ongoing legislative and regulatory changes that may impact NRGs wholesale
and retail businesses.
In addition to the regulatory proceedings noted below, NRG and its subsidiaries are a party to
other regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business or have other regulatory
exposure. In managements opinion, the disposition of these ordinary course matters will not
materially adversely affect NRGs consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash
flows.
PJM On June 18, 2009, FERC denied rehearing of its order dated September 19, 2008,
dismissing a complaint filed by the Maryland Public Service Commission, or MDPSC, together with
other load interests, against PJM challenging the results of the Reliability Pricing Model, or RPM
transition Base Residual Auctions for installed capacity, held between April 2007 and January 2008.
The complaint had sought to replace the auction-determined results for installed capacity for the
2008/2009, 2009/2010, and 2010/2011 delivery years with administratively-determined prices. On
August 14, 2009, the MDPSC and the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities filed an appeal of FERCs
orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and a successful appeal could disrupt
the auction-determined results and create a refund obligation for market participants. The case
has been transferred to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and is being briefed.
32
Midwest ISO v. PJM On March 8, 2010, Midwest ISO filed a complaint against PJM seeking
payments from PJM related to inter-market operations and settlements for congestion costs between
the systems for the period from April 2005 to the present. If the Midwest ISOs allegations are
true, PJM may have significant liability. If PJM makes any payments to the Midwest ISO related to
these claims, PJM is expected to seek to recover the payments from entities that served load and
held transmission congestion rights on PJM during the period in dispute, including NRG, which
provided basic generation service and thus effectively served load. At this time, NRGs share of
any payment by PJM is not expected to be material.
Retail (Replacement Reserve) On November 14, 2006, Constellation Energy Commodities Group,
or Constellation, filed a complaint with the PUCT alleging that ERCOT misapplied the Replacement
Reserve Settlement, or RPRS, Formula contained in the ERCOT protocols from April 10, 2006, through
September 27, 2006. Specifically, Constellation disputed approximately $4 million in
under-scheduling charges for capacity insufficiency asserting that ERCOT applied the wrong
protocol. REPS, other market participants, ERCOT, and PUCT staff opposed Constellations
complaint. On January 25, 2008, the PUCT entered an order finding that ERCOT correctly settled the
capacity insufficiency charges for the disputed dates in accordance with ERCOT protocols and denied
Constellations complaint. On April 9, 2008, Constellation appealed the PUCT order to the Civil
District Court of Travis County, Texas and on June 19, 2009, the court issued a judgment reversing
the PUCT order, finding that the ERCOT protocols were in irreconcilable conflict with each other.
On July 20, 2009, REPS filed an appeal to the Third Court of Appeals in Travis County, Texas,
thereby staying the effect of the trial courts decision. If all appeals are unsuccessful, on
remand to the PUCT, it would determine the appropriate methodology for giving effect to the trial
courts decision. It is not known at this time whether only Constellations under-scheduling
charges, the under-scheduling charges of all other QSEs that disputed REPS charges for the same
time frame, the entire market, or some other approach would be used for any resettlement.
Under the PUCT ordered formula, Qualified Scheduling Entities, or QSEs, who under-scheduled
capacity within any of ERCOTs four congestion zones were assessed under-scheduling charges which
defrayed the costs incurred by ERCOT for RPRS that would otherwise be spread among all load-serving
QSEs. Under the Courts decision, all RPRS costs would be assigned to all load-serving QSEs based
upon their load ratio share without assessing any separate charge to those QSEs who under-scheduled
capacity. If under-scheduling charges for capacity insufficient QSEs were not used to defray RPRS
costs, REPSs share of the total RPRS costs allocated to QSEs would increase.
Note 17 Environmental Matters
The construction and operation of power projects are subject to stringent environmental and
safety protection and land use laws and regulation in the U.S. If such laws and regulations become
more stringent, or new laws, interpretations or compliance policies apply and NRGs facilities are
not exempt from coverage, the Company could be required to make modifications to further reduce
potential environmental impacts. New legislation and regulations to mitigate the effects of
Greenhouse Gases, or GHG including Carbon dioxide, or CO2 from power plants, are under
consideration at the federal and state levels. In general, the effect of such future laws or
regulations is expected to require the addition of pollution control equipment or the imposition of
restrictions or additional costs on the Companys operations.
Environmental Capital Expenditures
Based on current rules, technology and plans, NRG has estimated that environmental capital
expenditures from 2010 through 2014 to meet NRGs environmental commitments will be approximately
$0.9 billion and are primarily associated with controls on the Companys Big Cajun and Indian River
facilities. These capital expenditures, in general, are related to installation of particulate,
Sulfur dioxide, or SO2, Nitrogen oxide, or NOx, and mercury controls to
comply with federal and state air quality rules and consent orders, as well as installation of
Best Technology Available under a section of the Clean Water Act regulating cooling water intake
structures, or Phase II 316(b) Rule. NRG continues to explore cost effective alternatives that can
achieve desired results. This estimate reflects anticipated schedules and controls related to the
Clean Air Interstate Rule, or CAIR, Maximum Achievable Control Technology, or MACT for mercury, and
the Phase II 316(b) Rule which are under remand to the U.S. EPA, and, as such, the full impact on
the scope and timing of environmental retrofits from any new or revised regulations cannot be
determined at this time.
NRGs current contracts with the Companys rural electrical customers in the South Central
region allow for recovery of a portion of the regions capital costs once in operation, along with
a capital return incurred by complying with new laws, including interest over the asset life of the
required expenditures. The actual recoveries will depend, among other things, on the timing of the
completion of the capital project and the remaining duration of the contracts.
33
Northeast Region
In January 2006, NRGs Indian River Operations, Inc. received a letter of informal
notification from the DNREC stating that it may be a potentially responsible party with respect to
Burton Island Old Ash Landfill, a historic captive landfill located at the Indian River facility.
On October 1, 2007, NRG signed an agreement with the DNREC to investigate the site through the
Voluntary Clean-up Program. On February 4, 2008, the DNREC issued findings that no further action
is required in relation to surface water and that a previously planned shoreline stabilization
project would satisfactorily address shoreline erosion. The landfill itself will require a further
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study to determine the type and scope of any additional work
required. Until the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study is completed, the Company is
unable to predict the impact of any required remediation. On May 29, 2008, the DNREC requested
that NRGs Indian River Operations, Inc. participate in the development and performance of a
Natural Resource Damage Assessment, or NRDA, at the Burton Island Old Ash Landfill. NRG is
currently working with the DNREC and other trustees to close out the assessment phase.
South Central Region
On February 11, 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice acting at the request of the U.S. EPA
commenced a lawsuit against LaGen in federal district court in the Middle District of Louisiana
alleging violations of the CAA at the Big Cajun II power plant. This is the same matter for which
NOVs were issued to LaGen on February 15, 2005, and on December 8, 2006. Further discussion on
this matter can be found in Note 15, Commitments and Contingencies, to this Form 10-Q, Louisiana
Generating, LLC.
Note 18 Guarantees
NRG and its subsidiaries enter into various contracts that include indemnification and
guarantee provisions as a routine part of the Companys business activities. Examples of these
contracts include asset purchases and sale agreements, commodity sale and purchase agreements,
retail contracts, joint venture agreements, EPC agreements, operation and maintenance agreements,
service agreements, settlement agreements, and other types of contractual agreements with vendors
and other third parties, as well as affiliates. These contracts generally indemnify the
counterparty for tax, environmental liability, litigation and other matters, as well as breaches of
representations, warranties and covenants set forth in these agreements. The Company is also
obligated with respect to customer deposits associated with Reliant Energy. In some cases, NRGs
maximum potential liability cannot be estimated, since the underlying agreements contain no limits
on potential liability.
This Note 18 should be read in conjunction with the complete description under Note 26,
Guarantees, to the Companys financial statements in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2009.
34
Note 19 Condensed Consolidating Financial Information
As of March 31, 2010, the Company had outstanding $1.2 billion of 7.25% Senior Notes due 2014,
$2.4 billion of 7.375% Senior Notes due 2016, $1.1 billion of 7.375% Senior Notes due 2017, and
$700 million of 8.50% Senior Notes due 2019. The Senior Notes are guaranteed by certain of NRGs
current and future wholly-owned domestic subsidiaries, or guarantor subsidiaries.
Unless otherwise noted below, each of the following guarantor subsidiaries fully and
unconditionally guaranteed the Senior Notes as of March 31, 2010:
|
|
|
Arthur Kill Power LLC
|
|
NRG Generation Holdings, Inc. |
Astoria Gas Turbine Power LLC
|
|
NRG Huntley Operations Inc. |
Berrians I Gas Turbine Power LLC
|
|
NRG International LLC |
Big Cajun II Unit 4 LLC
|
|
NRG Kaufman LLC |
Cabrillo Power I LLC
|
|
NRG Mesquite LLC |
Cabrillo Power II LLC
|
|
NRG MidAtlantic Affiliate Services Inc. |
Chickahominy River Energy Corp.
|
|
NRG Middletown Operations Inc. |
Commonwealth Atlantic Power LLC
|
|
NRG Montville Operations Inc. |
Conemaugh Power LLC
|
|
NRG New Jersey Energy Sales LLC |
Connecticut Jet Power LLC
|
|
NRG New Roads Holdings LLC |
Devon Power LLC
|
|
NRG North Central Operations, Inc. |
Dunkirk Power LLC
|
|
NRG Northeast Affiliate Services Inc. |
Eastern Sierra Energy Company
|
|
NRG Norwalk Harbor Operations Inc. |
El Segundo Power, LLC
|
|
NRG Operating Services Inc. |
El Segundo Power II LLC
|
|
NRG Oswego Harbor Power Operations Inc. |
GCP Funding Company LLC
|
|
NRG Power Marketing LLC |
Hanover Energy Company
|
|
NRG Retail LLC |
Huntley IGCC LLC
|
|
NRG Rocky Road LLC |
Huntley Power LLC
|
|
NRG Saguaro Operations Inc. |
Indian River IGCC LLC
|
|
NRG South Central Affiliate Services Inc. |
Indian River Operations Inc.
|
|
NRG South Central Generating LLC |
Indian River Power LLC
|
|
NRG South Central Operations Inc. |
James River Power LLC
|
|
NRG South Texas LP |
Kaufman Cogen LP
|
|
NRG Texas LLC |
Keystone Power LLC
|
|
NRG Texas C & I Supply LLC |
Lake Erie Properties Inc.
|
|
NRG Texas Holding Inc. |
Langford Wind Power, LLC
|
|
NRG Texas Power LLC |
Louisiana Generating LLC
|
|
NRG West Coast LLC |
Middletown Power LLC
|
|
NRG Western Affiliate Services Inc. |
Montville IGCC LLC
|
|
Oswego Harbor Power LLC |
Montville Power LLC
|
|
Reliant Energy Power Supply, LLC |
NEO Chester-Gen LLC
|
|
Reliant Energy Retail Holding, LLC |
NEO Corporation
|
|
Reliant Energy Retail Services, LLC |
NEO Freehold-Gen LLC
|
|
RE Retail Receivables, LLC |
NEO Power Services Inc.
|
|
RERH Holdings, LLC |
New Genco GP LLC
|
|
Reliant Energy Services Texas LLC |
Norwalk Power LLC
|
|
Reliant Energy Texas Retail LLC |
NRG Affiliate Services Inc.
|
|
Saguaro Power LLC |
NRG Arthur Kill Operations Inc.
|
|
Somerset Operations Inc. |
NRG Asia-Pacific Ltd.
|
|
Somerset Power LLC |
NRG Astoria Gas Turbine Operations Inc.
|
|
Texas Genco Financing Corp. |
NRG Bayou Cove LLC
|
|
Texas Genco GP, LLC |
NRG Cabrillo Power Operations Inc.
|
|
Texas Genco Holdings, Inc. |
NRG Cadillac Operations Inc.
|
|
Texas Genco LP, LLC |
NRG California Peaker Operations LLC
|
|
Texas Genco Operating Services, LLC |
NRG Cedar Bayou Development Company LLC
|
|
Texas Genco Services, LP |
NRG Connecticut Affiliate Services Inc.
|
|
Vienna Operations, Inc. |
NRG Construction LLC
|
|
Vienna Power LLC |
NRG Devon Operations Inc.
|
|
WCP (Generation) Holdings LLC |
NRG Dunkirk Operations, Inc.
|
|
West Coast Power LLC |
NRG El Segundo Operations Inc. |
|
|
35
The non-guarantor subsidiaries include all of NRGs foreign subsidiaries and certain domestic
subsidiaries. NRG conducts much of its business through and derives much of its income from its
subsidiaries. Therefore, the Companys ability to make required payments with respect to its
indebtedness and other obligations depends on the financial results and condition of its
subsidiaries and NRGs ability to receive funds from its subsidiaries. Except for NRG Bayou Cove,
LLC, which is subject to certain restrictions under the Companys Peaker financing agreements,
there are no restrictions on the ability of any of the guarantor subsidiaries to transfer funds to
NRG. In addition, there may be restrictions for certain non-guarantor subsidiaries.
The following condensed consolidating financial information presents the financial
information of NRG, the guarantor subsidiaries and the non-guarantor subsidiaries in accordance
with Rule 3-10 under the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation S-X. The financial
information may not necessarily be indicative of results of operations or financial position had
the guarantor subsidiaries or non-guarantor subsidiaries operated as independent entities.
In this presentation, NRG Energy, Inc. consists of parent company operations. Guarantor
subsidiaries and non-guarantor subsidiaries of NRG are reported on an equity basis. For companies
acquired, the fair values of the assets and liabilities acquired have been presented on a
push-down accounting basis.
36
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NRG Energy, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantor |
|
Non-Guarantor |
|
Inc. |
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated |
(In millions) |
|
Subsidiaries |
|
Subsidiaries |
|
(Note Issuer) |
|
Eliminations (a) |
|
Balance |
|
Operating Revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating revenues |
|
$ |
2,127 |
|
|
$ |
95 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(7 |
) |
|
$ |
2,215 |
|
|
Operating Costs and Expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of operations |
|
|
1,573 |
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
1,639 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
190 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
202 |
|
Selling, general and administrative |
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
130 |
|
Development costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
Total operating costs and expenses |
|
|
1,830 |
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
1,980 |
|
Gain on sale of assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
Operating Income/(Loss) |
|
|
297 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
(52 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
258 |
|
Other Income/(Expense) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in earnings of consolidated subsidiaries |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
194 |
|
|
|
(201 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
Other income, net |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
(134 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(153 |
) |
|
Total other income/(expense) |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
(201 |
) |
|
|
(135 |
) |
|
Income/(Losses) Before Income Taxes |
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
(201 |
) |
|
|
123 |
|
Income tax expense/(benefit) |
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
(50 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
Net Income/(Loss) attributable to NRG Energy, Inc. |
|
$ |
189 |
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
58 |
|
|
$ |
(201 |
) |
|
$ |
58 |
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
All significant intercompany transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. |
37
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING BALANCE SHEETS
March 31, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantor |
|
Guarantor |
|
NRG Energy, Inc. |
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated |
(In millions) |
|
Subsidiaries |
|
Subsidiaries |
|
(Note Issuer) |
|
Eliminations (a) |
|
Balance |
|
ASSETS
|
Current Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
13 |
|
|
$ |
147 |
|
|
$ |
1,653 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,813 |
|
Funds deposited by counterparties |
|
|
509 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
509 |
|
Restricted cash |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
Accounts receivable, net |
|
|
664 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
700 |
|
Inventory |
|
|
536 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
549 |
|
Derivative instruments valuation |
|
|
2,724 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,724 |
|
Cash collateral paid in support of energy risk
management activities |
|
|
531 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
533 |
|
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
153 |
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
177 |
|
|
|
(88 |
) |
|
|
307 |
|
|
Total current assets |
|
|
5,131 |
|
|
|
269 |
|
|
|
1,830 |
|
|
|
(88 |
) |
|
|
7,142 |
|
|
Net property, plant and equipment |
|
|
10,386 |
|
|
|
1,086 |
|
|
|
155 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,627 |
|
|
Other Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in subsidiaries |
|
|
693 |
|
|
|
312 |
|
|
|
18,564 |
|
|
|
(19,569 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Equity investments in affiliates |
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
379 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
421 |
|
Capital leases and notes receivable, less current portion |
|
|
5,184 |
|
|
|
490 |
|
|
|
3,059 |
|
|
|
(8,257 |
) |
|
|
476 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
1,713 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,713 |
|
Intangible assets, net |
|
|
1,665 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
1,686 |
|
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund |
|
|
382 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
382 |
|
Derivative instruments valuation |
|
|
964 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
975 |
|
Other non-current assets |
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
110 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
156 |
|
|
Total other assets |
|
|
10,680 |
|
|
|
1,209 |
|
|
|
21,777 |
|
|
|
(27,857 |
) |
|
|
5,809 |
|
|
Total Assets |
|
$ |
26,197 |
|
|
$ |
2,564 |
|
|
$ |
23,762 |
|
|
$ |
(27,945 |
) |
|
$ |
24,578 |
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
|
Current Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt and capital leases |
|
$ |
58 |
|
|
$ |
120 |
|
|
$ |
32 |
|
|
$ |
(58 |
) |
|
$ |
152 |
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
(2,134 |
) |
|
|
432 |
|
|
|
2,297 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
595 |
|
Derivative instruments valuation |
|
|
2,287 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,354 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
456 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
(293 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
174 |
|
Cash collateral received in support of energy risk
management activities |
|
|
509 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
509 |
|
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities |
|
|
285 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
588 |
|
|
Total current liabilities |
|
|
1,461 |
|
|
|
598 |
|
|
|
2,401 |
|
|
|
(88 |
) |
|
|
4,372 |
|
|
Other Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt and capital leases |
|
|
2,567 |
|
|
|
1,004 |
|
|
|
12,532 |
|
|
|
(8,257 |
) |
|
|
7,846 |
|
Nuclear decommissioning reserve |
|
|
304 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
304 |
|
Nuclear decommissioning trust liability |
|
|
262 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
262 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
1,857 |
|
|
|
(165 |
) |
|
|
233 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,925 |
|
Derivative instruments valuation |
|
|
396 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
439 |
|
Out-of-market contracts |
|
|
301 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
277 |
|
Other non-current liabilities |
|
|
542 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
326 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
885 |
|
|
Total non-current liabilities |
|
|
6,229 |
|
|
|
892 |
|
|
|
13,105 |
|
|
|
(8,288 |
) |
|
|
11,938 |
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
|
7,690 |
|
|
|
1,490 |
|
|
|
15,506 |
|
|
|
(8,376 |
) |
|
|
16,310 |
|
|
3.625% Preferred Stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
247 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
247 |
|
Stockholders Equity |
|
|
18,507 |
|
|
|
1,074 |
|
|
|
8,009 |
|
|
|
(19,569 |
) |
|
|
8,021 |
|
|
Total Liabilities and Stockholders Equity |
|
$ |
26,197 |
|
|
$ |
2,564 |
|
|
$ |
23,762 |
|
|
$ |
(27,945 |
) |
|
$ |
24,578 |
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
All significant intercompany transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. |
38
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non- |
|
NRG Energy, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantor |
|
Guarantor |
|
Inc. |
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated |
(In millions) |
|
Subsidiaries |
|
Subsidiaries |
|
(Note Issuer) |
|
Eliminations (a) |
|
Balance |
|
Cash Flows from Operating Activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
189 |
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
58 |
|
|
$ |
(201 |
) |
|
$ |
58 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by
operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distributions and equity in (earnings)/losses of
unconsolidated affiliates and consolidated subsidiaries |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(194 |
) |
|
|
201 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
190 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
202 |
|
Provision for bad debts |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
Amortization of nuclear fuel |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
Amortization of financing costs and debt discount/premiums |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
Changes in deferred income taxes and liability for
unrecognized tax benefits |
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
(39 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
74 |
|
Changes in nuclear decommissioning liability |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
Changes in derivatives |
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24 |
|
Changes in collateral deposits supporting energy risk
management activities |
|
|
(172 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(172 |
) |
Loss/(gain) on sale of assets |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(21 |
) |
Amortization of unearned equity compensation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
Changes in option premiums collected |
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
92 |
|
Cash (used)/provided by changes in other working capital |
|
|
(199 |
) |
|
|
(63 |
) |
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(182 |
) |
|
Net Cash Provided/(Used) by Operating Activities |
|
|
258 |
|
|
|
(40 |
) |
|
|
(104 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
114 |
|
|
Cash Flows from Investing Activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intercompany (loans to)/receipts from subsidiaries |
|
|
(178 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
210 |
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in subsidiaries |
|
|
|
|
|
|
328 |
|
|
|
(328 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures |
|
|
(99 |
) |
|
|
(73 |
) |
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(185 |
) |
Increase in restricted cash, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
Decrease in notes receivable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
Purchases of emission allowances |
|
|
(34 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(34 |
) |
Proceeds from sale of emission allowances |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
Investments in nuclear decommissioning trust fund securities |
|
|
(78 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(78 |
) |
Proceeds from sales of nuclear decommissioning trust fund
securities |
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67 |
|
Proceeds from sale of assets |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30 |
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
Net Cash (Used)/Provided by Investing Activities |
|
|
(312 |
) |
|
|
257 |
|
|
|
(349 |
) |
|
|
210 |
|
|
|
(194 |
) |
|
Cash Flows from Financing Activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from intercompany loans |
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
178 |
|
|
|
(210 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Payment of dividends to preferred stockholders |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
Net receipt from acquired derivatives that include
financing elements |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
Proceeds from issuance of common stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Payment of deferred debt issuance costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
Payment of short and long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(193 |
) |
|
|
(236 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(429 |
) |
|
Net Cash Provided/(Used) by Financing Activities |
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
(187 |
) |
|
|
(58 |
) |
|
|
(210 |
) |
|
|
(408 |
) |
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
Net (Decrease)/Increase in Cash and Cash Equivalents |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
(511 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(491 |
) |
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Period |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
120 |
|
|
|
2,164 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,304 |
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Period |
|
$ |
13 |
|
|
$ |
147 |
|
|
$ |
1,653 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,813 |
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
All significant intercompany transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. |
39
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NRG Energy, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantor |
|
Non-Guarantor |
|
Inc. |
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated |
(In millions) |
|
Subsidiaries |
|
Subsidiaries |
|
(Note Issuer) |
|
Eliminations (a) |
|
Balance |
|
Operating Revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating revenues |
|
$ |
1,566 |
|
|
$ |
95 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(3 |
) |
|
$ |
1,658 |
|
|
Operating Costs and Expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of operations |
|
|
698 |
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
766 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
158 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
169 |
|
General and administrative |
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
95 |
|
Development costs |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
Total operating costs and expenses |
|
|
875 |
|
|
|
83 |
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
1,043 |
|
|
Operating Income/(Loss) |
|
|
691 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
(88 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
615 |
|
Other Income/(Expense) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in earnings of consolidated subsidiaries |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
397 |
|
|
|
(418 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
Other income/(loss), net |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
Interest expense |
|
|
(48 |
) |
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
(69 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(138 |
) |
|
Total other (expense )/income |
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
331 |
|
|
|
(418 |
) |
|
|
(119 |
) |
|
Income/(Loss) Before Income Taxes |
|
|
666 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
243 |
|
|
|
(418 |
) |
|
|
496 |
|
Income tax expense |
|
|
252 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
298 |
|
|
Net Income/(Loss) attributable to NRG Energy, Inc. |
|
$ |
414 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
198 |
|
|
$ |
(418 |
) |
|
$ |
198 |
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
All significant intercompany transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. |
40
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATING BALANCE SHEETS
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantor |
|
Guarantor |
|
NRG Energy, Inc. |
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated |
(In millions) |
|
Subsidiaries |
|
Subsidiaries |
|
(Note Issuer) |
|
Eliminations (a) |
|
Balance |
|
ASSETS
|
Current Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
20 |
|
|
$ |
120 |
|
|
$ |
2,164 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2,304 |
|
Funds deposited by counterparties |
|
|
177 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
177 |
|
Restricted cash |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Accounts receivable-trade, net |
|
|
837 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
876 |
|
Inventory |
|
|
529 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
541 |
|
Derivative instruments valuation |
|
|
1,636 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,636 |
|
Cash collateral paid in support of
energy risk management activities |
|
|
359 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
361 |
|
Prepayments and other current assets |
|
|
194 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
157 |
|
|
|
(101 |
) |
|
|
311 |
|
|
Total current assets |
|
|
3,753 |
|
|
|
235 |
|
|
|
2,321 |
|
|
|
(101 |
) |
|
|
6,208 |
|
|
Net Property, Plant and Equipment |
|
|
10,494 |
|
|
|
1,009 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,564 |
|
|
Other Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in subsidiaries |
|
|
613 |
|
|
|
222 |
|
|
|
16,862 |
|
|
|
(17,697 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Equity investments in affiliates |
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
367 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
409 |
|
Capital leases and note receivable,
less current portion |
|
|
4,982 |
|
|
|
504 |
|
|
|
3,027 |
|
|
|
(8,009 |
) |
|
|
504 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
1,718 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,718 |
|
Intangible assets, net |
|
|
1,755 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
1,777 |
|
Nuclear decommissioning trust fund |
|
|
367 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
367 |
|
Derivative instruments valuation |
|
|
718 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
(43 |
) |
|
|
683 |
|
Other non-current assets |
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
148 |
|
|
Total other assets |
|
|
10,224 |
|
|
|
1,121 |
|
|
|
20,041 |
|
|
|
(25,780 |
) |
|
|
5,606 |
|
|
Total Assets |
|
$ |
24,471 |
|
|
$ |
2,365 |
|
|
$ |
22,423 |
|
|
$ |
(25,881 |
) |
|
$ |
23,378 |
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
|
Current Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt and capital leases |
|
$ |
58 |
|
|
$ |
310 |
|
|
$ |
261 |
|
|
$ |
(58 |
) |
|
$ |
571 |
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
(852 |
) |
|
|
393 |
|
|
|
1,156 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
697 |
|
Derivative instruments valuation |
|
|
1,469 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,473 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
456 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
(270 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
197 |
|
Cash collateral received in support of energy risk management
activities |
|
|
177 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
177 |
|
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities |
|
|
261 |
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
347 |
|
|
|
(43 |
) |
|
|
647 |
|
|
Total current liabilities |
|
|
1,569 |
|
|
|
798 |
|
|
|
1,496 |
|
|
|
(101 |
) |
|
|
3,762 |
|
|
Other Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt and capital leases |
|
|
2,533 |
|
|
|
1,003 |
|
|
|
12,320 |
|
|
|
(8,009 |
) |
|
|
7,847 |
|
Nuclear decommissioning reserve |
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
300 |
|
Nuclear decommissioning trust liability |
|
|
255 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
255 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
1,711 |
|
|
|
(165 |
) |
|
|
237 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,783 |
|
Derivative instruments valuation |
|
|
323 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
(43 |
) |
|
|
387 |
|
Out-of-market contracts |
|
|
318 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
294 |
|
Other non-current liabilities |
|
|
431 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
359 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
806 |
|
|
Total non-current liabilities |
|
|
5,871 |
|
|
|
889 |
|
|
|
12,995 |
|
|
|
(8,083 |
) |
|
|
11,672 |
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
|
7,440 |
|
|
|
1,687 |
|
|
|
14,491 |
|
|
|
(8,184 |
) |
|
|
15,434 |
|
|
3.625% Preferred Stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
247 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
247 |
|
Stockholders Equity |
|
|
17,031 |
|
|
|
678 |
|
|
|
7,685 |
|
|
|
(17,697 |
) |
|
|
7,697 |
|
|
Total Liabilities and Stockholders Equity |
|
$ |
24,471 |
|
|
$ |
2,365 |
|
|
$ |
22,423 |
|
|
$ |
(25,881 |
) |
|
$ |
23,378 |
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
All significant intercompany transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. |
41
NRG ENERGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non- |
|
NRG Energy, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantor |
|
Guarantor |
|
Inc. |
|
|
|
Consolidated |
(In millions) |
|
Subsidiaries |
|
Subsidiaries |
|
(Note Issuer) |
|
Eliminations (a) |
|
Balance |
|
Cash Flows from Operating Activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
414 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
198 |
|
|
$ |
(418 |
) |
|
$ |
198 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash
provided by operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in (earnings)/losses of unconsolidated
affiliates and consolidated subsidiaries |
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
(397 |
) |
|
|
418 |
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
158 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
169 |
|
Amortization of nuclear fuel |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
Amortization of financing costs and debt
discount/premiums |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
Amortization of intangibles and out-of-market
contracts |
|
|
(34 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(34 |
) |
Changes in deferred income taxes and liability
for unrecognized tax benefits |
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
194 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
299 |
|
Changes in nuclear decommissioning liability |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
Changes in derivatives |
|
|
(301 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(304 |
) |
Changes in collateral deposits supporting
energy risk management activities |
|
|
312 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
312 |
|
Gain on sale of assets |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
Gain on sale of emission allowances |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
Amortization of unearned equity compensation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
Changes in option premium collected |
|
|
(270 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(270 |
) |
Cash (used)/provided by changes in other
working capital |
|
|
(161 |
) |
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
(110 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(233 |
) |
|
Net Cash Provided/(Used) by Operating Activities |
|
|
220 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
(101 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
139 |
|
|
Cash Flows from Investing Activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intercompany (loans to)/receipts from subsidiaries |
|
|
(231 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(201 |
) |
|
|
432 |
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in subsidiaries |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(60 |
) |
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures |
|
|
(165 |
) |
|
|
(68 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(233 |
) |
Decrease/(increase) in restricted cash, net |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
Decrease/(increase) in notes receivable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
Purchases of emission allowances |
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(35 |
) |
Proceeds from sale of emission allowances |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
Investment in nuclear decommissioning trust fund
securities |
|
|
(83 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(83 |
) |
Proceeds from sales of nuclear decommissioning
trust fund securities |
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
78 |
|
Proceeds from sale of assets |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
Net Cash Used by Investing Activities |
|
|
(420 |
) |
|
|
(62 |
) |
|
|
(269 |
) |
|
|
492 |
|
|
|
(259 |
) |
|
Cash Flows from Financing Activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Payments)/proceeds from intercompany loans |
|
|
164 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
238 |
|
|
|
(432 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Intercompany investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(60 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Payment of dividends to preferred stockholders |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
Receipt from acquired derivatives that include
financing elements |
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40 |
|
Payment of deferred debt issuance costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
Payment of short and long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(205 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(209 |
) |
|
Net Cash Provided by Financing Activities |
|
|
204 |
|
|
|
85 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
(492 |
) |
|
|
(184 |
) |
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash
equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
Net Increase/(Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalent |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
(351 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(306 |
) |
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Period |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
159 |
|
|
|
1,337 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,494 |
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Period |
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
200 |
|
|
$ |
986 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,188 |
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
All significant intercompany transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. |
42
Note 20 Subsequent Event
On May 10, 2010,
NINA and TEPCO Nuclear Energy America LLC, or TNEA, a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Tokyo Electric Power
Company of Japan, Inc., or TEPCO, signed an Investment and Option Agreement whereby TNEA agreed to acquire up to a 20%
interest in NINA Investments Holdings LLC, or Holdings. Holdings is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of NINA, which indirectly holds
NINAs ownership interest in the STP Units 3 and 4 Project. TNEA will initially invest $155 million for a 10% share of
Holdings, which includes a $30 million option premium payment to Holdings. This option, which expires approximately one
year from the date of signing the Investment and Option Agreement, will enable TNEA to buy an additional 10% of Holdings for another
payment of $125 million. The closing is contingent upon NINAs receipt of a U.S. DOE loan guarantee commitment. Upon its initial
investment, TNEA will hold a 9.2375% interest in the STP Units 3 and 4 Project, bringing NINAs investment down to 83.1375%.
If TNEA exercises its option to increase its ownership of Holdings by an additional 10%, it will own 18.475% of the STP Units 3 and 4 Project,
bringing NINAs investment down to 73.90%.
43
ITEM 2 MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
In this discussion and analysis, NRG discusses and explains its financial condition and
results of operations, including:
|
|
|
Factors which affect NRGs business; |
|
|
|
NRGs earnings and costs in the periods presented; |
|
|
|
Changes in earnings and costs between periods; |
|
|
|
Impact of these factors on NRGs overall financial condition; |
|
|
|
A discussion of new and ongoing initiatives that may affect NRGs future results of
operations and financial condition; |
|
|
|
Expected future expenditures for capital projects; and |
|
|
|
Expected sources of cash for future operations and capital expenditures. |
As you read this discussion and analysis, refer to the Companys Condensed Consolidated
Statements of Operations to this Form 10-Q, which present the results of operations for the three
months ended March 31, 2010, and 2009. The Company analyzes and explains the differences between
periods in the specific line items of NRGs Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. Also
refer to NRGs Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, which includes
detailed discussions of various items impacting the Companys business, results of operations and
financial condition, including:
|
|
|
Introduction and Overview section which provides a description of NRGs business
segments; |
|
|
|
Business Environment section, including how regulation, weather, and other factors affect
NRGs business; and |
|
|
|
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates section. |
The discussion and analysis below has been organized as follows:
|
|
|
Executive Summary, including introduction and overview, business strategy, and changes to
the business environment during the period including regulatory and environmental matters;
|
|
|
|
Results of operations beginning with an overview of the Companys consolidated results,
followed by a more detailed discussion of those results by operating segment;
|
|
|
|
Financial condition addressing liquidity position, sources and uses of cash, capital
resources and requirements, commitments, and off-balance sheet arrangements; and
|
|
|
|
Known trends that may affect NRGs results of operations and financial condition in the
future. |
44
Executive Summary
Introduction and Overview
NRG Energy, Inc., or NRG or the Company, is primarily a wholesale power generation company
with a significant presence in major competitive power markets in the U.S., as well as a major
retail electricity provider in the ERCOT (Texas) market through Reliant Energy. NRG is engaged in
the ownership, development, construction and operation of power generation facilities, the
transacting in and trading of fuel and transportation services, the trading of energy, capacity and
related products in the U.S. and select international markets, and the supply of electricity and
energy services to retail electricity customers in the Texas market.
As of March 31, 2010, NRG had a total global generation portfolio of 186 active operating
fossil fuel and nuclear generation units, at 44 power generation plants, with an aggregate
generation capacity of approximately 24,005 MW, and approximately 400 MW under construction which
includes partner interests of 200 MW. In addition to its fossil fuel plant ownership, NRG has
ownership interests in operating renewable facilities with an aggregate generation capacity of 365
MW, consisting of three wind farms representing an aggregate generation capacity of 345 MW (which
includes partner interest of 75 MW) and a solar facility with an aggregate generation capacity of
20 MW. Within the U.S., NRG has large and diversified power generation portfolios in terms of
geography, fuel-type and dispatch levels, with approximately 23,000 MW of fossil fuel and nuclear
generation capacity in 178 active generating units at 42 plants. The Companys power generation
facilities are most heavily concentrated in Texas (approximately 11,340 MW, including 345 MW from
three wind farms), the Northeast (approximately 6,905 MW), South Central (approximately 2,855 MW),
and West (approximately 2,150 MW, including 20 MW from a solar facility) regions of the U.S., with
approximately 115 MW of additional generation capacity from the Companys thermal assets. In
addition, through certain foreign subsidiaries, NRG has investments in power generation projects
located in Australia and Germany with approximately 1,005 MW of generation capacity.
NRGs principal domestic power plants consist of a mix of natural gas-, coal-, oil-fired,
nuclear and renewable facilities, representing approximately 45%, 32%, 16%, 5% and 2% of the
Companys total domestic generation capacity, respectively. In addition, 9% of NRGs domestic
generating facilities have dual or multiple fuel capacity, which allows plants to dispatch with the
lowest cost fuel option.
NRGs domestic generation facilities consist of intermittent, baseload, intermediate and
peaking power generation facilities, the ranking of which is referred to as the Merit Order, and
include thermal energy production plants. The sale of capacity and power from baseload generation
facilities accounts for the majority of the Companys revenues and provides a stable source of cash
flow. In addition, NRGs generation portfolio provides the Company with opportunities to capture
additional revenues by selling power during periods of peak demand, offering capacity or similar
products to retail electric providers and others, and providing ancillary services to support
system reliability.
Reliant Energy, the Companys retail electricity provider, arranges for the transmission and
delivery of electricity to customers, bills customers, collects payments for electricity sold and
maintains call centers to provide customer service. Based on metered locations, as of
March 31, 2010, Reliant Energy had approximately 1.5 million Mass customers and approximately 0.1
million C&I customers, with expected annual volumes for these customer classes of 20 TWhs and 30
TWhs, respectively.
Furthermore, NRG is focused on the development and investment in energy-related new businesses
and new technologies where the benefits of such investments represent significant commercial
opportunities and create a comparative advantage for the Company. These investments include low or
no GHG emitting energy generating sources, such as nuclear, wind, solar thermal, photovoltaic,
biomass, clean coal and gasification, the retrofit of post-combustion carbon capture
technologies, and developments in the electric vehicle ecosystem.
NRGs Business Strategy
NRGs business strategy is intended to maximize shareholder value through the production and
sale of safe, reliable and affordable power to its customers in the markets served by the Company,
while aggressively positioning the Company to meet the markets increasing demand for sustainable
and low carbon energy solutions. The Company believes that success in providing energy solutions
that address sustainability and climate change concerns will not only reduce the carbon and capital
intensity of the Company in the future, it also will reduce the real and perceived linkage between
the Companys financial performance and prospects, and volatile commodity prices, particularly with
respect to natural gas. The Companys strategy is focused on: (i) top decile operating performance
of its existing operating assets and enhanced operating performance of the Companys commercial
operations and hedging program; (ii) repowering of power generation assets at existing sites and
development of new power generation projects; (iii) empowering new and current retail customers
with distinctive products and services that transform how they use, manage and value energy; (iv)
engaging in a proactive capital allocation plan focused on achieving the regular return of capital
to stockholders within the
45
dictates of prudent balance sheet management; and (v) pursuit of selective acquisitions, joint
ventures, divestitures and investments in energy-related new businesses and new technologies in
order to enhance the Companys asset mix and competitive position in its core markets, both with
respect to its traditional core business and opportunities associated with the new energy
economy. This strategy is supported by the Companys five major initiatives (FORNRG,
RepoweringNRG, econrg, Future NRG and NRG Global Giving) which are designed to enhance the
Companys competitive advantages in these strategic areas and enable the Company to convert the
challenges faced by the power industry in the coming years into opportunities for financial growth.
This strategy is being implemented by focusing on the following principles, which are more fully
described in the Companys 2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Operational Performance The Company is focused on increasing value from its existing assets,
primarily through the Companys FORNRG 2.0 initiative, commercial operations strategy, achieving
synergies between the Companys retail and wholesale business in Texas, and maintaining of
appropriate levels of liquidity, debt and equity in order to ensure continued access to capital
through all economic and financial cycles.
Development NRG is favorably positioned to pursue growth opportunities through expansion of
its existing generating capacity and development of new generating capacity at its existing
facilities, primarily through the Companys RepoweringNRG and econrg initiatives. NRG expects that
these efforts will provide some or all of the following benefits: improved heat rates; lower
delivered costs; expanded electricity production capability; improved ability to dispatch
economically across the regional general portfolio; increased technological and fuel diversity; and
reduced environmental impacts, including facilities that either have near zero GHG emissions or can
be equipped to capture and sequester GHG emissions. In addition, several of the Companys original
RepoweringNRG projects or projects commenced under that initiative since its inception may qualify
for financial support under the infrastructure financing component of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act as well as other government incentive packages. NRG has several applications
pending or contemplated.
New Businesses and New Technology NRG is focused on the development of and investment in
energy-related new businesses and new technologies, including low or no GHG emitting energy
generating sources, such as nuclear, wind, solar thermal, photovoltaic, biomass, as well as other
endeavors where the benefits of such investments represent significant commercial opportunities and
create a comparative advantage for the Company, such as smart meters, electric vehicle ecosystems,
and distributed clean solutions. Furthermore, the Company, supported by the econrg initiative,
intends to capitalize on the high growth opportunities presented by government-mandated renewable
portfolio standards, tax incentives and loan guarantees for renewable energy projects, new
technologies and expected future carbon regulation.
Company-Wide Initiatives In addition, the Companys overall strategy is also supported by
Future NRG and NRG Global Giving initiatives, which address workforce planning and community
involvement and support, respectively.
Finally, NRG will continue to pursue selective acquisitions, joint ventures and divestitures
to enhance its asset mix and competitive position in the Companys core markets. NRG intends to
concentrate on opportunities that present attractive risk-adjusted returns. NRG will also
opportunistically pursue other strategic transactions, including mergers, acquisitions or
divestitures.
Environmental Matters
Climate Change
In 2009, in the course of producing approximately 71 million MWh of electricity, NRGs power
plants emitted 59 million tonnes of CO2, of which 53 million tonnes were emitted in the
U.S., 3 million tonnes in Germany and 3 million tonnes in Australia. During the same period, NRG
emitted approximately 8 million tons of CO2 in the RGGI region. The impact from
legislation or federal, regional or state regulation of GHGs on the Companys financial performance
will depend on a number of factors, including the overall level of GHG reductions required under
any such regulations, the price and availability of offsets, and the extent to which NRG would be
entitled to receive CO2 emissions allowances without having to purchase them in an
auction or on the open market. Thereafter, under any such legislation or regulation, the impact on
NRG would depend on the Companys level of success in developing and deploying low and no carbon
technologies such as those being pursued as discussed in the above.
Congress was unable to come to an agreement on climate legislation in 2009 and the subject
continues to be a topic for consideration in 2010. Lack of legislation will prolong the
uncertainty of the nature and timing of GHG requirements and their resulting impact on NRG.
46
The U.S. EPA issued a rule addressing tailpipe limitations for light duty vehicles and a final
interpretation of the Johnson Memorandum addressing when a compound becomes a regulated pollutant.
The combined impact of these two actions is that power plants and other stationary sources that
emit GHGs will be subject to NSR/PSD and Title V permitting requirements in 2011. The immediate
impact to NRGs new and modified facilities is not expected to be material; the Company will
continue to evaluate the potential long-term impact as regulatory programs are implemented over
time.
Environmental Regulatory Landscape
A number of regulations that could significantly impact the power generation industry are in
development or under review by the U.S. EPA: CAIR, MACT, NAAQS revisions, coal combustion
byproducts, once-through cooling, and GHG regulations. While most of these regulations have been
considered for some time, they are expected to gain clarity in 2010 through 2011. The timing and
stringency of these regulations will provide a framework for the retrofit of existing fossil plants and
deployment of new, cleaner technologies in the next decade. The Company has included capital to meet
anticipated CAIR Phase I and II, MACT standards for mercury, and the installation of Best Technology
Available under the 316(b) Rule in the current estimated environmental capital expenditure. While the
Company cannot predict the impact of future regulations and would likely face additional investments over
time, these expenditures, combined with the Companys already existing air quality controls; use of Powder
River Basin coal; closed cycle cooling; and dry ash handling systems, position NRG well to meet more
stringent requirements.
On May 4, 2010, the U.S. EPA proposed two options for the regulation of coal combustion residuals,
commonly known as coal ash. Under the Proposals first regulatory option, the U.S. EPA would reverse its
August 1993 and May 2000 Bevill Regulatory Determinations and list coal ash as a special waste subject to
regulation under hazardous waste regulations. The second regulatory option would leave the Bevill
Determination in place and regulate disposal of coal ash as non-hazardous. Under both options, an
exemption for the beneficial use of coal ash would remain in place. Additionally, under both options, the
U.S. EPA would establish dam safety requirements to address the structural integrity of surface
impoundments. While it is not possible to predict the impact of this rule until it is final, as proposed it is
not expected to have a material impact on NRGs operations, as all flyash disposal sites are dry landfills;
however, should the U.S. EPA implement the hazardous waste option, NRG may incur significant costs due
to loss of markets for beneficial reuse. Given the recent release of this proposed rule, NRG will continue to
monitor developments and their respective impacts on the Companys operations.
On May 4, 2010, the California State Water Resources Control Board adopted a statewide 316(b) policy
to mitigate once through cooling in California. Options for power plants with once through cooling include
transitioning to a closed loop system, retirement or submitting an alternative plan that meets equivalent
mitigation criteria. Specified compliance dates for NRGs El Segundo and Encina Power Plants are
December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2017, respectively. NRG is analyzing compliance through a mix of
alternative mitigation plans and repowering.
Regulatory Matters
As operators of power plants and participants in wholesale energy markets, certain NRG
entities are subject to regulation by various federal and state government agencies. These include
the CFTC, FERC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or NRC, PUCT and other public utility
commissions in certain states where NRGs generating or thermal assets are located. In addition,
NRG is subject to the market rules, procedures and protocols of the various ISO markets in which it
participates. Certain of the Reliant Energy entities are competitive Retail Electric Providers, or
REPs, and as such are subject to the rules and regulations of the PUCT governing REPs. NRG must
also comply with the mandatory reliability requirements imposed by the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation, or NERC, and the regional reliability councils in the regions where the
Company operates. The operations of, and wholesale electric sales from, NRGs Texas
region are not subject to rate regulation by the FERC, as they are deemed to operate solely within
the ERCOT market and not in interstate commerce.
New England On February 22, 2010, ISO-NE filed proposed amendments to its Forward Capacity
Market, or FCM, design with FERC. A number of generators protested the ISO-NE filing, arguing that
FERC should not accept the proposed amendments. On March 23, 2010, an association of generators
filed a complaint alleging that the proposed FCM amendments are not just and reasonable due to
market distortions such as out-of-market contracts, and thus would continue to under-compensate
capacity suppliers in New England. On April 2, 2010, NRG and PSEG jointly filed a second complaint
alleging that the existing FCM market fails to adequately establish zonal prices and thus does not
adequately compensate suppliers for the locational value of their capacity. These complaints are
seeking only prospective relief. Any changes to the FCM market in response to these complaints
could benefit from the Companys existing New England assets in future FCM auctions. On April 23,
2010, FERC issued an order consolidating the proceedings. In its order FERC accepted some of the
ISO-NEs proposed changes, but also set several of the central issues for hearing and settlement
processes.
California On May 4, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Southern
California Edison Company v. FERC vacated FERCs acceptance of station power rules for the CAISO
market, and remanded the case for further proceedings at FERC. As a result of the courts decision, NRGs
power plants may be prevented from netting their station power consumption against their sales on a
monthly basis in the California markets, which could require NRG to purchase station power at retail rates.
Additionally, the precedent announced in this case may affect station power tariffs in other markets.
Changes in Accounting Standards
See Note 2, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, to this Form 10-Q as found in Item 1
for a discussion of recent accounting developments.
47
Consolidated Results of Operations
The following table provides selected financial information for NRG Energy, Inc. for the three
months ended March 31, 2010, and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended March 31, |
(In millions except otherwise noted) |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
Change % |
|
Operating Revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy revenue |
|
$ |
678 |
|
|
$ |
887 |
|
|
|
(24 |
)% |
Capacity revenue |
|
|
211 |
|
|
|
260 |
|
|
|
(19 |
) |
Retail revenue |
|
|
1,245 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Risk management activities |
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
437 |
|
|
|
(79 |
) |
Contract amortization |
|
|
(62 |
) |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
(395 |
) |
Thermal revenue |
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
(18 |
) |
Other revenues |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
Total operating revenues |
|
|
2,215 |
|
|
|
1,658 |
|
|
|
34 |
|
Operating Costs and Expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of sales |
|
|
1,188 |
|
|
|
453 |
|
|
|
162 |
|
Risk management activities |
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
Other cost of operations |
|
|
315 |
|
|
|
245 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
Total cost of operations |
|
|
1,639 |
|
|
|
766 |
|
|
|
114 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
202 |
|
|
|
169 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
Selling, general and administrative |
|
|
130 |
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
Development costs |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
Total operating costs and expenses |
|
|
1,980 |
|
|
|
1,043 |
|
|
|
90 |
|
Gain on sale of assets |
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income |
|
|
258 |
|
|
|
615 |
|
|
|
(58 |
) |
Other Income/(Expense) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in earnings of unconsolidated affiliates |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
(36 |
) |
Other income/(loss), net |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(233 |
) |
Interest expense |
|
|
(153 |
) |
|
|
(138 |
) |
|
|
11 |
|
|
Total other expenses |
|
|
(135 |
) |
|
|
(119 |
) |
|
|
13 |
|
|
Income before income tax expense |
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
496 |
|
|
|
(75 |
) |
Income tax expense |
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
298 |
|
|
|
(78 |
) |
|
Net Income attributable to NRG Energy, Inc. |
|
$ |
58 |
|
|
$ |
198 |
|
|
|
(71 |
) |
|
Business Metrics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average natural gas price Henry Hub ($/MMbtu) |
|
|
5.30 |
|
|
|
4.58 |
|
|
|
16 |
% |
|
48
The table below represents the results of NRG excluding the impact of Reliant Energy during the
three months ended March 31, 2010 compared to the same period in 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended March 31, |
|
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total excluding |
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Consolidated |
|
Reliant Energy |
|
Reliant Energy |
|
Consolidated |
|
Change % |
|
Operating Revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy revenue |
|
$ |
678 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
678 |
|
|
$ |
887 |
|
|
|
(24 |
)% |
Capacity revenue |
|
|
211 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
211 |
|
|
|
260 |
|
|
|
(19 |
) |
Retail revenue |
|
|
1,245 |
|
|
|
1,245 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Risk management activities |
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
437 |
|
|
|
(79 |
) |
Contract amortization |
|
|
(62 |
) |
|
|
(69 |
) |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
(67 |
) |
Thermal revenue |
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
(18 |
) |
Other revenues |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
Total operating revenues |
|
|
2,215 |
|
|
|
1,176 |
|
|
|
1,039 |
|
|
|
1,658 |
|
|
|
(37 |
) |
Operating Costs and Expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of sales |
|
|
1,188 |
|
|
|
907 |
|
|
|
281 |
|
|
|
453 |
|
|
|
(38 |
) |
Risk management activities |
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
323 |
|
|
|
(187 |
) |
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
(375 |
) |
Other operating costs |
|
|
315 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
270 |
|
|
|
245 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
Total cost of operations |
|
|
1,639 |
|
|
|
1,275 |
|
|
|
364 |
|
|
|
766 |
|
|
|
(52 |
) |
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
202 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
172 |
|
|
|
169 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
Selling, general and administrative |
|
|
130 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
(24 |
) |
Development costs |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
Total operating costs and expenses |
|
|
1,980 |
|
|
|
1,363 |
|
|
|
617 |
|
|
|
1,043 |
|
|
|
(41 |
) |
Gain on sale of assets |
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
$ |
258 |
|
|
$ |
(187 |
) |
|
$ |
445 |
|
|
$ |
615 |
|
|
|
(28 |
)% |
|
Operating Revenues
Operating revenues, excluding risk management activities, increased by $903 million during the
three months ended March 31, 2010, compared to the same period in 2009.
|
|
|
Retail revenue Reliant Energy contributed $1.2 billion of retail revenue during the
three months ended March 31, 2010. Retail revenue includes Mass revenues of $713 million,
C&I revenues of $489 million, and supply management revenues of $43 million. |
|
|
|
Energy revenue decreased $209 million during the three months ended March 31, 2010,
compared to the same period in 2009: |
|
o |
|
Texas increased by $34 million, with $21 million of the increase driven by an
increase in generation and $14 million of the increase driven by higher energy prices.
The average realized energy price increased by 2%, driven by an 8% decrease in merchant
prices offset by a 3% increase in contract prices. Generation increased 4%, driven by a
1% increase in coal plant generation, a 94% increase in gas plant generation, a 97%
increase in wind farm generation, offset by an 8% decrease in nuclear plant generation.
Gas plant generation was supported by the recently constructed Cedar Bayou 4 gas plant
which began commercial operations in June 2009 and wind farm generation increased due to
the Langford wind farm, which began commercial operations in December 2009. Coal plant
generation was supported by reduced planned maintenance hours in 2010. Nuclear plant
generation decreased due to an outage. |
|
o |
|
Northeast decreased by $60 million, with $34 million driven by lower energy
prices and $23 million attributable to a reduction in generation. Average merchant
energy prices were lower by 25%. Generation decreased by 9% with a 3% decrease in coal
generation and a 72% decrease in oil and gas generation. Weakened demand for power
resulted in reduced merchant energy prices. |
|
o |
|
South Central increased by $10 million due to an increase in contract revenues.
Total MWh sales to the regions contract customers were up 9% while the average realized
price on contract energy sales was $26.17 per MWh in 2010 compared to $23.37 per MWh in
2009. Megawatt hours sold to the merchant market decreased by 20% while prices rose by
20%. |
|
o |
|
Intercompany energy revenue intercompany sales of $200 million by the Companys
Texas region to Reliant Energy were eliminated in consolidation. |
49
|
|
|
Capacity revenue decreased $49 million during the three months ended March 31, 2010,
compared to the same period in 2009: |
|
o |
|
Texas decreased by $40 million due to a lower proportion of baseload contracts
which contained a capacity component. |
|
o |
|
Northeast increased by $8 million due to higher capacity prices in the NYISO. |
|
|
o |
|
South Central decreased by $11 million primarily due to contract expirations. |
|
o |
|
Intercompany capacity revenue intercompany sales of $4 million by the Companys
Texas region to Reliant Energy were eliminated in consolidation. |
|
|
|
Contract amortization revenue decreased by $83 million in the three months ended March
31, 2010, as compared to the same period in 2009. The decrease includes $69 million of
amortization for net in-market C&I contracts related to the Reliant Energy acquisition in
May 2009 and a reduction of $13 million in revenue from the Texas Genco acquisition due to
the lower volume of contracted energy. |
|
|
|
Other revenues increased by $5 million driven by $4 million in higher ancillary revenue
and $8 million in higher fuels trading. These increases were offset by $7 million in lower
emissions credit revenue. Intercompany ancillary revenue of $12 million by the Companys
Texas region to Reliant Energy was eliminated in consolidation. |
Cost of Operations
Cost of operations, excluding risk management activities, increased $805 million during the
three months ended March 31, 2010, compared to the same period in 2009.
|
|
|
Cost of sales increased $735 million during the three months ended March 31, 2010,
compared to the same period in 2009 due to: |
|
o |
|
Retail Reliant Energy incurred $907 million of cost of energy during the three
months ended March 31, 2010. Supply costs were $617 million, including $216 million of
intercompany supply costs. Transmission and distribution charges totaled $300 million
for the period. These costs were offset by $10 million of contract amortization for net
out-of-market supply contracts related to the Reliant Energy acquisition in May 2009. |
|
o |
|
Texas cost of energy increased $71 million due to higher natural gas and coal
costs. Natural gas costs increased $24 million, consisting of $3 million reflecting a
26% increase in average natural gas prices and $21 million reflecting a 94% increase in
gas-fired generation. Coal costs increased $17 million due to higher coal prices and
increased transportation costs. In addition, cost of energy increased due to a $12
million increase in ancillary service costs and an $18 million increase in purchased
energy and other fuel costs. |
|
o |
|
Northeast cost of energy decreased $24 million due to a $17 million reduction in
natural gas and oil costs and a $6 million reduction in coal costs. Natural gas and oil
costs decreased due to 72% percent lower generation offset by 8% higher average natural
gas prices. The coal costs decreased due to lower prices. |
|
o |
|
South Central cost of energy increased $6 million due to an increase in purchased
energy reflecting higher fuel costs associated with energy from the regions tolled
facility. |
|
|
|
Other cost of operations increased $70 million during the three months ended March 31,
2010, compared to the same period in 2009. Reliant Energy incurred $29 million related to
customer service operations and $16 million in gross receipts tax on revenue. Other costs
of operations increased by $16 million in the Companys Texas region due to $14 million in
major maintenance at its various plants. In addition, the Companys Northeast region
incurred a $14 million charge relating to the write-off of previously capitalized costs on
the Indian River Unit 3 back-end controls project together with associated cancellation
penalties, partially offset by a $9 million decrease in maintenance expenses. |
50
Risk Management Activities
Risk management activities include economic hedges that did not qualify for cash flow hedge
accounting, ineffectiveness on cash flow hedges, and trading activities. Total derivative gains
decreased by $413 million during the three months ended March 31, 2010, compared to the same period
in 2009. The breakdown of changes by region follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months ended March 31, 2010 |
|
|
Reliant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy |
|
Texas |
|
Northeast |
|
Central |
|
West |
|
Thermal |
|
Elimination |
|
Total |
|
|
(In millions) |
Net
gains/(losses) on
settled positions |
|
$ |
(35 |
) |
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
33 |
|
|
$ |
(13 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(6 |
) |
Mark-to-market
gains/(losses) |
|
|
(288 |
) |
|
|
227 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(38 |
) |
|
Total derivative
gains/(losses)
included in
revenues and cost
of operations |
|
$ |
(323 |
) |
|
$ |
235 |
|
|
$ |
58 |
|
|
$ |
(15 |
) |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(44 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months ended March 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texas |
|
Northeast |
|
Central |
|
West |
|
Thermal |
|
Elimination |
|
Total |
|
|
(In millions) |
Net
gains/(losses) on
settled positions |
|
$ |
29 |
|
|
$ |
56 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
(2 |
) |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
94 |
|
Mark-to-market
gains/(losses) |
|
|
169 |
|
|
|
131 |
|
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
275 |
|
|
Total derivative
gains/(losses)
included in
revenues and cost
of operations |
|
$ |
198 |
|
|
$ |
187 |
|
|
$ |
(15 |
) |
|
$ |
(3 |
) |
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
369 |
|
The breakdown of gains and losses included in revenue and cost of operations by region are as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended March 31, 2010 |
|
|
Reliant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy |
|
Texas |
|
Northeast |
|
Central |
|
West |
|
Thermal |
|
Elimination (a) |
|
Total |
|
|
(In millions) |
Net gains/(losses) on
settled positions, or financial
income in revenues |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
33 |
|
|
$ |
(12 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
(9 |
) |
|
$ |
22 |
|
|
Mark-to-market results in revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reversal of previously recognized
unrealized gains on settled
positions related to economic
hedges |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(37 |
) |
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
(73 |
) |
Reversal of previously recognized
unrealized losses on settled
positions related to trading
activity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18 |
|
Net unrealized gains/(losses) on
open positions related to
economic hedges |
|
|
|
|
|
|
222 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(124 |
) |
|
|
110 |
|
Net unrealized gains on open
positions related to trading
activity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
Subtotal mark-to-market results |
|
|
|
|
|
|
203 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(135 |
) |
|
|
69 |
|
|
Total derivative gains/(losses)
included in revenues |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
212 |
|
|
$ |
47 |
|
|
$ |
(25 |
) |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(144 |
) |
|
$ |
91 |
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Represents the elimination of $144 million intercompany gain on Texas region. The
offsetting intercompany loss is included in cost of operations in Reliant Energy region. |
51
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended March 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texas |
|
Northeast |
|
Central |
|
West |
|
Thermal |
|
Elimination |
|
Total |
|
|
(In millions) |
Net gains/(losses) on settled positions, or
financial income in revenues |
|
$ |
38 |
|
|
$ |
60 |
|
|
$ |
13 |
|
|
$ |
(2 |
) |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
110 |
|
|
Mark-to-market results in revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reversal of previously recognized unrealized gains
on settled positions related to economic hedges |
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(53 |
) |
Reversal of previously recognized unrealized gains
on settled positions related to trading activity |
|
|
(29 |
) |
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(69 |
) |
Net unrealized gains/(losses) on open positions
related to economic hedges |
|
|
273 |
|
|
|
168 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
442 |
|
Net unrealized gains/(losses) on open positions
related to trading activity |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
Subtotal mark-to-market results |
|
|
225 |
|
|
|
122 |
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
327 |
|
|
Total derivative gains/(losses) included in revenues |
|
$ |
263 |
|
|
$ |
182 |
|
|
$ |
(7 |
) |
|
$ |
(3 |
) |
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
437 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended March 31, 2010 |
|
|
Reliant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy |
|
Texas |
|
Northeast |
|
Central |
|
Elimination (a) |
|
Total |
|
|
(In millions) |
Net gains/(losses) on settled positions, or financial
expense in cost of operations |
|
$ |
(35 |
) |
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
(28 |
) |
|
Mark-to-market results in cost of operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reversal of previously recognized unrealized (gains)/losses
on settled positions related to economic hedges |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
Reversal of loss positions acquired as part of the Reliant
Energy acquisition as of May 1, 2009 |
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
90 |
|
Net unrealized gains/(losses) on open positions related to
economic hedges |
|
|
(375 |
) |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
(230 |
) |
|
Subtotal mark-to-market results |
|
|
(288 |
) |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
135 |
|
|
|
(107 |
) |
|
Total derivative gains/(losses) included in cost of operations |
|
$ |
(323 |
) |
|
$ |
23 |
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
144 |
|
|
$ |
(135 |
) |
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Represents the elimination of $144 million intercompany loss in the Reliant Energy region.
The offsetting intercompany gain is included in revenue in the Texas region. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended March 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texas |
|
Northeast |
|
Central |
|
Elimination |
|
Total |
|
|
(In millions) |
Net losses on settled positions, or financial expense in cost of operations |
|
$ |
(9 |
) |
|
$ |
(4 |
) |
|
$ |
(3 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(16 |
) |
|
Mark-to-market results in cost of operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reversal of previously recognized unrealized losses on settled positions
related to economic hedges |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37 |
|
Net unrealized losses on open positions related to economic hedges |
|
|
(69 |
) |
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(89 |
) |
|
Subtotal mark-to-market results |
|
|
(56 |
) |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(52 |
) |
|
Total derivative gains/(losses) included in cost of operations |
|
$ |
(65 |
) |
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
(8 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(68 |
) |
|
For the period ended March 31, 2010, the $110 million gain in revenue from economic hedge
positions is primarily driven by an increase in value of forward sales of natural gas and
electricity due to a decrease in forward power and gas prices. The $230 million loss in cost of
energy from economic hedge positions is primarily driven by a decrease in value of forward
purchases of natural gas, electricity and fuel due to a decrease in forward power and gas prices.
Reliant Energys $90 million gain from the roll-off of acquired derivatives consists of loss
positions that were acquired as of May 1, 2009, and valued using forward prices on that date. The
roll-off amounts were offset by realized losses at the settled prices and higher costs of physical
power which are reflected in revenues and cost of operations during the same period.
52
For the period ended March 31, 2009, the $442 million mark-to-market gain in revenue related
to economic hedges consisted of a $217 million gain recognized in earnings from previously deferred
amounts in accumulated OCI as the Company discontinued cash flow hedge accounting in the first
quarter for certain 2009 transactions in Texas and New York due to lower expected generation,
combined with a $225 million increase in value in forward sales of electricity and fuel relating to
economic hedges due to lower forward power and gas prices. The $52 million mark-to-market loss in
expense related to economic hedges consisted of a $23 million decrease in value of forward
purchases of fuel and a loss of $29 million resulting from discontinued NPNS designated coal
purchases due to expected lower coal consumption. Accordingly, the Company could not take physical
delivery of coal purchase transactions under NPNS designation.
In accordance with ASC 815-10-45-9, the following table represents the results of the
Companys financial and physical trading of energy commodities for the three months ended March 31,
2010, and 2009. The realized financial trading results and unrealized financial and physical
trading results are included in the risk management activities above, while the realized physical
trading results are included in energy revenue. The Companys trading activities are subject to
limits within the Companys Risk Management Policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months |
|
|
ended March 31, |
(In millions) |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
Trading gains/(losses) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized |
|
$ |
(11 |
) |
|
$ |
70 |
|
Unrealized |
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
(62 |
) |
|
Total trading gains/(losses) |
|
$ |
21 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
Depreciation and Amortization
NRGs depreciation and amortization expense increased by $33 million for the three months
ended March 31, 2010, compared to the same period in 2009. Reliant Energys depreciation and
amortization expense for the three month period was $30 million principally for amortization of
customer relationships. The balance of the increase was due to depreciation on the baghouse
projects in western New York, the Cedar Bayou 4 project which began commercial operations in June
2009 and the Langford wind farm project which began commercial operations in December 2009.
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses
Selling, general and administrative expenses increased by $35 million for the three months
ended March 31, 2010, compared to the same period in 2009. The increase was due to:
|
|
|
Retail selling, general and administrative expense totaled $58 million, including $9
million of bad debt expense incurred during the three months ended March 31, 2010. |
This increase was offset by:
|
|
|
Consultant costs decreased due to non-recurring costs related to Exelons exchange
offer and proxy contest efforts of $5 million and Reliant Energy acquisition and integration
costs of $12 million incurred in 2009. |
Gain on Sale of Assets
On January 11, 2010, NRG sold Padoma to Enel, recognizing a gain on sale of $23 million.
Equity in Earnings of Unconsolidated Affiliates
NRGs equity earnings from unconsolidated affiliates decreased by $8 million for the three
months ended March 31, 2010, compared to the same period in 2009. For the three months ended March
31, 2009, NRG recognized $12 million of equity earnings from its investment in MIBRAG, which was
sold in June 2009. This was partially offset by a $6 million increase in equity earnings from its
Sherbino I Wind Farm LLC investment for the three months ended March 31, 2010.
53
Other Income/(Loss), Net
NRGs other income/(loss), net increased $7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010,
compared to the same period in 2009. The 2009 amount includes a $9 million mark-to-market
unrealized loss on a forward contract for foreign currency executed to hedge the MIBRAG sale
proceeds. Interest income for 2010 was higher compared to 2009 due to increased interest rates.
Interest Expense
NRGs interest expense increased $15 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010,
compared to the same period in 2009. This increase was due to $15 million related to the issuance
of the 2019 Senior Notes in June 2009, and $8 million related to a reduction in capitalized
interest expense compared to the same period in 2009 due to a lower volume of capital projects.
These increases were offset by a $7 million decrease due to the settlement of the CSF Debt in 2009
and early 2010, and a $3 million decrease due to a lower outstanding principal balance on the
Companys Term Loan Facility and lower interest rates related to the unhedged portion of the Term
Loan.
Income Tax Expense
NRGs income tax expense decreased by $233 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010,
compared to the same period in 2009. The decrease in income tax expense was primarily due to a
decrease in income. The effective tax rate was 52.7% and 60.0% for the three months ended March
31, 2010, and 2009, respectively.
For the three months ended March 31, 2010, NRGs overall effective tax rate was different than
the statutory rate of 35% primarily due to state and local income taxes as well as recording
federal and state tax expense and interest for unrecognized tax benefits. For the three months
ended March 31, 2009, NRGs effective tax rate was increased primarily due to the impact of state
and local income taxes in addition to an increase in valuation allowance as a result of capital
losses generated in the quarter for which there were no projected capital gains or available tax
planning strategies.
54
Results of Operations Regional Discussions
The following is a detailed discussion of the results of operations of NRGs retail business
segment.
Reliant Energy
For a discussion of the business profile of the Companys Reliant Energy operations, see pages
94-96 of NRG Energy, Inc.s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009.
Selected Income Statement Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
(In millions, except otherwise noted) |
|
March 31, 2010 |
|
Operating Revenues |
|
|
|
|
Mass revenues |
|
$ |
713 |
|
Commercial and Industrial revenues |
|
|
489 |
|
Supply management revenues |
|
|
43 |
|
Contract amortization |
|
|
(69 |
) |
|
Total operating revenues |
|
|
1,176 |
|
Operating Costs and Expenses |
|
|
|
|
Cost of energy (including risk management activities) |
|
|
1,230 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
103 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
30 |
|
|
Operating Loss |
|
$ |
(187 |
) |
Electricity sales volume GWh (in thousands): |
|
|
|
|
Mass |
|
|
4,814 |
|
Commercial and Industrial (a) |
|
|
6,209 |
|
Business Metrics |
|
|
|
|
Weighted average retail customers count (in thousands, metered locations) |
|
|
|
|
Mass |
|
|
1,521 |
|
Commercial and Industrial (a) |
|
|
64 |
|
Retail customers count (in thousands, metered locations) |
|
|
|
|
Mass |
|
|
1,520 |
|
Commercial and Industrial (a) |
|
|
64 |
|
Cooling Degree Days, or CDDs (b) |
|
|
17 |
|
CDDs 30-year average |
|
|
82 |
|
Heating Degree Days, or HDDs (b) |
|
|
1,242 |
|
HDDs 30-year average |
|
|
950 |
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Includes customers of the Texas General Land Office for which the Company provides services. |
|
(b) |
|
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Climate Prediction Center A CDD
represents the number of degrees that the mean temperature for a particular day is above 65
degrees Fahrenheit in each region. An HDD represents the number of degrees that the mean
temperature for a particular day is below 65 degrees Fahrenheit in each region. The
CDDs/HDDs for a period of time are calculated by adding the CDDs/HDDs for each day during
the period. The CDDs/HDDs amounts are representative of the Coast and North Central Zones
within the ERCOT market in which Reliant Energy serves its customer base. |
55
Operating Income
Operating loss for the three months ended March 31, 2010, was $187 million, which consisted of
the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
(In millions, except otherwise noted) |
|
March 31, 2010 |
|
Reliant Energy Operating Loss: |
|
|
|
|
Mass revenues |
|
$ |
713 |
|
Commercial and Industrial revenues |
|
|
489 |
|
Supply management revenues |
|
|
43 |
|
|
Total retail operating revenues (a) |
|
|
1,245 |
|
|
Retail cost of sales (a) |
|
|
952 |
|
|
Total retail gross margin |
|
|
293 |
|
Unrealized losses on energy supply derivatives |
|
|
(288 |
) |
Contract amortization, net |
|
|
(59 |
) |
Other operating expenses |
|
|
(103 |
) |
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
Operating Loss |
|
$ |
(187 |
) |
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Amounts exclude unrealized gains/(losses) on energy supply
derivatives and contract amortization. |
|
|
|
Gross margin Reliant Energys gross margin totaled $293 million for the quarter.
Volumes were higher due to greater customer usage as a result of cooler weather as compared
to the 30-year HDD average. Customer counts declined 1% during the quarter, which is an
improvement in customer attrition trends. Competition, lower revenue prices on
acquisitions, renewals and conversions from month-to-month to fixed price contracts and
supply costs based on forward market prices, will likely drive lower margins in the future. |
Operating Revenues
Total operating revenues for the three months ended March 31, 2010 were $1.2 billion and
consisted of the following:
|
|
|
Mass revenues totaled $713 million for the quarter from retail electric sales to
approximately 1.5 million end use customers in the Texas market. Favorable weather, as
compared to the 30-year HDD average, caused an increase in customer usage. Existing
customer revenue rates led to strong Mass revenues. Partially offsetting these strong
revenues were lower revenue pricing on acquisitions, renewals and conversions from month to
month to fixed price contracts consistent with competitive offers. |
|
|
|
Commercial and Industrial revenue C&I revenues for the three months ended March 31,
2010 totaled $489 million for the quarter on volume sales of approximately 6,209 GWh.
Variable rate contracts tied to the market price of natural gas accounted for approximately
47% of the contracted volumes as of March 31, 2010. |
|
|
|
Supply management revenues totaled $43 million for the quarter from the sale of excess
supply into various markets in Texas. |
|
|
|
Contract amortization reduced operating revenues by $69 million resulting from the
amortization of C&I contracts acquired in the Reliant Energy acquisition. |
Cost of Energy
Cost of energy for the three months ended March 31, 2010 was $1.2 billion and consisted of
the following:
|
|
|
Supply costs totaled $617 million for the quarter. Energy is procured for fixed price
term contracts at the time the sales contracts are executed. For month to month customers,
the power is purchased at current market prices. Also, cooler weather for the period, as
compared to the 30-year HDD average, caused an increase in purchased supply volumes. The
supply costs were favorably impacted by $27 million of out of market supply contracts
terminated in the fourth quarter 2009 in conjunction with the CSRA unwind. |
|
|
|
Transmission and distribution charges totaled $300 million for the quarter for the cost
to transport the power from the generation sources to the end use customers. |
56
|
|
|
Risk management activities totaled $288 million in unrealized losses on economic hedges
related to supply contracts that were recognized for the three months ended March 31, 2010,
and is comprised of $375 million of losses representing mark-to-market changes in the
forward value of purchased electricity and gas and $3 million of losses related to the
roll-off of previously recognized unrealized gains on settled economic positions offset by
$90 million of gains representing a roll-off of loss positions acquired at May 1, 2009,
valued at forward prices on that date. The roll-off amounts were offset by realized losses
at the settled prices and higher costs of physical power which are reflected in the cost of
operations during the same period. |
|
|
|
Financial settlements totaled $35 million of losses for the quarter resulting from
financial settlement of energy-related supply derivatives. |
|
|
|
Contract amortization reduced the cost of energy by $10 million, resulting from
amortization of supply contracts acquired in the Reliant Energy acquisition. |
Other Operating Expenses
Other operating expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2010 were $103 million, or 9%
of Reliant Energys total operating revenues. Other operating expenses consisted of the following:
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses totaled $49 million for the quarter.
Total direct costs were $44 million, which primarily consisted of the costs of labor and
external costs associated with advertising and other marketing activities, as well as human
resources, community activities, legal, procurement, regulatory, accounting, internal audit,
and management, as well as facilities leases and other office expenses. Indirect costs
related to corporate allocations were $5 million. |
|
|
|
Operations and maintenance expenses totaled $29 million for the quarter. These
expenses primarily consisted of the labor and external costs associated with customer
activities, including the call center, billing, remittance processing, and credit and
collections, as well as the information technology costs associated with those activities. |
|
|
|
Gross receipts tax totaled $16 million for the quarter or 1% of Mass and C&I revenues. |
|
|
|
Bad debt expense totaled $9 million for the quarter or 1% of Mass and C&I revenues.
During the quarter, Reliant Energy experienced improved customer payment behavior. |
57
Results of Operations for Wholesale Power Generation Regions
The following is a detailed discussion of the results of operations of NRGs major wholesale
power generation business segments.
Texas
For a discussion of the business profile of the Companys Texas operations, see pages 97-101
of NRG Energy, Inc.s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009.
Selected Income Statement Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions except otherwise noted) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended March 31, |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
Change % |
|
Operating Revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy revenue |
|
$ |
628 |
|
|
$ |
594 |
|
|
|
6 |
% |
Capacity revenue |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
(85 |
) |
Risk management activities |
|
|
212 |
|
|
|
263 |
|
|
|
(19 |
) |
Contract amortization |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
(87 |
) |
Other revenues |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
250 |
|
|
Total operating revenues |
|
|
870 |
|
|
|
925 |
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
Operating Costs and Expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of energy (including risk management activities) |
|
|
220 |
|
|
|
238 |
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
Other operating expenses |
|
|
182 |
|
|
|
168 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
117 |
|
|
|
117 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
$ |
351 |
|
|
$ |
402 |
|
|
|
(13 |
) |
MWh sold (in thousands) |
|
|
10,879 |
|
|
|
10,173 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
MWh generated (in thousands) |
|
|
10,426 |
|
|
|
10,073 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
Business Metrics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average on-peak market power prices ($/MWh) |
|
|
41.86 |
|
|
|
32.60 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
Cooling Degree Days, or CDDs (a) |
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
126 |
|
|
|
(83 |
) |
CDDs 30-year rolling average |
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
|
|
Heating Degree Days, or HDDs (a) |
|
|
1,385 |
|
|
|
903 |
|
|
|
53 |
% |
HDDs 30-year rolling average |
|
|
1,122 |
|
|
|
1,122 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Climate Prediction
Center A CDD represents the number of degrees that the mean
temperature for a particular day is above 65 degrees Fahrenheit in
each region. An HDD represents the number of degrees that the
mean temperature for a particular day is below 65 degrees
Fahrenheit in each region. The CDDs/HDDs for a period of time are
calculated by adding the CDDs/HDDs for each day during the period. |
Operating Income
Operating income decreased by $51 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010, compared
to the same period in 2009, due to reduced capacity revenue of $40 million, higher fuel and
purchased energy costs of $57 million, offset by higher net ancillary revenues of $4 million and
increased net risk management activities of $37 million.
Operating Revenues
Total operating revenues decreased by $55 million during the three months ended March 31,
2010, compared to the same period in 2009, due to:
|
|
|
Risk management activities decreased by $51 million due to the difference between gains
of $212 million for the three months ending March 31, 2010, compared to gains of $263
million during the same period in 2009. The $212 million gain included $203 million of
unrealized mark-to-market gains and $9 million in gains on settled transactions, or
financial income, compared to $225 million in unrealized mark-to-market gains and $38
million in financial gains during the same period in 2009. Please refer to Risk Management
Activities in the consolidated Managements Discussion and Analysis in this Form 10-Q for a
more complete description of movements in risk management activities. |
58
|
|
|
Energy revenues increased $34 million due to: |
|
o |
|
Energy prices increased by $14 million in the first quarter 2010 compared to the
same period in 2009. The average realized energy price increased by 2%, driven by an 8%
decrease in merchant prices offset by a 3% increase in contract prices. |
|
o |
|
Generation increased by 4% resulting in a $21 million increase in sales volume.
This increase was driven by a 1% increase in coal plant generation, a 94% increase in gas
plant generation, and a 97% increase in wind farm generation. These increases were
offset by an 8% decrease in nuclear plant generation due to increased maintenance hours
on STP Unit 1. Gas plant generation was supported by the Cedar Bayou 4 gas plant that
went commercial in June 2009 and wind farm generation increased due to the Langford wind
farm, which went commercial in December 2009. Coal plant generation was supported by
reduced planned maintenance hours in 2010. |
|
|
|
Margin on MWh sold from market purchases decreased by $1 million for the quarter. |
|
|
|
Capacity revenue decreased by $40 million due to a lower proportion of contracts which
contain a capacity component. |
|
|
|
Contract amortization revenue resulting from the Texas Genco acquisition decreased by
$13 million due to the reduced volume of contracted energy in 2010 as compared to 2009. |
|
|
|
Other revenue increased by $15 million primarily due to higher ancillary services
revenue of $16 million. Physical sales of natural gas and coal resulted in an increase of
$5 million which was offset by $6 million in lower emissions credit revenue. |
Cost of Energy
Cost of energy decreased by $18 million during the three months ended March 31, 2010, compared
to the same period in 2009, due to:
|
|
|
Fuel risk management activities decreased $88 million due to gains of $23 million that
were recorded for the three months ending March 31, 2010. The $65 million loss in 2009
included $56 million of unrealized mark-to-market losses, largely associated with forward
coal positions and $9 million in losses on settled transactions, or financial cost of
energy. Please refer to Risk Management Activities in the consolidated Managements
Discussion and Analysis in this Form 10-Q for a more complete description of movements in
risk management activities. |
|
|
These decreases were offset by: |
|
|
|
Natural gas costs increased by $24 million due to a 26% increase in average natural gas
prices per MMBtu and a 94% increase in gas-fired generation. |
|
|
|
Ancillary services costs increased by $12 million due to an increase in purchased
ancillary services costs incurred to meet obligations. |
|
|
|
Coal costs increased by $17 million due to a $23 million increase in price driven by WA
Parish transportation rate increases and Limestone fuel cost increases. This increase was
offset by $10 million of lower WA Parish generation combined with $4 million in higher
Limestone generation. |
|
|
|
Purchased energy increased $16 million due to baseload units either unavailable or
uneconomic to provide power for contract commitments and the assumption of Reliant Energy
contracts. |
|
|
|
ISO Fees increased $2 million due to the increased cost associated with the
implementation of the nodal fee recovery by ERCOT. |
Other Operating Expenses
Other operating expenses increased by $14 million during the three months ended March 31,
2010, compared to the same period in 2009, due to an increase in operations and maintenance expense
as a result of maintenance outages at the regions baseload plants.
59
Northeast Region
For a discussion of the business profile of the Northeast region, see pages 101-105 of NRG
Energy, Inc.s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009.
Selected Income Statement Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions, except otherwise noted) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended March 31, |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
Change % |
|
Operating Revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy revenue |
|
$ |
121 |
|
|
$ |
181 |
|
|
|
(33 |
)% |
Capacity revenue |
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
Risk management activities |
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
182 |
|
|
|
(74 |
) |
Other revenues |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
Total operating revenues |
|
|
279 |
|
|
|
464 |
|
|
|
(40 |
) |
Operating Costs and Expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of energy (including risk management activities) |
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
117 |
|
|
|
(26 |
) |
Other operating expenses |
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
Operating Income |
|
$ |
64 |
|
|
$ |
224 |
|
|
|
(71 |
) |
MWh sold (in thousands) |
|
|
2,389 |
|
|
|
2,637 |
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
MWh generated (in thousands) |
|
|
2,389 |
|
|
|
2,637 |
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
Business Metrics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average on-peak market power prices ($/MWh) (a) |
|
|
52.87 |
|
|
|
58.29 |
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
Cooling Degree Days, or CDDs (b) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CDDs 30-year rolling average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heating Degree Days, or HDDs (b) |
|
|
2,853 |
|
|
|
3,207 |
|
|
|
(11 |
)% |
HDDs 30-year rolling average |
|
|
3,094 |
|
|
|
3,093 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
MWh sold are shown net of MWh purchased to satisfy certain load contracts in the region. |
|
(b) |
|
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Climate Prediction Center A CDD
represents the number of degrees that the mean temperature for a particular day is
above 65 degrees Fahrenheit in each region. An HDD represents the number of degrees
that the mean temperature for a particular day is below 65 degrees Fahrenheit in each
region. The CDDs/HDDs for a period of time are calculated by adding the CDDs/HDDs for
each day during the period. |
Operating Income
Operating income decreased by $160 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010, compared
to the same period in 2009 due to:
|
|
|
Operating revenues decreased by $185 million due to unfavorable energy revenues and an
unfavorable impact from risk management activities. |
This decrease was offset by:
|
|
|
Cost of energy decreased by $30 million due to reduced fuel costs as a result of lower
generation and lower prices. |
Operating Revenues
Operating revenues decreased by $185 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010,
compared to the same period in 2009, due to:
|
|
|
Energy revenues decreased by $60 million due to: |
|
o |
|
Energy prices decreased by $34 million reflecting an average 25% decline in
realized energy prices, primarily from coal based generation. |
60
|
o |
|
Generation decreased by $23 million due to an overall 9% decrease in generation
in 2010 compared to 2009, with a 3% or $5 million decrease in coal generation and a 72%
or $18 million decrease in oil and gas generation. Coal generation was down primarily
due to the deactivation of Unit 6 of the Somerset coal plant in January 2010 while
western New York and PJM was relatively flat compared to the same period in the prior
year. Oil and gas generation was down due to a combination of planned and forced outages
as well as reserve shutdowns primarily at Arthur Kill, Middletown and Oswego. |
|
o |
|
Margin on MWh sold from market purchases decreased by $3 million due to the
expiration of a load contract in May 2009. |
|
|
|
Risk management activities decreased by $135 million as gains of $47 million were
recorded for the three months ending March 31, 2010, compared to gains of $182 million
during the same period in 2009. The $47 million gain in 2010 included $14 million of
unrealized mark-to-market gains and $33 million in gains on settled transactions, or
financial income, compared to $122 million in unrealized mark-to-market gains and $60
million in financial income during the same period in 2009. The $122 million unrealized
gain in 2009 included $107 million unrealized gain recognition of previously deferred
amounts in accumulated OCI as a result of discontinuance of certain 2009 cash flow hedges on
baseload plants generation due to lower forecasted generation. Please refer to Risk
Management Activities in the consolidated Managements Discussion and Analysis in this Form
10-Q for a more complete description of movements in risk management activities. |
These decreases were offset by:
|
|
|
Capacity revenue increased by $8 million due to higher pricing driven in part by the
retirement of the Poletti facility in New York City in January 2010. |
Cost of Energy
|
|
|
Cost of energy decreased by $30 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010,
compared to the same period in 2009, due to: |
|
o |
|
Natural gas and oil costs decreased by $17 million, or 46%, due to 72% lower
generation offset by 8% higher average natural gas prices. |
|
o |
|
Coal costs decreased by $6 million, or 7%, due to lower coal generation of 3% or
$2 million primarily due to the Somerset plant deactivation and lower prices for $3
million. |
|
o |
|
Fuel risk management activities decreased $6 million as gains of $11 million were
recorded in 2010 related primarily to mark-to-market gains, largely associated with
forward coal positions, as compared to gains of $5 million in 2009, consisting of $9
million in mark-to-market gains and $4 million in losses on settled transactions, or
financial cost of energy. Please refer to Risk Management Activities in the consolidated
Managements Discussion and Analysis in this Form 10-Q for a more complete description of
movements in risk management activities. |
|
o |
|
Carbon emission expense decreased by $2 million due to 29% lower weighted average
prices for RGGI credits held-for-use together with lower generation subject to RGGI
carbon compliance. |
These decreases were offset by:
|
|
|
Other operating costs increased by $2 million due to a $14 million charge relating to
the write-off of previously capitalized costs on the Indian River Unit 3 back-end controls
project together with associated cancellation penalties. The write-offs and cancellation
fees are due to the decision not to proceed with this project following a proposed agreement
with DNREC to retire the unit by December 31, 2013. This charge was partially offset by $5
million lower general and administrative expenses largely driven by lower corporate
allocations, and a change in estimate of $4 million for an asset retirement obligation
liability at the Companys Huntley and Dunkirk plants. |
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization increased by $3 million due to the acceleration of
depreciation on assets for Indian River Unit 3 due to its anticipated early retirement as
well as increased depreciation for the Dunkirk baghouse project, which came online in late
2009. |
61
South Central Region
For a discussion of the business profile of the South Central region, see pages 106-109 of NRG
Energy, Inc.s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009.
Selected Income Statement Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions, except otherwise noted) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended March 31, |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
Change % |
|
Operating Revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy revenue |
|
$ |
106 |
|
|
$ |
96 |
|
|
|
10 |
% |
Capacity revenue |
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
(16 |
) |
Risk management activities |
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(257 |
) |
Contract amortization |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
(17 |
) |
Other revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating revenues |
|
|
143 |
|
|
|
162 |
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
Operating Costs and Expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of energy (including risk management activities) |
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
110 |
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
Other operating expenses |
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
Operating Income |
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
13 |
|
|
|
(38 |
) |
MWh sold (in thousands) |
|
|
3,178 |
|
|
|
3,169 |
|
|
|
|
|
MWh generated (in thousands) |
|
|
2,642 |
|
|
|
2,706 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
Business Metrics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average on-peak market power prices ($/MWh) |
|
|
43.31 |
|
|
|
37.30 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
Cooling Degree Days, or CDDs (a) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
CDDs 30-year rolling average |
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
Heating Degree Days, or HDDs (a) |
|
|
2,241 |
|
|
|
1,805 |
|
|
|
24 |
% |
HDDs 30-year rolling average |
|
|
1,895 |
|
|
|
1,895 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Climate Prediction
Center A CDD represents the number of degrees that the mean
temperature for a particular day is above 65 degrees Fahrenheit in
each region. An HDD represents the number of degrees that the mean
temperature for a particular day is below 65 degrees Fahrenheit in
each region. The CDDs/HDDs for a period of time are calculated by
adding the CDDs/HDDs for each day during the period. |
Operating Income
Operating income decreased by $5 million as lower capacity revenues and higher purchased
energy costs more than offset the increase in energy revenues and the drop in fuel costs for the
three months ended March 31, 2010, compared to the same period in 2009.
Operating Revenues
Operating revenues decreased by $19 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010,
compared to the same period in 2009, due to:
|
|
|
Risk management activities losses of $25 million were recorded for the three months
ending March 31, 2010, compared to losses of $7 million during the same period in 2009. The
$25 million loss included $13 million of unrealized mark-to-market losses and $12 million in
losses on settled transactions, or financial income, compared to $20 million in unrealized
mark-to-market losses and $13 million in financial gains during the same period in 2009.
Please refer to Risk Management Activities in the consolidated Managements Discussion and
Analysis in this Form 10-Q for a more complete description of movements in risk management
activities. |
|
|
|
Capacity revenues capacity revenue decreased by $11 million due to contract expirations
of $13 million offset by increased capacity charges of $2 million resulting from higher peak
demand for the regions cooperative customers. |
62
These decreases were offset by:
|
|
|
Energy revenues increased by $10 million due to a $12 million increase in contract
revenue coupled with a decrease of $2 million in merchant energy revenues. Total MWh sales
to the regions contract customers were up 9% while the average realized price on contract
energy sales was $26.17 per MWh in 2010 compared to $23.37 per MWh in 2009. The rise in
contract volume was due to colder weather in the first quarter of 2010, as total heating
degree days for the period rose by 99%. Merchant energy revenues fell by $2 million.
Megawatt hours sold to the merchant market decreased by 20% while merchant market prices
rose by 20% to $56.41 per MWh. |
Cost of Energy
Cost of energy decreased by $13 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010, compared to
the same period in 2009, due to:
|
|
|
Fuel risk management activities gains of $10 million were recorded for the three months
ending March 31, 2010. The $10 million gain included $11 million of unrealized
mark-to-market gains, largely associated with forward coal positions and $1 million in
losses on settled transactions, or financial cost of energy compared to $5 million in
unrealized mark-to-market losses and $3 million in losses on settled transactions in the
first quarter of 2009. Please refer to Risk Management Activities in the consolidated
Managements Discussion and Analysis in this Form 10-Q for a more complete description of
movements in risk management activities. |
|
|
|
Coal expense decreased $2 million as the average cost per ton was 4% below the 2009
average, reflecting lower fuel transportation surcharges partially offset by increased
transportation contract rates. |
|
|
These decreases were offset by: |
|
|
|
Purchased energy Total purchased energy and capacity increased by $6 million because
colder temperatures drove up load volumes and coal generation fell by 2%. Costs associated
with energy from the regions tolled facility increased by $4 million and costs of market
purchases rose by $2 million. |
Other Operating Expenses were unchanged as a $2 million increase in major maintenance was
offset by a $2 million decline in corporate allocations.
63
West Region
For a discussion of the business profile of the West region, see pages 110-112 of NRG Energy,
Inc.s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009.
Selected Income Statement Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions, except otherwise noted) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended March 31, |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
Change % |
|
Operating Revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy revenue |
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
Capacity revenue |
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
(10 |
)% |
Risk management activities |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
N/A |
|
|
Total operating revenues |
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
Operating Costs and Expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of energy (including risk management activities) |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
(16 |
) |
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
Operating Income/(Loss) |
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
(3 |
) |
|
|
(300 |
) |
MWh sold (in thousands) |
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
393 |
|
MWh generated (in thousands) |
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
393 |
|
Business Metrics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average on-peak market power prices ($/MWh) |
|
|
47.88 |
|
|
|
40.46 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
Cooling Degree Days, or CDDs (a) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CDDs 30-year rolling average |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Heating Degree Days, or HDDs (a) |
|
|
1,330 |
|
|
|
1,410 |
|
|
|
(6 |
)% |
HDDs 30-year rolling average |
|
|
1,419 |
|
|
|
1,419 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Climate Prediction
Center A CDD represents the number of degrees that the mean
temperature for a particular day is above 65 degrees Fahrenheit in
each region. An HDD represents the number of degrees that the mean
temperature for a particular day is below 65 degrees Fahrenheit in
each region. The CDDs/HDDs for a period of time are calculated by
adding the CDDs/HDDs for each day during the period. |
Operating Income
Operating income increased by $9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010, compared
to the same period in 2009.
Operating Revenues
Operating revenues increased $7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010, compared to
the same period in 2009, due to:
|
|
|
Energy revenue increased by $6 million primarily due to an increase in merchant
generation and merchant energy prices in 2010 compared to 2009. This increase includes a $1
million increase in energy revenue related to Blythe Solar, a new photovoltaic solar
facility that began commercial operation in December 2009. |
|
|
|
Capacity revenue decreased by $3 million primarily due to reduced resource adequacy and
call option contract sales at El Segundo in 2010 compared to 2009. |
|
|
|
Risk management activities a gain of $1 million was recognized during the quarter
compared to a $3 million loss during the same period last year. An unrealized
mark-to-market gain of $1 million during the quarter compared to an unrealized
mark-to-market loss of $1 million during the same period last year. Also, there were no
realized gains on settled transactions during the quarter compared to $2 million in realized
losses on settled transactions during the same period last year. Please refer to Risk
Management Activities in the consolidated Managements Discussion and Analysis in this Form
10-Q for a more complete description of movements in risk management activities. |
64
Cost of Energy and Other Operating Expenses
Cost of energy and other operating expenses decreased by $3 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2010, compared to the same period in 2009, due to:
|
|
|
Cost of energy increased by $1 million due to an increase in natural gas consumption.
This increase was offset by a decrease in fuel oil expense resulting from a 2009 write-down
to market of fuel oil inventory no longer used in the production of energy. |
|
|
|
Other operating expenses decreased by $4 million due to higher 2009 maintenance
expenses associated with a major overhaul at El Segundo. |
65
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Liquidity Position
As of March 31, 2010, and December 31, 2009, NRGs liquidity, excluding collateral received,
was approximately $3.2 billion and $3.8 billion, respectively, and comprised of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
December 31, |
(In millions) |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
1,813 |
|
|
$ |
2,304 |
|
Funds deposited by counterparties |
|
|
509 |
|
|
|
177 |
|
Restricted cash |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
Total cash |
|
|
2,329 |
|
|
|
2,483 |
|
Synthetic Letter of Credit Facility availability |
|
|
426 |
|
|
|
583 |
|
Revolving Credit Facility availability |
|
|
964 |
|
|
|
905 |
|
|
Total liquidity |
|
|
3,719 |
|
|
|
3,971 |
|
Less: Funds deposited as collateral by hedge counterparties |
|
|
(509 |
) |
|
|
(177 |
) |
|
Total liquidity, excluding collateral received |
|
$ |
3,210 |
|
|
$ |
3,794 |
|
|
For the three months ended March 31, 2010, total liquidity, excluding collateral received,
decreased by $584 million due to lower cash and cash equivalent balances of $491 million, decreased
availability of the Synthetic Letter of Credit Facility of $157 million, partially offset by a $59
million increase in the $1.0 billion Revolving Credit Facility. Changes in cash and cash
equivalent balances are further discussed below under the heading Cash Flow Discussion. Cash and
cash equivalents and funds deposited by counterparties at March 31, 2010, were predominantly held
in money market funds invested in treasury securities, treasury repurchase agreements or government
agency debt.
The line item Funds deposited by counterparties represents the amounts that are held by NRG
as a result of collateral posting obligations from the Companys counterparties due to positions in
the Companys hedging program. These amounts are segregated into separate accounts that are not
contractually restricted but, based on the Companys intention, are not available for the payment
of NRGs general corporate obligations. Depending on market fluctuation and the settlement of the
underlying contracts, the Company will refund this collateral to the counterparties pursuant to the
terms and conditions of the underlying trades. Since collateral requirements fluctuate daily and
the Company cannot predict if any collateral will be held for more than twelve months, the funds
deposited by counterparties are classified as a current asset on the Companys balance sheet, with
an offsetting liability for this cash collateral received within current liabilities.
Management believes that the Companys liquidity position and cash flows from operations will
be adequate to finance operating and maintenance capital expenditures, to fund dividends to NRGs
preferred shareholders and other liquidity commitments. Management continues to regularly monitor
the Companys ability to finance the needs of its operating, financing and investing activity in a
manner consistent with its intention to maintain a net debt to capital ratio in the range of
45-60%.
SOURCES OF FUNDS
The principal sources of liquidity for NRGs future operating and capital expenditures are
expected to be derived from new and existing financing arrangements, asset sales, existing cash on
hand and cash flows from operations.
Financing Arrangements
Senior Credit Facility
As of March 31, 2010, NRG had a Senior Credit Facility which is comprised of a senior first
priority secured term loan, or the Term Loan Facility, the $1.0 billion Revolving Credit Facility,
and the $1.3 billion Synthetic Letter of Credit Facility. The Senior Credit Facility was last
amended on June 8, 2007. As of March 31, 2010, NRG had issued $874 million of letters of credit
under the Synthetic Letter of Credit Facility, leaving $426 million available for future issuances.
Under the Revolving Credit Facility, as of March 31, 2010, NRG had issued a letter of credit of
$36 million leaving $864 million available for future letter of credit issuances.
66
Merrill Lynch Credit Sleeve Facility
On April 28, 2010, Merrill Lynch agreed to continue to provide credit support to four Reliant
Energy counterparties under the Amended CSRA through December 15, 2010. The Company intends to
have no Reliant Energy counterparties under the Amended CSRA by December 15, 2010.
TANE Facility
On February 24, 2009, NINA executed an Engineering, Procurement and Construction, or EPC,
agreement with TANE, which specifies the terms under which STP Units 3 and 4 will be constructed.
Concurrent with the execution of the EPC agreement, NINA and TANE entered into the TANE Facility,
wherein TANE has committed up to $500 million to finance purchases of long-lead materials and
equipment for the construction of STP Units 3 and 4. The TANE Facility matures on February 24,
2012, subject to two renewal periods, and provides for customary events of default, which include,
among others: nonpayment of principal or interest; default under other indebtedness; the rendering
of judgments; and certain events of bankruptcy or insolvency. Outstanding borrowings will accrue
interest at LIBOR plus 3%, subject to a ratings grid, and are secured by substantially all of the
assets of and membership interests in NINA and its subsidiaries. As of March 31, 2010, no amounts
have been borrowed under the TANE Facility.
Dunkirk Power LLC Tax-Exempt Bonds
On February 1, 2010, the Company fixed the rate on the Dunkirk bonds, originally issued in
April 2009, at 5.875%. Interest on the bonds will be payable semiannually. In addition, the $59
million letter of credit issued in support of the bonds was cancelled and replaced with an NRG
guarantee.
GenConn Energy LLC related financings
NRG Connecticut Peaking Development LLC made funding requests under the EBL during the
quarter. The EBL is backed by a letter of credit issued by NRG under its Synthetic Letter of
Credit Facility equal to 104% of the amount outstanding. The proceeds of the EBL received through
March 31, 2010, were $114 million and the remaining amounts will be drawn as necessary to fund
interest on the EBL as the maximum amount permitted to be drawn for project costs for both projects
has been met.
In April 2009, GenConn secured financing for 50% of the Devon and Middletown project
construction costs through a seven-year term loan facility, and also entered into a five-year
revolving working capital loan and letter of credit facility, which collectively with the term loan
is referred to as the GenConn Facility. The aggregate credit amount secured under the GenConn
Facility, which is non-recourse to NRG, is $291 million, including $48 million for the revolving
facility. In August 2009, GenConn began to draw under the GenConn Facility to cover costs related
to the Devon project. As of March 31, 2010, $75 million had been drawn.
First and Second Lien Structure
NRG has granted first and second liens to certain counterparties on substantially all of the
Companys assets. NRG uses the first and second lien structure 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-money hedge agreements for forward sales of power or MWh
equivalents. To the extent that the underlying hedge positions for a counterparty are in-the-money
to NRG, the counterparty would have no claim under the lien program. The lien program limits the
volume that can be hedged, not the value of underlying out-of-money positions. The first lien
program does not require NRG to post collateral above any threshold amount of exposure. Within the
first and second lien structure, the Company can hedge up to 80% of its baseload capacity and 10%
of its non-baseload assets with these counterparties for the first 60 months and then declining
thereafter. Net exposure to a counterparty on all trades must be positively correlated to the
price of the relevant commodity for the first lien to be available to that counterparty. The first
and second lien structure is not subject to unwind or termination upon a ratings downgrade of a
counterparty or NRG and has no stated maturity date.
The Companys lien counterparties may have a claim on its assets to the extent market prices
exceed the hedged price. As of March 31, 2010, and April 23, 2010, all hedges under the first and
second liens were in-the-money on a counterparty aggregate basis.
67
The following table summarizes the amount of MWs hedged against the Companys baseload assets
and as a percentage relative to the Companys net baseload capacity under the first and
second lien structure as of April 23, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equivalent Net Sales Secured by First and Second Lien Structure (a) |
|
2010 |
|
2011 |
|
2012 |
|
2013 |
|
In MW (b) |
|
|
3,145 |
|
|
|
2,781 |
|
|
|
1,441 |
|
|
|
739 |
|
As a percentage of total net baseload capacity (c) |
|
|
46 |
% |
|
|
41 |
% |
|
|
21 |
% |
|
|
11 |
% |
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Equivalent Net Sales include natural gas swaps converted using a weighted average heat rate
by region. |
|
(b) |
|
2010 MW value consists of May through December positions only. |
|
(c) |
|
Net baseload capacity under the first and second lien structure represents 80% of the
Companys total baseload assets. |
USES OF FUNDS
The Companys requirements for liquidity and capital resources, other than for operating its
facilities, can generally be categorized by the following: (i) commercial operations activities;
(ii) debt service obligations; (iii) capital expenditures including RepoweringNRG and
environmental; and (iv) corporate financial transactions including return of capital to
shareholders.
Commercial Operations
NRGs commercial operations activities require a significant amount of liquidity and capital
resources. These liquidity requirements are primarily driven by: (i) margin and collateral posted
with counterparties; (ii) initial collateral required to establish trading relationships; (iii)
timing of disbursements and receipts (i.e., buying fuel before receiving energy revenues); and (iv)
initial collateral for large structured transactions. As of March 31, 2010, commercial operations
had total cash collateral outstanding of $533 million, and $573 million outstanding in letters of
credit to third parties primarily to support its economic hedging activities for both wholesale and
retail transactions (includes a $55 million deposit at the PUCT that covers outstanding customer
deposits and residential advance payments). As of March 31, 2010, total collateral held from
counterparties was $509 million in cash and $11 million of letters of credit.
Future liquidity requirements may change based on the Companys hedging activities and
structures, fuel purchases, and future market conditions, including forward prices for energy and
fuel and market volatility. In addition, liquidity requirements are dependent on NRGs credit
ratings and general perception of its creditworthiness.
Debt Service Obligations
NRG must annually offer a portion of its excess cash flow, as defined in the Senior Credit
Facility, to its first lien lenders under the Term Loan Facility. The percentage of excess cash
flow offered to these lenders is dependent upon the Companys consolidated leverage ratio, as
defined in the Senior Credit Facility, at the end of the preceding year. Of the amount offered,
the first lien lenders must accept 50% while the remaining 50% may either be accepted or rejected
at the lenders option. In March 2010, NRG made and the lenders accepted a repayment of
approximately $229 million for the mandatory annual offer relating to 2009.
As of March 31, 2010, NRG had issued approximately $5.4 billion in aggregate principal amount
of unsecured high yield notes, or Senior Notes, had approximately $2.0 billion in principal amount
outstanding under the Term Loan Facility, and had issued $874 million of letters of credit under
the Companys $1.3 billion Synthetic Letter of Credit Facility and $36 million of letters of credit
under the Companys Revolving Credit Facility. The Revolving Credit Facility matures on February
2, 2011, and the Synthetic Letter of Credit Facility matures on February 1, 2013.
Debt Related to Capital Allocation Program
On March 3, 2010, the Company completed the early unwinding of the CSF I Debt by remitting a
cash payment to CS of $242 million to settle the outstanding principal and interest, as compared to
$249 million that would have been due at maturity in June 2010. The Company has now settled all
obligations related to the CSF I and II Debt entered into in 2006, as amended from time to time, as
well as the SLA entered into in February 2009.
68
Capital Expenditures
For the three months ended March 31, 2010, the Companys capital expenditures, including
accruals, were approximately $264 million. The following table summarizes the Companys capital
expenditures for the three months ended March 31, 2010, and the estimated capital expenditure and
repowering investments forecast for the remainder of 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Maintenance |
|
Environmental |
|
Repowering |
|
Total |
|
Northeast |
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
41 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
44 |
|
Texas |
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31 |
|
South Central |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
West |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
Nuclear development |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
170 |
|
|
|
170 |
|
Other |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
51 |
|
|
$ |
41 |
|
|
$ |
172 |
|
|
$ |
264 |
|
|
Estimated capital expenditures for the remainder of 2010 |
|
$ |
196 |
|
|
$ |
153 |
|
|
$ |
508 |
|
|
$ |
857 |
|
|
RepoweringNRG capital expenditures RepoweringNRG project capital expenditures consisted of
approximately $170 million related to the development of STP Units 3 and 4 in Texas.
NRGs net expenditures for STP Units 3 and 4 for 2010, funded from operating activities, are
anticipated to be approximately $328 million. In addition, NINA anticipates net funding of
approximately $332 million of 2010 capital expenditures from sources other than NRG, including
drawings on the TANE long-lead material facility, Toshiba equity contributions, and TEPCO equity
contributions. NINA is also soliciting additional equity participants, which will serve to reduce
NRGs projected net expenditures to the extent new partner contributions are received in 2010. If
this project does not receive a loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy, or U.S. DOE, it
is the intention of the Company, in consultation with its partners, to reduce project expenditures
significantly and immediately. This may result in a reassessment of the probability of success of the project and an impairment of the
value of the capitalized assets for STP Units 3 and 4. An impairment would result in a permanent write-down of $389 million of
construction-in-progress capitalized through March 31, 2010, plus any amounts capitalized through the impairment date.
Major maintenance and environmental capital expenditures The Companys maintenance capital
expenditures were $51 million, of which $31 million was related to the Texas regions assets,
including approximately $15 million in nuclear fuel expenditures related to STP Units 1 and 2. The
Companys environmental capital expenditures were $41 million, of which $36 million was due to a
project to install selective catalytic reduction systems, scrubbers and fabric filters on Indian
River Unit 4 with an expected in service date of year end 2011.
Loans to affiliates The equity portion of construction costs for GenConn is funded through
the EBLs of NRG Connecticut Peaking and The United Illuminating Company, or United Illuminating.
These funds are made available to GenConn through interest bearing promissory notes that convert to
equity upon repayment of the EBL loans by NRG Connecticut Peaking and United Illuminating. As of
March 31, 2010, there was $113 million outstanding under the loan from NRG Connecticut Peaking.
Environmental Capital Expenditures
Based on current rules, technology and plans, NRG has estimated that environmental capital
expenditures from 2010 through 2014 to meet NRGs environmental commitments will be approximately
$0.9 billion. These capital expenditures, in general, are related to installation of particulate,
SO2, NOx, and mercury controls to comply with federal and state air quality
rules and consent orders, as well as installation of Best Technology Available under the Phase II
316(b) Rule. NRG continues to explore cost effective alternatives that can achieve desired
results. While this estimate reflects schedules and controls to meet anticipated reduction
requirements, the full impact on the scope and timing of environmental retrofits cannot be
determined until issuance of final rules by the U.S. EPA.
This estimate reflects the recent announcement to retrofit only Unit 4 at the Indian
River Generating Station and shifts in the timing of other projects to reflect anticipated issuance
dates for revised regulations.
NRGs current contracts with the Companys rural electrical customers in the South Central
region allow for recovery of a portion of the regions capital costs once in operation, along with
a capital return incurred by complying with new laws, including interest over the asset life of the
required expenditures. The actual recoveries will depend, among other things, on the timing of the
completion of the capital project and the remaining duration of the contracts.
69
Capital Allocation
2010 Capital Allocation Plan On February 23, 2010, the Company announced its 2010 Capital
Allocation Plan to purchase $180 million in common stock. The Companys share repurchases are
subject to market prices, financial restrictions under the Companys debt facilities, and as
permitted by securities laws. As part of the 2010 Capital Allocation Plan, the Company will invest
approximately $349 million in maintenance and environmental capital expenditures in existing assets
and $508 million in projects under RepoweringNRG that are currently under construction or for which
there exist current obligations. Finally, in addition to scheduled debt amortization payment, in
the first quarter 2010, the Company paid its first lien lenders $229 million of its 2009 excess
cash flow, as defined in the Senior Credit Facility.
Preferred Stock Dividend Payments
For the three months ended March 31, 2010, NRG paid approximately $2 million in dividend
payments to holders of the Companys 3.625% Preferred Stock.
Reliant Energy Customer Deposits
Revisions in the PUCT rules will require that NRG keep a segregated account, or that the
Company post a fully collateralized letter of credit on or before May 21, 2010, to cover
outstanding customer deposits and residential advance payments. The Company filed an amendment to
its Retail Electric Provider certificate in the first quarter of 2010, which was approved by the
PUCT, and posted a letter of credit to satisfy the rule changes. The amount of deposits subject to
segregation as of March 31, 2010, was approximately $55 million.
70
Cash Flow Discussion
The following table reflects the changes in cash flows for the comparative years:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended March 31, |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
Change |
|
Net cash provided by operating activities |
|
$ |
114 |
|
|
$ |
139 |
|
|
$ |
(25 |
) |
Net cash used by investing activities |
|
|
(194 |
) |
|
|
(259 |
) |
|
|
65 |
|
Net cash used by financing activities |
|
|
(408 |
) |
|
|
(184 |
) |
|
|
(224 |
) |
|
Net Cash Provided By Operating Activities
For the three months ended March 31, 2010, net cash provided by operating activities decreased
by $25 million compared to the same period in 2009, due to:
|
|
|
Lower cash flows from Wholesale Power Generation The Companys cash flow from operating
activities excluding Reliant Energy was lower by $250 million mainly due to a $169 million
decrease in operating income adjusted for non-cash charges and a $98 million decrease in net
collateral deposits paid and option premiums paid and collected for 2010 as compared to the
same period in 2009.
|
|
|
|
Cash generated by Reliant Energy Reliant Energy contributed approximately $225 million
to the Companys consolidated cash flow from operating activities in the first quarter 2010,
primarily reflecting $215 million in operating income during the quarter, adjusted for
non-cash charges related to bad debt expense, depreciation and amortization expense, and
unrealized losses on energy supply derivatives. In addition, a seasonal decrease in
accounts receivable of $50 million partially offset by a $29 million decrease in accrued
expenses and other current liabilities also positively impacted Reliant Energys cash flow
from operations.
|
Net Cash Used By Investing Activities
For the three months ended March 31, 2010, net cash used by investing activities decreased by
$65 million compared to the same period in 2009, due to:
|
|
|
Capital expenditures NRGs capital expenditures decreased by $48 million due to
decreased spending on RepoweringNRG and environmental projects.
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from sale of assets Net proceeds increased by $26 million in 2010 as compared
to 2009 due to the sale of Padoma in January 2010 for net proceeds of $29 million. |
Net Cash Used By Financing Activities
For the three months ended March 31, 2010, net cash used by financing activities increased by
$224 million compared to 2009, due to:
|
|
|
Term Loan Facility debt payment In 2010, the Company paid down $237 million of its Term
Loan Facility, including the payment of excess cash flow, as discussed above under Debt
Service Obligations. The Company paid down $205 million of its Term Loan Facility during
2009 which resulted in a net cash decrease of $32 million.
|
|
|
|
CSF I Debt During 2010, the Company paid $190 million in principal to early settle the
CSF I Debt compared to no payments made in 2009.
|
|
|
|
Net receipt from acquired derivatives that include financing elements In 2010, the
Company received a net of $13 million for the settlement of gas swaps related to Reliant
Energy and Texas Genco compared to a receipt of $40 million for 2009 related to Texas Genco,
for a net decrease in cash of $27 million.
|
|
|
|
Preferred dividends During the three months ended March 31, 2010, dividend payments on
preferred stock decreased by $12 million as compared to the same period in 2009 due to the
conversion of the 5.75% Preferred Stock in 2009 and the conversion of the 4% Preferred
Stock, which was completed in January 2010.
|
|
|
|
Issuance of debt During 2010, the Company issued $10 million under existing debt
facilities as compared to no issuance of debt in 2009.
|
71
NOLs, Deferred Tax Assets and Uncertain Tax Position Implications, under ASC-740, Income Taxes, or
ASC 740
As of March 31, 2010, the Company had generated total domestic pre-tax book income of $112
million and foreign pre-tax book income of $11 million. The Company has net operating losses for
tax return purposes available to offset taxable income in the current period. In addition, NRG has
cumulative foreign NOL carryforwards of $268 million, of which $82 million will expire starting in
2011 through 2017 and of which $186 million do not have an expiration date.
In addition to these amounts, the Company has $630 million of tax effected unrecognized tax
benefits which relate primarily to net operating losses for tax return purposes but have been
classified as capital loss carryforwards for financial statement purposes and for which a full
valuation allowance has been established. As a result of the Companys tax position, and based on
current forecasts, NRG anticipates income tax payments, primarily due to foreign, state and local
jurisdictions, of up to $75 million in 2010.
However, as the position remains uncertain for the $630 million of tax effected unrecognized
tax benefits, the Company has recorded a non-current tax liability of $423 million and may accrue
the remaining balance as an increase to non-current liabilities until final resolution with the
related taxing authority. The $423 million non-current tax liability for unrecognized tax benefits
is primarily due to taxable earnings for which there are no NOLs available to offset for financial
statement purposes.
The Company is under examination by the Internal Revenue Service for years 2004 through 2006.
New and On-going Company Initiatives and Development Projects
FORNRG Update
Beginning in January 2009, the Company transitioned to FORNRG 2.0 to target an incremental 100
basis point improvement to the Companys ROIC by 2012. The initial targets for FORNRG 2.0 were
based upon improvements in the Companys ROIC as measured by increased cash flow. The economic
goals of FORNRG 2.0 will focus on: (i) revenue enhancement; (ii) cost savings; and (iii) asset
optimization, including reducing excess working capital and other assets. The FORNRG 2.0 program
will measure its progress towards the FORNRG 2.0 goals by using the Companys 2008 financial
results as a baseline, while plant performance calculations will be based upon the appropriate
historic baselines.
The 2010 FORNRG goal is 65 basis points improvement, which corresponds to approximately $98
million in cash flows. The goal is inclusive of benefits created in 2009 and new project benefits
reported in 2010. As of the first quarter 2010, the Company has delivered a 13 basis point
improvement in ROIC, which is equivalent to approximately $20 million in cash flows to the FORNRG
program. During 2010, the Company expects to progress further toward the program goal of 100 basis
point ROIC improvement by 2012.
RepoweringNRG Update
NRG has several projects in varying stages of development that include the following: a new
generating unit at the Limestone power station, the repowering of the Encina and El Segundo sites,
and a combined heat and power system for the University Medical Center of Princeton. The
development of these projects is subject to certain conditions and milestones which may affect the
Companys decision to pursue further development of these projects. The Companys development
projects are generally subject to certain conditions, milestones, or other factors that may result
in the Companys decision to no longer pursue development of these projects.
On March 9, 2010, NRG was selected by the U.S. DOE to negotiate to receive up to $154 million,
including funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, to build a 60 MW post-combustion
carbon capture demonstration unit at NRGs WA Parish plant southwest of Houston with use of the
captured carbon in enhanced oil recovery in adjacent oil fields. The proposed project was
submitted under the Clean Coal Power Initiative Program, or CCPI, a cost-shared collaboration
between the federal government and private industry to demonstrate low-emission carbon capture and
storage technologies in advanced coal-based, power generation. The Company is in the process of
negotiating a cooperative agreement with the U.S. DOE which will define the basis for cost sharing
in the development and initial operations of the facility. Construction is planned to start in
early 2012 with commercial operations anticipated in the fourth quarter 2013.
72
The following is a summary of the 2010 repowering projects that are currently under
construction. In addition, NRG continues to participate in active bids in response to requests for
proposals in markets in which it operates.
Plants under Construction
GenConn
Energy LLC GenConn Energy, a 50/50 joint venture of NRG and The United Illuminating
Company, or United Illuminating, formed to construct, own and operate peaking generation facilities
in Connecticut, is in the construction phase of two, 200 MW peaking facilities at NRGs Devon and
Middletown sites. Each of these facilities is being constructed pursuant to 30-year contracts for
differences with The Connecticut Light & Power Company. The GenConn Devon facility has a target
commercial operation date of June 1, 2010, and the GenConn Middletown facilitys target commercial
operation date is June 1, 2011. Both projects are fully permitted, and major construction is
nearing completion on the Devon project. The Middletown project is in the early stages of
construction.
GenConn was directed by the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control to bid the
full capacity of the GenConn Devon facility into the ISO-NE locational forward reserve auction for
the summer 2010 period (June 1, 2010 September 30, 2010). If one or more units are delayed and
GenConn does not have the capacity, or cannot procure replacement capacity, to meet its reserve
obligation as of June 1, 2010, GenConn will be assessed ISO-NE penalties for the difference between
the cleared GenConn Devon capacity and the facilitys available capacity. NRGs share of such
penalties, if incurred, however, are not expected to be material. Currently, GenConn expects that
the Devon units will achieve commercial operations in
June 2010.
In April 2009, GenConn Energy closed on $534 million of project financing related to these
projects. The project financing includes a seven-year project backed term loan and a five-year
working capital facility which together total $291 million. In addition, NRG and United
Illuminating have each closed an equity bridge loan of $121.5 million, which together total $243
million. NRG is funding its share of costs related to these projects via draw downs on the equity
bridge loan totaling $114 million as of March 31, 2010. GenConn began to draw on the project
financing facility to cover costs related to the Devon project in August 2009. As of March 31,
2010, $75 million had been drawn.
Retail Development
Electric Vehicle Services
In 2009, NRG began development of a service business to support the mass deployment of
electric vehicles through its subsidiary Reliant Energy. In 2010, Reliant Energy plans to begin
selling new products and services that enable both public and home charging of electric vehicles.
In conjunction with this effort, Reliant Energy announced in November 2009 that it will work with
Nissan Motor Co. to make the City of Houston a launch city for the broader use of electric
vehicles. In November 2009, Reliant Energy announced a joint project with the City of Houston to
add plug-in fleet vehicles as well as public charging stations to support them. In March 2010, NRG
invested in Aptera Motors, Inc., a privately held electric vehicle, or EV, manufacturer expected to
launch a production EV in 2011.
Smart Energy
In the fourth quarter 2009, Reliant Energy was awarded a $20 million grant in the Smart Grid
Investment Grant Program for a three-year project to bring a suite of Smart Grid enabled products
to residential customers. Reliant Energy and the Department of Energy finalized the grant
agreement in March 2010. This project is in progress and includes an accelerated deployment of
smart meter enabled products as well as services that provide energy usage insights, choices, and
controls to homes of consumers across the competitive regions of Texas.
Nuclear Innovation North America
NINA, NRGs majority-owned subsidiary, is focused on marketing, siting, developing, financing
and investing in new advanced design nuclear projects in select markets across North America,
including the planned South Texas Units 3 and 4 project, or the STP Units 3 and 4 Project. TANE, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Toshiba Corporation, is the minority owner of NINA. Based on its
current NRC schedule, the Company expects to achieve commercial operation for Unit 3 in 2016 and
commercial operation for Unit 4 approximately 12 months thereafter. The total rated capacity of
STP Units 3 and 4 is expected to equal or exceed 2,700 MW.
73
The U.S. DOE has confirmed that the STP Units 3 and 4 Project is one of four projects selected
for further due diligence and negotiation leading to a conditional commitment under the U.S. DOE
loan guarantee program. NINA is currently in discussions with the U.S. DOE on the specific terms
and amount to be loaned for the project. NRG believes U.S. DOE loan guarantee support is critical
to new nuclear development projects. In addition to U.S. loan guarantees, NINA is seeking to
augment potential financial support from the U.S. DOE by actively pursuing additional loan
guarantees through the Japanese government.
On March 1, 2010, an agreement was reached with CPS for NINA to acquire a controlling interest
in the STP Units 3 and 4 Project to construct it through a settlement of the litigation between the
parties. As part of the agreement, NINA increased its ownership in the STP Units 3 and 4 Project
from 50% to 92.375% and assumed full management control of the project. NRG also will pay $80
million to CPS, subject to receipt of a conditional U.S. DOE loan guarantee. The first $40 million
would be promptly paid after receipt of the guarantee with the remaining $40 million paid six
months later. An additional $10 million will be donated by NRG over four years in annual payments
of $2.5 million to the Residential Energy Assistance Partnership, or REAP, in San Antonio. The
first $2.5 million payment to REAP was made on March 17, 2010. In connection with the agreement,
the Company capitalized $90 million to construction in progress within property, plant and
equipment, and as of March 31, 2010, $80 million in other current liabilities and $7.5 million in
other non-current liabilities remains on the condensed consolidated balance sheet for the
obligations to CPS and REAP. As part of the agreement with CPS, all litigation was dismissed with
prejudice.
On April 8, 2010, NINA announced an agreement for the Building and Construction Trades
Department, or BCTD, of the AFL-CIO to provide skilled union labor to construct STP Units 3 and 4.
The BCTD is an alliance of 13 national and international unions that collectively represent over
two million skilled craft professionals in the U.S. and Canada.
On May 10, 2010, NINA and TEPCO Nuclear Energy America
LLC, or TNEA, a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Tokyo Electric Power Company of Japan, Inc., signed an Investment and Option Agreement whereby
TNEA agreed to acquire up to a 20% interest in NINA Investments
Holdings LLC, or Holdings. Holdings is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NINA,
which indirectly holds NINAs ownership interest in the STP Units 3 and 4 Project. TNEA will initially invest $155 million for a 10%
share of Holdings, which includes a $30 million option premium payment to Holdings. This option, which expires approximately one year-from
the date of signing the Investment and Option Agreement, will enable TNEA to buy an additional 10% of Holdings for another payment of $125
million. The closing is contingent upon NINAs receipt of a U.S. DOE loan guarantee commitment. Upon its initial investment, TNEA will hold
a 9.2375% interest in the STP Units 3 and 4 Project, bringing NINAs investment down to 83.1375%. If TNEA exercises its option to increase
its ownership of Holdings by an additional 10%, it will own 18.475% of the STP Units 3 and 4 Project, bringing NINAs investment down to 73.90%.
Renewable Development
NRG has routinely invested in the development of renewable energy projects such as wind, solar
and biomass, to support the Companys econrg initiative. NRGs renewable strategy is to capitalize
on both first mover advantages and the Companys inherent regional presence. The following are the
renewable development projects the Company is actively engaged in:
Solar Development
NRG is developing a number of solar projects utilizing photovoltaic, or PV, as well as solar
thermal technologies, including the eSolar technology. Specifically, NRG has a 284 MW off-take
agreement with Southern California Edison, a 66 MW off-take agreement with Pacific Gas & Electric,
and a 92 MW off-take agreement with El Paso Electric that will utilize PV, solar thermal or a
combination of the two technologies. While each of these projects has a power purchase agreement,
or PPA, in place, the development of these projects is subject to certain regulatory approvals,
conditions and milestones which may affect the Companys
decision to pursue further development of one
or more of these projects.
Consistent with its business strategy, NRG is currently focused on early stage development
efforts in a number of markets as well as conducting due diligence in respect to various equity
investment opportunities for solar projects utilizing solar technologies that range from
concentrated solar thermal to photovoltaic.
Wind Development
South Trent Wind Farm
On March 2, 2010, NRG signed a binding letter of intent to purchase South Trent Wind Farm LLC,
owner of the South Trent wind farm, or South Trent, a 101 megawatt wind farm near Sweetwater,
Texas. South Trent went commercial in January 2009 and consists of 44 turbines producing up to 2.3
MW of power each. The project has a 20-year PPA for all generation from the site. The proposed
acquisition is pending approval by the PUCT and satisfaction of certain other conditions, and is
expected to close in the second quarter 2010.
74
Offshore Wind
Through its subsidiary NRG Bluewater Holdings LLC, or NRG Bluewater, the Company is actively
pursuing development of offshore wind projects along the Atlantic Coast of the northeastern U.S.
and in the Great Lakes. NRG Bluewaters Mid-Atlantic Wind Park is the most advanced of these
projects, with a signed PPA for 238 MW and several additional off-take agreements under
negotiation. NRG Bluewater also holds leases to erect a meteorological tower at the site of the
Mid-Atlantic Wind Park and at the site of its proposed project off the coast of New Jersey.
On April 26, 2010, the U.S. Department of Interior through the Minerals Management Service
issued a request for interest, or RFI, in obtaining one or more commercial leases for the
construction of a wind energy project on the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of Delaware.
The RFI process will determine if there is competitive interest in building on an ocean tract
starting 7.5 miles due east of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. NRG Bluewater plans to build the
Mid-Atlantic Wind Park in an area inside this zone 13 miles from shore, running to more than 20
miles from shore for the farthest turbine. Responses must be submitted by June 25, 2010, and NRG
Bluewater is planning to participate in this RFI.
Biomass Development
In April 2010, the Company was awarded a 10-year contract from the New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority for power generated using renewable biomass fuel at its Dunkirk
Generating Station in western New York. The project, which is expected to come online by the end
of 2011, will produce up to 15 MW of the stations total output by co-firing with clean wood
biomass. The award was part of a competitive solicitation to award contracts for projects that
deliver renewable energy to the New York wholesale power market and which will help the state reach
its RPS goal to increase the proportion of renewable electricity sold in New York from 25 percent
to 30 percent by 2015.
In addition to the Dunkirk project, NRG is planning to use biomass as a primary fuel at its
Montville Generating Station after repowering one of the facilitys existing units to produce up to
40 MW of electricity. The project has received approval from the Connecticut Siting Council, and
in April 2010 was awarded an air permit from the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection. The Company is pursuing opportunities to sell the power on the New England power grid
which will also help the state toward reaching its goal of 20 percent of electricity in the state
generated by a Class-1 fuel source.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
Obligations under Certain Guarantee Contracts
NRG and certain of its subsidiaries enter into guarantee arrangements in the normal course of
business to facilitate commercial transactions with third parties. These arrangements include
financial and performance guarantees, stand-by letters of credit, debt guarantees, surety bonds and
indemnifications. See Note 18, Guarantees, to this Form 10-Q for additional discussion.
Retained or Contingent Interests
NRG does not have any material retained or contingent interests in assets transferred to an
unconsolidated entity.
Derivative Instrument Obligations
The Companys 3.625% Preferred Stock includes a feature which is considered an embedded
derivative per ASC 815. Although it is considered an embedded derivative, it is exempt from
derivative accounting as it is excluded from the scope pursuant to ASC 815. As of March 31, 2010,
based on the Companys stock price, the embedded derivative was out-of-the-money and had no
redemption value.
Obligations Arising Out of a Variable Interest in an Unconsolidated Entity
Variable Interest in Equity Investments As of March 31, 2010, NRG has several investments
with an ownership interest percentage of 50% or less in energy and energy-related entities that are
accounted for under the equity method of accounting. Two of these investments, GenConn Energy LLC
and Sherbino, are variable interest entities for which NRG is not the primary beneficiary.
NRGs pro-rata share of non-recourse debt held by unconsolidated affiliates was approximately
$105 million as of March 31, 2010. This indebtedness may restrict the ability of these
subsidiaries to issue dividends or distributions to NRG.
75
Letter of Credit Facilities The Companys $1.3 billion Synthetic Letter of Credit Facility
is unfunded by NRG and is secured by a $1.3 billion cash deposit at Deutsche Bank AG, that was
funded using proceeds from the Term Loan Facility investors who participated in the facility
syndication. Under the Synthetic Letter of Credit Facility, NRG is allowed to issue letters of
credit for general corporate purposes including posting collateral to support the Companys
commercial operations activities.
Contractual Obligations and Commercial Commitments
NRG has a variety of contractual obligations and other commercial commitments that represent
prospective cash requirements in addition to the Companys capital expenditure programs, as
disclosed in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009. Also
see Note 15, Commitments and Contingencies, to this Form 10-Q for a discussion of new commitments
and contingencies that also include contractual obligations and commercial commitments that
occurred during the three months ended March 31, 2010.
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
NRGs discussion and analysis of the financial condition and results of operations are based
upon the consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting
principles generally accepted in the U.S. The preparation of these financial statements and
related disclosures in compliance with generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, requires
the application of appropriate technical accounting rules and guidance as well as the use of
estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and
expenses, and related disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities. The application of these
policies necessarily involves judgments regarding future events, including the likelihood of
success of particular projects and legal and regulatory challenges. These judgments, in and of
themselves, could materially affect the financial statements and disclosures based on varying
assumptions, which may be appropriate to use. In addition, the financial and operating environment
may also have a significant effect, not only on the operation of the business, but on the results
reported through the application of accounting measures used in preparing the financial statements
and related disclosures, even if the nature of the accounting policies have not changed.
On an ongoing basis, NRG evaluates these estimates, utilizing historic experience,
consultation with experts and other methods the Company considers reasonable. In any event, actual
results may differ substantially from the Companys estimates. Any effects on the Companys
business, financial position or results of operations resulting from revisions to these estimates
are recorded in the period in which the facts that give rise to the revision become known.
Critical accounting policies and estimates are the accounting policies that are most important
to the portrayal of NRGs financial condition and results of operations and require managements
most difficult, subjective or complex judgment. NRGs critical accounting policies include
derivative accounting, income taxes and valuation allowance for deferred taxes, evaluation of
assets for impairment and other than temporary decline in value, goodwill and other intangible
assets, contingencies and accounting for unbilled revenues.
As described in Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates Goodwill and Other Intangible
Assets, in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, the
Company believes that assumptions about future power prices most significantly impact the fair
value of its Texas reporting unit. The price of natural gas plays an important role in setting the
price of electricity in many of the regions where NRG operates power plants, and forward natural
gas prices have continued to decline since year-end 2009. If long-term natural gas prices remain
depressed for an extended period of time, the Companys goodwill may become impaired in the future,
which would result in a charge against earnings.
76
ITEM 3 QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
NRG is exposed to several market risks in the Companys normal business activities. Market
risk is the potential loss that may result from market changes associated with the Companys
merchant power generation or with an existing or forecasted financial or commodity transaction.
The types of market risks the Company is exposed to are commodity price risk, interest rate risk,
liquidity risk, credit risk, and currency exchange risk. In order to manage these risks, the
Company uses various fixed-price forward purchase and sales contracts, futures and option contracts
traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange, and swaps and options traded in the over-the-counter
financial markets to:
|
|
|
Manage and hedge fixed-price purchase and sales commitments; |
|
|
|
Manage and hedge exposure to variable rate debt obligations; |
|
|
|
Reduce exposure to the volatility of cash market prices; and |
|
|
|
Hedge fuel requirements for the Companys generating facilities. |
Commodity Price Risk
Commodity price risks result from exposures to changes in spot prices, forward prices,
volatilities, and correlations between various commodities, such as natural gas, electricity, coal,
oil, and emissions credits. A number of factors influence the level and volatility of prices for
energy commodities and related derivative products. These factors include:
|
|
|
Seasonal, daily and hourly changes in demand; |
|
|
|
Extreme peak demands due to weather conditions; |
|
|
|
Available supply resources; |
|
|
|
Transportation availability and reliability within and between regions; and |
|
|
|
Changes in the nature and extent of federal and state regulations. |
NRGs portfolio consists of generation assets and wholesale transactions load serving
obligations. NRG manages the commodity price risk of the Companys merchant generation operations
and load serving obligations by entering into various derivative or non-derivative instruments to
hedge the variability in future cash flows from forecasted sales and purchases of electricity and
fuel. These instruments include forwards, futures, swaps, and option contracts traded on various
exchanges, such as New York Mercantile Exchange, or NYMEX, Intercontinental Exchange, or ICE, and
Chicago Climate Exchange, or CCX, as well as over-the-counter financial markets. The portion of
forecasted transactions hedged may vary based upon managements assessment of market, weather, the
projected operations of our generation assets and other factors.
While some of the contracts the Company uses to manage risk represent commodities or
instruments for which prices are available from external sources, other commodities and certain
contracts are not actively traded and are valued using other pricing sources and modeling
techniques to determine expected future market prices, contract quantities, or both. NRG uses the
Companys best estimates to determine the fair value of those derivative contracts. However, it is
likely that future market prices could vary from those used in recording mark-to-market derivative
instrument valuation, and such variations could be material.
NRG measures the risk of the Companys portfolio using several analytical methods, including
sensitivity tests, scenario tests, stress tests, position reports, and Value at Risk, or VaR. VaR
is a statistical model that attempts to predict risk of loss based on market price and volatility.
Currently, the company estimates VaR using a Monte Carlo simulation based methodology.
NRG uses a diversified VaR model to calculate an estimate of the potential loss in the fair
value of the Companys energy assets and liabilities, which includes generation assets, load
obligations, and bilateral physical and financial transactions. The key assumptions for the
Companys diversified model include: (i) a lognormal distribution of prices; (ii) one-day holding
period; (iii) a 95% confidence interval; (iv) a rolling 36-month forward looking period; and (v)
market implied volatilities and historical price correlations.
77
As of March 31, 2010, the VaR for NRGs commodity portfolio, including generation assets,
load obligations and bilateral physical and financial transactions calculated using the diversified
VaR model was $51 million.
The following table summarizes average, maximum and minimum VaR for NRG for the three months
ended March 31, 2010, and 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
|
|
VAR |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
Three months ended March 31: |
|
$ |
51 |
|
|
$ |
35 |
|
Average |
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
Maximum |
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
Minimum |
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
Due to the inherent limitations of statistical measures such as VaR, the evolving nature of
the competitive markets for electricity and related derivatives, and the seasonality of changes in
market prices, the VaR calculation may not capture the full extent of commodity price exposure. As
a result, actual changes in the fair value of mark-to-market energy assets and liabilities could
differ from the calculated VaR, and such changes could have a material impact on the Companys
financial results.
In order to provide additional information for comparative purposes to NRGs peers, the
Company also uses VaR to estimate the potential loss of derivative financial instruments that are
subject to mark-to-market accounting. These derivative instruments include transactions that were
entered into for both asset management and trading purposes. The VaR for the derivative financial
instruments calculated using the diversified VaR model as of March 31, 2010, for the entire term of
these instruments entered into for both asset management and trading, was approximately $38 million
primarily driven by asset-backed transactions.
Interest Rate Risk
NRG is exposed to fluctuations in interest rates through the Companys issuance of fixed rate
and variable rate debt. Exposures to interest rate fluctuations may be mitigated by entering into
derivative instruments known as interest rate swaps, caps, collars and put or call options. These
contracts reduce exposure to interest rate volatility and result in primarily fixed rate debt
obligations when taking into account the combination of the variable rate debt and the interest
rate derivative instrument. NRGs risk management policies allow the Company to reduce interest
rate exposure from variable rate debt obligations.
As of March 31, 2010, the Company had various interest rate swap agreements with notional
amounts totaling approximately $3.1 billion. If the swaps had been discontinued on March 31, 2010,
the Company would have owed the counterparties approximately $101 million. Based on the investment
grade rating of the counterparties, NRG believes its exposure to credit risk due to nonperformance
by counterparties to its hedge contracts to be immaterial.
NRG has both long- and short-term debt instruments that subject the Company to the risk of
loss associated with movements in market interest rates. As of March 31, 2010, a 1% change in
interest rates would result in a $10 million change in interest expense on a rolling twelve month
basis.
As of March 31, 2010, the Companys long-term debt fair value was $7.8 billion and the
carrying amount was $7.9 billion. NRG estimates that a 1% decrease in market interest rates would
have increased the fair value of the Companys long-term debt by $426 million.
Liquidity Risk
Liquidity risk arises from the general funding needs of NRGs activities and in the management
of the Companys assets and liabilities. NRGs liquidity management framework is intended to
maximize liquidity access and minimize funding costs. Through active liquidity management, the
Company seeks to preserve stable, reliable and cost-effective sources of funding. This enables the
Company to replace maturing obligations when due and fund assets at appropriate maturities and
rates. To accomplish this task, management uses a variety of liquidity risk measures that take
into consideration market conditions, prevailing interest rates, liquidity needs, and the desired
maturity profile of liabilities. The Company is currently exposed to additional collateral posting
if natural gas prices decline primarily due to the long natural gas equivalent position at various
exchanges used to hedge NRGs retail supply load obligations.
78
Based on a sensitivity analysis for power and gas positions under marginable contracts, a $1
per MMBtu change in natural gas prices across the term of the marginable contracts would cause a
change in margin collateral posted of approximately $222 million as of March 31, 2010, and a 0.25
MMBtu/MWh change in heat rates for heat rate positions would result in a change in margin
collateral posted of approximately $21 million as of March 31, 2010. This analysis uses simplified
assumptions and is calculated based on portfolio composition and margin-related contract provisions
as of March 31, 2010.
Under the second lien, NRG is required to post certain letters of credit as credit support for
changes in commodity prices. As of March 31, 2010, no letters of credit are outstanding to second
lien counterparties. With changes in commodity prices, the letters of credit could grow to $64
million, the cap under the agreements.
Credit Risk
Credit risk relates to the risk of loss resulting from non-performance or non-payment by
counterparties pursuant to the terms of their contractual obligations. NRG is exposed to
counterparty credit risk through various activities including wholesale sales, fuel purchases and
retail supply and retail customer credit risk through its retail load activities.
Counterparty Credit Risk
The Company monitors and manages counterparty credit risk through credit policies that
include: (i) an established credit approval process; (ii) a daily monitoring of counterparties
credit limits; (iii) the use of credit mitigation measures such as margin, collateral, credit
derivatives or prepayment arrangements; (iv) the use of payment netting agreements; and (v) the use
of master netting agreements that allow for the netting of positive and negative exposures of
various contracts associated with a single counterparty. Risks surrounding counterparty
performance and credit could ultimately impact the amount and timing of expected cash flows. The
Company seeks to mitigate counterparty credit risk with a diversified portfolio of counterparties. The Company also has credit
protection within various agreements to call on additional collateral support if and when
necessary. Cash margin is collected and held at NRG to cover the credit risk of the counterparty
until positions settle.
As of March 31, 2010, total counterparty credit exposure to substantially all counterparties
was $1.7 billion and NRG held cash collateral against those positions of $509 million resulting in
a net exposure of $1.2 billion. Total counterparty credit exposure is discounted at the risk free
rate.
The following table highlights the credit quality and the net counterparty credit exposure by
industry sector. Net counterparty credit exposure is defined as the aggregate net asset position
for NRG with counterparties where netting is permitted under the enabling agreement and includes
all cash flow, mark-to-market and NPNS, and non-derivative transactions. The exposure is shown net
of collateral held, includes amounts net of receivables or payables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Exposure (a) |
Category |
|
(% of Total) |
|
Financial institutions |
|
|
67 |
% |
Utilities, energy, merchants, marketers and other |
|
|
30 |
|
Coal suppliers |
|
|
1 |
|
ISOs |
|
|
2 |
|
|
Total as of March 31, 2010 |
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Exposure (a) |
Category |
|
(% of Total) |
|
Investment grade |
|
|
80 |
% |
Non-Investment grade |
|
|
1 |
|
Non-rated |
|
|
19 |
|
|
Total as of March 31, 2010 |
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Counterparty credit exposure excludes California tolling, Northeast load obligations, New
England Reliability Must-Run, or RMR, certain cooperative load contracts, and Texas
Westmoreland coal contracts. The aforementioned exposures were excluded for various reasons
including regulatory support or liens held against the contracts which serve to reduce the
risk of loss. NRG also excludes uranium and coal transportation contracts from counterparty
credit exposure because of the illiquidity of the reference markets. Credit exposure also
excludes any exposure NRG has to counterparties of non-recourse subsidiaries.
|
NRG has counterparty credit risk exposure to certain counterparties representing more
than 10% of total net exposure and the aggregate of such counterparties was $399 million.
Approximately 82% of NRGs positions relating to credit risk roll-off by the end of 2012. Changes
in hedge positions and market prices will affect credit exposure and counterparty concentration.
Given the credit quality, diversification and term of the exposure in the portfolio, NRG does not
anticipate a material impact on the Companys financial results from nonperformance by any of NRGs
counterparties.
79
Retail Customer Credit Risk
NRG is exposed to retail credit risk through its competitive electricity supply business,
which serves C&I and Mass customers in Texas. Retail credit risk results when a customer fails to
pay for services rendered. The losses could be incurred from nonpayment of customer accounts
receivable and any in-the-money forward value. NRG manages retail credit risk through the use of
established credit policies that include monitoring of the portfolio, and the use of credit
mitigation measures such as deposits or prepayment arrangements.
As of March 31, 2010, the Companys credit exposure to C&I customers was diversified across
many customers and various industries, with a significant portion of the exposure with government
entities. NRG is also exposed to credit risk relating to its 1.5 million Mass customers, which may
result in a write-off of bad debt. During the quarter, the Company experienced improved customer
payment behavior, but current economic conditions may affect the Companys customers ability to
pay bills in a timely manner, which could increase customer delinquencies and may lead to an
increase in bad debt.
Certain of the Companys hedging agreements contain provisions that require the Company to
post additional collateral if the counterparty determines that there has been deterioration in
credit quality, generally termed adequate assurance under the agreements or require the Company
to post additional collateral if there was a one notch downgrade in the Companys credit rating.
The collateral required for contracts that have adequate assurance clauses that are in a net
liability position as of March 31, 2010, was $42 million. The collateral required for contracts
with credit rating contingent features that are in a net liability position as of March 31, 2010,
was $16 million. The Company is also a party to certain marginable agreements where NRG has a net
liability position but the counterparty has not called for the collateral due, which is
approximately $7 million as of March 31, 2010.
Fair Value of Derivative Instruments
NRG may enter into long-term power purchase and sales contracts, fuel purchase contracts and
other energy-related financial instruments to mitigate variability in earnings due to fluctuations
in spot market prices and to hedge fuel requirements at generation facilities. In addition, in
order to mitigate interest rate risk associated with the issuance of the Companys variable rate
and fixed rate debt, NRG enters into interest rate swap agreements.
NRGs trading activities are subject to limits within the Companys Risk Management Policy.
These contracts are recognized on the balance sheet at fair value and changes in the fair value of
these derivative financial instruments are recognized in earnings.
The tables below disclose the activities that include both exchange and non-exchange traded
contracts accounted for at fair value in accordance with ASC-820, Fair Value Measurements and
Disclosures, or ASC 820. Specifically, these tables disaggregate realized and unrealized changes
in fair value; disaggregate estimated fair values at March 31, 2010, based on their level within
the fair value hierarchy defined in ASC 820; and indicate the maturities of contracts at March 31,
2010.
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative Activity Gains/(Losses) |
|
(In millions) |
|
Fair value of contracts as of December 31, 2009 |
|
$ |
459 |
|
Contracts realized or otherwise settled during the period |
|
|
(33 |
) |
Changes in fair value |
|
|
480 |
|
|
Fair value of contracts as of March 31, 2010 |
|
$ |
906 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value of Contracts as of March 31, 2010 |
|
|
Maturity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maturity |
|
|
(In millions) |
|
Less Than |
|
Maturity |
|
Maturity |
|
in Excess |
|
Total Fair |
Fair value hierarchy gains/(losses) |
|
1 Year |
|
1-3 Years |
|
4-5 Years |
|
4-5 Years |
|
Value |
|
Level 1 |
|
$ |
(41 |
) |
|
$ |
(53 |
) |
|
$ |
(30 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(124 |
) |
Level 2 |
|
|
456 |
|
|
|
515 |
|
|
|
113 |
|
|
|
(29 |
) |
|
|
1,055 |
|
Level 3 |
|
|
(45 |
) |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
Total |
|
$ |
370 |
|
|
$ |
471 |
|
|
$ |
94 |
|
|
$ |
(29 |
) |
|
$ |
906 |
|
|
A small portion of NRGs contracts are exchange-traded contracts with readily available quoted
market prices. The majority of NRGs contracts are non-exchange-traded contracts valued using
prices provided by external sources, primarily price quotations available through brokers or
over-the-counter and on-line exchanges. For the majority of NRG markets, the Company receives
quotes from multiple sources. To the extent that NRG receives multiple quotes, the Companys
prices reflect the average of the bid-ask mid-point prices obtained from all sources that NRG
believes provide the most liquid market for the commodity. If the Company receives one quote then
the mid point of the bid-ask spread for that quote is used. The terms for which such price
information is available vary by commodity, region and product. A significant portion of the fair
value of the Companys derivative portfolio is based on price quotes from brokers in active markets
who regularly facilitate the Companys transactions and the
Company believes such price quotes are executable.
80
The Company does not use third party sources that derive price based
on proprietary models or market surveys. The remainder of the assets and liabilities represents
contracts for which external sources or observable market quotes are not available. These
contracts are valued based on various valuation techniques including but not limited to internal
models based on a fundamental analysis of the market and extrapolation of observable market data
with similar characteristics. Contracts valued with prices provided by models and other valuation
techniques make up 3% of the total fair value of all derivative contracts. The fair value of each
contract is discounted using a risk free interest rate. In addition, the Company applies a credit
reserve to reflect credit risk which is calculated based on published default probabilities. To
the extent that NRGs net exposure after cash collateral paid/received under a specific master
agreement is an asset, the Company calculates credit reserve applying the counterpartys default
swap rate. If the net exposure after cash collateral paid/received under a specific master
agreement is a liability, the Company calculates credit reserve applying NRGs default swap rate.
The credit reserve is added to the discounted fair value to reflect the exit price that a market
participant would be willing to receive to assume NRGs liabilities or that a market participant
would be willing to pay for NRGs assets. As of March 31, 2010, the credit reserve resulted in a
$2 million decrease in fair value which is composed of a $3 million loss in OCI and a $1 million
gain in derivative revenue and cost of operations.
The fair values in each category reflect the level of forward prices and volatility factors as
of March 31, 2010, and may change as a result of changes in these factors. Management uses its
best estimates to determine the fair value of commodity and derivative contracts NRG holds and
sells. These estimates consider various factors including closing exchange and over-the-counter
price quotations, time value, volatility factors and credit exposure. It is possible; however,
that future market prices could vary from those used in recording assets and liabilities from
energy marketing and trading activities and such variations could be material.
The Company has elected to disclose derivative assets and liabilities on a trade-by-trade
basis and does not offset amounts at the counterparty master agreement level. Also, collateral
received or paid on the Companys derivative assets or liabilities are recorded on a separate line
item on the balance sheet. Consequently, the magnitude of the changes in individual current and
non-current derivative assets or liabilities is higher than the underlying credit and market risk
of the Companys portfolio. As discussed in Commodity Price Risk, NRG measures the sensitivity of the Companys portfolio to potential
changes in market prices using VaR, a statistical model which attempts to predict risk of loss
based on market price and volatility. NRGs Risk Management Policy places a limit on one-day
holding period VaR, which limits the Companys net open position. As the Companys trade-by-trade
derivative accounting results in a gross-up of the Companys derivative assets and liabilities, the
net derivative assets and liability position is a better indicator of NRGs hedging activity.
As of March 31, 2010, NRGs net derivative asset was $906 million, an increase to total fair
value of $447 million as compared to December 31, 2009. This increase was primarily driven by the
decreases in gas and power prices and the roll-off of trades that settled during the period.
Based on a sensitivity analysis, the impact of a $1 per MMBtu increase or decrease in natural
gas prices across the term of the derivative contracts would cause a change of approximately $324
million in the net value of derivatives as of March 31, 2010.
Currency Exchange Risk
NRG may be subject to foreign currency exchange risk as a result of the Company entering into
purchase commitments with foreign vendors for the purchase of major equipment associated with
RepoweringNRG initiatives. To reduce the risks to such foreign currency exposure, the Company may
enter into transactions to hedge its foreign currency exposure using currency options and forward
contracts. As of March 31, 2010, there were no foreign currency options or forward contracts
outstanding for purchase commitments. As a result of the Companys limited foreign currency
exposure to date, the effect of foreign currency fluctuations has not been material to the
Companys results of operations, financial position and cash flows as of and for the three months
ended March 31, 2010.
81
ITEM 4 CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
Conclusion Regarding the Effectiveness of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
Under the supervision and with the participation of NRGs management, including its principal
executive officer, principal financial officer, and principal accounting officer, NRG conducted an
evaluation of the effectiveness of the design and operation of its disclosure controls and
procedures, as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. Based on this evaluation, the Companys principal
executive officer, principal financial officer, and principal accounting officer concluded that the
disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of the end of the period covered by this
report on Form 10-Q.
Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting
There were no changes in the Companys internal controls over financial reporting (as such
term is defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Exchange Act) that occurred in the first quarter 2010
that materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal
control over financial reporting.
Inherent Limitations over Internal Controls
NRGs internal control over financial reporting is designed to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of consolidated financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
However, internal control over financial reporting cannot provide absolute assurance of achieving
financial reporting objectives because of its inherent limitations, including the possibility of
human error and circumvention by collusion or overriding of controls. Accordingly, even an
effective internal control system may not prevent or detect material misstatements on a timely
basis. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the
risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the degree of
compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
82
PART II OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM 1 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
For a discussion of material legal proceedings in which NRG was involved through March 31,
2010, see Note 15, Commitments and Contingencies, to this Form 10-Q.
ITEM 1A RISK FACTORS
Information regarding risk factors appears in Part I, Item 1A, Risk Factors in NRG Energy,
Inc.s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009.
ITEM 2 UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS
None.
ITEM 3 DEFAULTS UPON SENIOR SECURITIES
None.
ITEM 4 (REMOVED AND RESERVED)
ITEM 5 OTHER INFORMATION
None.
83
ITEM 6 EXHIBITS
|
|
|
Exhibits |
|
|
4.1
|
|
Twenty-Eighth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of April 16, 2010, among NRG Energy, Inc., the existing guarantors
named therein, the guaranteeing subsidiaries named therein and Law Debenture Trust Company of New York. (1) |
|
|
|
4.2
|
|
Twenty-Ninth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of April 16, 2010, among NRG Energy, Inc., the existing guarantors
named therein, the guaranteeing subsidiaries named therein and Law Debenture Trust Company of New York. (1) |
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
Thirtieth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of April 16, 2010, among NRG Energy, Inc., the existing guarantors named
therein, the guaranteeing subsidiaries named therein and Law Debenture Trust Company of New York. (1) |
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
Thirty-First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of April 16, 2010, among NRG Energy, Inc., the existing guarantors
named therein, the guaranteeing subsidiaries named therein and Law Debenture Trust Company of New York. (1) |
|
|
|
10.1
|
|
Project Agreement, Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, dated March 1, 2010, by and among by and among Nuclear
Innovation North America LLC, the City of San Antonio acting by and through the City Public Service Board of San
Antonio, a Texas municipal utility, NINA Texas 3 LLC and NINA Texas 4 LLC, and solely for purposes of certain
sections of the Settlement Agreement, by NRG Energy, Inc and NRG South Texas LP. (2) |
|
|
|
10.2*
|
|
STP 3 & 4 Owners Agreement, dated March 1, 2010, by and among Nuclear Innovation North America LLC, the City of San
Antonio, NINA Texas 3 LLC and NINA Texas 4 LLC. (2) |
|
|
|
10.3
|
|
Chief Financial Officer Compensation Table for 2010. (3) |
|
|
|
10.4
|
|
2009 Executive Change-in-Control and General Severance Plan. (3) |
|
|
|
31.1
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, filed herewith. |
|
|
|
31.2
|
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, filed herewith. |
|
|
|
31.3
|
|
Certification of Chief Accounting Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, filed herewith. |
|
|
|
32
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, filed herewith. |
|
|
|
101.INS
|
|
XBRL Instance Document |
|
|
|
101.SCH
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema |
|
|
|
101.CAL
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase |
|
|
|
101.DEF
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase |
|
|
|
101.LAB
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase |
|
|
|
101.PRE
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase |
* Portions of this exhibit have been redacted and are subject to a confidential treatment request
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s current report on Form 8-K filed on April 21, 2010. |
|
(2) |
|
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s current report on Form 8-K filed on March 2, 2010. |
|
(3) |
|
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s current report on Form 8-K filed on April 1, 2010 |
84
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly
caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
NRG ENERGY, INC.
(Registrant)
|
|
By: |
|
|
|
|
/s/ DAVID W. CRANE
|
|
|
David W. Crane |
|
|
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ GERALD LUTERMAN
|
|
|
Gerald Luterman |
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ JAMES J. INGOLDSBY
|
|
|
James J. Ingoldsby |
|
Date: May 10, 2010 |
Chief Accounting Officer
(Principal Accounting Officer) |
|
85
EXHIBIT INDEX
|
|
|
Exhibits |
|
|
4.1
|
|
Twenty-Eighth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of April 16, 2010, among NRG Energy, Inc., the existing guarantors
named therein, the guaranteeing subsidiaries named therein and Law Debenture Trust Company of New York. (1) |
|
|
|
4.2
|
|
Twenty-Ninth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of April 16, 2010, among NRG Energy, Inc., the existing guarantors
named therein, the guaranteeing subsidiaries named therein and Law Debenture Trust Company of New York. (1) |
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
Thirtieth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of April 16, 2010, among NRG Energy, Inc., the existing guarantors named
therein, the guaranteeing subsidiaries named therein and Law Debenture Trust Company of New York. (1) |
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
Thirty-First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of April 16, 2010, among NRG Energy, Inc., the existing guarantors
named therein, the guaranteeing subsidiaries named therein and Law Debenture Trust Company of New York. (1) |
|
|
|
10.1
|
|
Project Agreement, Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, dated March 1, 2010, by and among by and among Nuclear
Innovation North America LLC, the City of San Antonio acting by and through the City Public Service Board of San
Antonio, a Texas municipal utility, NINA Texas 3 LLC and NINA Texas 4 LLC, and solely for purposes of certain
sections of the Settlement Agreement, by NRG Energy, Inc and NRG South Texas LP. (2) |
|
|
|
10.2*
|
|
STP 3 & 4 Owners Agreement, dated March 1, 2010, by and among Nuclear Innovation North America LLC, the City of San
Antonio, NINA Texas 3 LLC and NINA Texas 4 LLC. (2) |
|
|
|
10.3
|
|
Chief Financial Officer Compensation Table for 2010. (3) |
|
|
|
10.4
|
|
2009 Executive Change-in-Control and General Severance Plan. (3) |
|
|
|
31.1
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, filed herewith. |
|
|
|
31.2
|
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, filed herewith. |
|
|
|
31.3
|
|
Certification of Chief Accounting Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, filed herewith. |
|
|
|
32
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, filed herewith. |
|
|
|
101.INS
|
|
XBRL Instance Document |
|
|
|
101.SCH
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema |
|
|
|
101.CAL
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase |
|
|
|
101.DEF
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase |
|
|
|
101.LAB
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase |
|
|
|
101.PRE
|
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase |
* Portions of this exhibit have been redacted and are subject to a confidential treatment request
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s current report on Form 8-K filed on April 21, 2010. |
|
(2) |
|
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s current report on Form 8-K filed on March 2, 2010. |
|
(3) |
|
Incorporated herein by reference to NRG Energy, Inc.s current report on Form 8-K filed on April 1, 2010. |
86