XML 46 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Contractual Commitments As of December 31, 2023, we had minimum contractual commitments under long-term service and maintenance contracts, energy-related contracts and other agreements as follows:
| Long-Term Service and Maintenance Contracts (a) |  | Coal transportation agreements |  | Pipeline transportation and storage reservation fees |  |  |  | Water Contracts
2024 | $ | 286 |  |  | $ | 33 |  |  | $ | 179 |  |  |  |  | $ | 9 |
2025 | 242 |  |  | 34 |  |  | 182 |  |  |  |  | 9 |
2026 | 228 |  |  | 35 |  |  | 192 |  |  |  |  | 9 |
2027 | 250 |  |  | 36 |  |  | 195 |  |  |  |  | 9 |
2028 | 310 |  |  | — |  |  | 194 |  |  |  |  | 9 |
Thereafter | 2,091 |  |  | — |  |  | 96 |  |  |  |  | 44 |
Total | $ | 3,407 |  |  | $ | 138 |  |  | $ | 1,038 |  |  |  |  | $ | 89 |
____________ (a)Long-term service and maintenance contracts reflect expected expenditures as these contracts do not include minimum spending requirements, but can only be terminated based on events outside the control of the Company. In addition to the commitments detailed above, we have nuclear fuel contracts with early termination penalties. As of December 31, 2023, termination costs of $61 million would be incurred if we terminated those contracts. Expenditures under our coal purchase and coal transportation agreements totaled $936 million, $995 million, and $850 million for the years ended December 31, 2023, 2022 and 2021, respectively. Guarantees We have entered into contracts that contain guarantees to unaffiliated parties that could require performance or payment under certain conditions. Material guarantees are discussed below. Letters of Credit As of December 31, 2023, we had outstanding letters of credit totaling $2.750 billion as follows: •$2.408 billion to support commodity risk management collateral requirements in the normal course of business, including over-the-counter and exchange-traded transactions and collateral postings with ISOs/RTOs; •$186 million to support battery and solar development projects; •$27 million to support executory contracts and insurance agreements; •$91 million to support our REP financial requirements with the PUCT; and •$38 million for other credit support requirements. Surety Bonds As of December 31, 2023, we had outstanding surety bonds totaling $935 million to support performance under various contracts and legal obligations in the normal course of business. Litigation and Regulatory Proceedings Our material legal proceedings and regulatory proceedings affecting our business are described below. We believe that we have valid defenses to the legal proceedings described below and intend to defend them vigorously. We also intend to participate in the regulatory processes described below. We record reserves for estimated losses related to these matters when information available indicates that a loss is probable and the amount of the loss, or range of loss, can be reasonably estimated. As applicable, we have established an adequate reserve for the matters discussed below. In addition, legal costs are expensed as incurred. Management has assessed each of the following legal 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, we are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or reasonably estimate the scope or amount of any associated costs and potential liabilities, but they could have a material impact on our results of operations, liquidity, or financial condition. As additional information becomes available, we adjust our assessment and estimates of such contingencies accordingly. Because litigation and rulemaking proceedings are subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable rulings or developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters could be at amounts that are different from our currently recorded reserves and that such differences could be material. Litigation Natural Gas Index Pricing Litigation — We, through our subsidiaries, and another company remain named as defendants in one consolidated putative class action lawsuit pending in federal court in Wisconsin claiming damages resulting from alleged price manipulation through false reporting of natural gas prices to various index publications, wash trading and churn trading from 2000-2002. The plaintiffs in these cases allege that the defendants engaged in an antitrust conspiracy to inflate natural gas prices during the relevant time period and seek damages under the respective state antitrust statutes. In April 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Seventh Circuit Court) heard oral argument on an interlocutory appeal challenging the district court's order certifying a class. Illinois Attorney General Complaint Against Illinois Gas & Electric (IG&E) — In May 2022, the Illinois Attorney General filed a complaint against IG&E, a subsidiary we acquired when we purchased Crius in July 2019. The complaint filed in Illinois state court alleges, among other things, that IG&E engaged in improper marketing conduct and overcharged customers. The vast majority of the conduct in question occurred prior to our acquisition of IG&E. In July 2022, we moved to dismiss the complaint, and in October 2022, the district court granted in part our motion to dismiss, barring all claims asserted by the Illinois Attorney General that were outside of the 5-year statute of limitations period, which now limits the period during which claims may be made to start in May 2017 rather than extending back to 2013 as the Illinois Attorney General had alleged in its complaint. Winter Storm Uri Legal Proceedings Repricing Challenges — In March 2021, we filed an appeal in the Third Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas (Third Court of Appeals), challenging the PUCT's February 15 and February 16, 2021 orders governing ERCOT's determination of wholesale power prices during load-shedding events. Other parties also supported our challenge to the PUCT's orders. In March 2023, the Third Court of Appeals issued a unanimous decision and agreed with our arguments that the PUCT's pricing orders constituted de facto competition rules and exceeded the PUCT's statutory authority. The Third Court of Appeals vacated the pricing orders and remanded the matter to the PUCT for further proceedings. In March 2023, the PUCT appealed the Third Court of Appeals' ruling to the Texas Supreme Court. In September 2023, the Texas Supreme Court granted the PUC and its intervenors petitions for review of the Third Court of Appeals' decision and the Court heard oral argument in January 2024. In addition, we have also submitted settlement disputes with ERCOT over power prices and other issues during Winter Storm Uri. Following an appeal of the PUCT's March 5, 2021 verbal order and other statements made by the PUCT, the Texas Attorney General, on behalf of the PUCT, its client, represented in a letter agreement filed with the Third Court of Appeals that we and other parties may continue disputing the pricing during Winter Storm Uri through the ERCOT process and, to the extent the outcome of that process comes before the PUCT for review, the PUCT has not prejudged or made a final decision on that matter. We are not able to reasonably estimate the financial statement impact of a repricing as, among other things, the matter is subject to ongoing legal proceedings and, even if we were ultimately successful in the current legal proceeding, the price at which the market would be resettled is not reasonably estimable because that would be subject to further proceedings at ERCOT and the PUCT. Regulatory Investigations and Other Litigation Matters — Following the events of Winter Storm Uri, various regulatory bodies, including ERCOT, the ERCOT Independent Market Monitor, the Texas Attorney General, the FERC and the NRC initiated investigations or issued requests for information of various parties related to the significant load shed event that occurred during the event as well as operational challenges for generators arising from the event, including performance and fuel and supply issues. We responded to all those investigatory requests. In addition, a large number of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits related to Winter Storm Uri have been, and continue to be, filed in various Texas state courts against us and numerous generators, transmission and distribution utilities, retail and electric providers, as well as ERCOT. We and other defendants requested that all pretrial proceedings in these personal injury cases be consolidated and transferred to a single multi-district litigation (MDL) pretrial judge. In June 2021, the MDL panel granted the request to consolidate all these cases into an MDL for pretrial proceedings. Additional personal injury cases that have been, and continue to be, filed on behalf of additional plaintiffs have been consolidated with the MDL proceedings. In addition, in January 2022, an insurance subrogation lawsuit was filed in Austin state court by over one hundred insurance companies against ERCOT, Vistra and several other defendants. The lawsuit seeks recovery of insurance funds paid out by these insurance companies to various policyholders for claims related to Winter Storm Uri, and that case has also now been consolidated with the MDL proceedings. In the summer of 2022, various defendant groups filed motions to dismiss five so-called bellwether cases, and the MDL court heard oral argument on those motions in October 2022. In January 2023, the MDL court ruled on the various motions to dismiss and denied the motions to dismiss of the generator defendants and the transmission distribution utilities defendants, but granted the motions of some of the other defendant groups, including the retail electric providers and ERCOT. In February 2023, the generator defendants filed a mandamus petition with the First Court of Appeals in Houston, Texas (First Court of Appeals) to review the MDL court's denial of the motion to dismiss. In December 2023, the First Court of Appeals in a unanimous decision granted our mandamus petition and instructed the MDL court to grant the motions to dismiss in full filed by the generator defendants. In January 2024, the plaintiffs filed a request with the full Court of Appeals to review that panel ruling. We believe we have strong defenses to these lawsuits and intend to defend against these cases vigorously. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) In July 2019, the EPA finalized a rule that repealed the Clean Power Plan (CPP) that had been finalized in 2015 and established new regulations addressing GHG emissions from existing coal-fueled electric generation units, referred to as the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule. The ACE rule developed emission guidelines that states must use when developing plans to regulate GHG emissions from existing coal-fueled electric generation units. In response to challenges brought by environmental groups and certain states, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) vacated the ACE rule, including the repeal of the CPP, in January 2021 and remanded the rule to the EPA for further action. In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion reversing the D.C. Circuit Court's decision, and finding that the EPA exceeded its authority under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act when the EPA set emission requirements in the CPP based on generation shifting. In October 2022, the D.C. Circuit Court issued an amended judgment, denying petitions for review of the ACE rule and challenges to the repeal of the CPP. In addition, the EPA opened a docket seeking input on questions related to the regulation of GHGs under Section 111(d) which closed in March 2023. In May 2023, the EPA released a new proposal regulating power plant GHG emissions, while also proposing to repeal the ACE rule. The new GHG proposal sets limits for (a) new natural gas-fired combustion turbines, (b) existing coal-, oil- and natural gas-fired steam generation units, and (c) certain existing natural gas-fired combustion turbines. The proposed standards are based on technologies such as carbon capture and sequestration/storage (CCS), low-GHG hydrogen co-firing, and natural gas co-firing. Starting in 2030, the proposal would generally require more CO 2 emissions control at fossil fuel-fired power plants that operate more frequently and for more years and would phase in increasingly stringent CO 2 requirements over time. Under the proposal, states would be required to submit plans to the EPA within 24 months of the rule's effective date that provide for the establishment, implementation, and enforcement of standards of performance for existing sources. These state plans must generally establish standards that are at least as stringent as the EPA's emission guidelines. Existing steam generation units must start complying with their standards of performance on January 1, 2030. Existing combustion turbine units must start complying with their standards of performance on January 1, 2032, or January 1, 2035, depending on their subcategory. We submitted comments to the EPA on this proposal in August 2023. Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) In October 2015, the EPA revised the primary and secondary ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to lower the 8-hour standard for ozone emissions during ozone season (May to September). As required under the CAA, in October 2018, the State of Texas submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to the EPA demonstrating that emissions from Texas sources do not contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to the revised ozone NAAQS. In February 2023, the EPA disapproved Texas' SIP and the State of Texas, Luminant, certain trade groups, and others challenged that disapproval in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit Court). In March 2023, those same parties filed motions to stay the EPA's SIP disapproval in the Fifth Circuit Court, and the EPA moved to transfer our challenges to the D.C. Circuit Court or have those challenges dismissed. In April 2022, prior to the EPA's disapproval of Texas' SIP, the EPA proposed a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the 2015 ozone NAAQS. We, along with many other companies, trade groups, states and ISOs, including ERCOT, PJM and MISO, filed responsive comments to the EPA's proposal in June 2022, expressing concerns about certain elements of the proposal, particularly those that may result in challenges to electric reliability under certain conditions. In March 2023, the EPA administrator signed its final FIP. The FIP applies to 22 states beginning with the 2023 ozone seasons. States where Vistra operates generation units that would be subject to this rule are Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. Texas would be moved into the revised (and more restrictive) Group 3 trading program previously established in the Revised CSAPR Update Rule that includes emission budgets for 2023 that the EPA says are achievable through existing controls installed at power plants. Allowances will be limited under the program and will be further reduced beginning in ozone season 2026 to a level that is intended to reduce operating time of coal-fueled power plants during ozone season or force coal plants to retire, particularly those that do not have selective catalytic reduction systems such as our Martin Lake power plant. In May 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court granted our motion to stay the EPA's disapproval of Texas' SIP pending a decision on the merits and denied the EPA's motion to transfer our challenge to the D.C. Circuit Court. As a result of the stay, we do not believe the EPA has authority to implement the FIP as to Texas sources pending the resolution of the merits, meaning that Texas will remain in Group 2 and not be subject to any requirements under the FIP at least until the Fifth Circuit Court rules on the merits. Oral argument was heard in December 2023 before the Fifth Circuit Court. In June 2023, the EPA published the final FIP in the Federal Register, which included requirements as to Texas despite the stay of the SIP disapproval by the Fifth Circuit Court. In June 2023, the State of Texas, Luminant and various other parties also filed challenges to the FIP in the Fifth Circuit Court, filed a motion to stay the FIP and confirm venue for this dispute in the Fifth Circuit Court. After the motion to stay and to confirm venue was filed, the EPA signed an interim final rule on June 29, 2023 that confirms the FIP as to Texas is stayed. In July 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled that the FIP challenge would be held in abeyance pending the resolution of the litigation on the SIP disapproval and denied the motion to stay as not needed given the EPA's administrative stay. Regional Haze — Reasonable Progress and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for Texas In October 2017, the EPA issued a final rule addressing BART for Texas electricity generation units, with the rule serving as a partial approval of Texas' 2009 SIP and a partial FIP. For SO 2, the rule established an intrastate Texas emission allowance trading program as a "BART alternative" that operates in a similar fashion to a CSAPR trading program. The program includes 39 generation units (including the Martin Lake, Big Brown, Monticello, Sandow 4, Coleto Creek, Stryker 2 and Graham 2 plants). The compliance obligations in the program started on January 1, 2019. For NO X, the rule adopted the CSAPR's ozone program as BART and for particulate matter, the rule approved Texas' SIP that determines that no electricity generation units are subject to BART for particulate matter. In August 2020, the EPA issued a final rule affirming the prior BART final rule but also included additional revisions that were proposed in November 2019. Challenges to both the 2017 rule and the 2020 rules have been consolidated in the D.C. Circuit Court, where we have intervened in support of the EPA. We are in compliance with the rule, and the retirements of our Monticello, Big Brown and Sandow 4 plants have enhanced our ability to comply. The EPA is in the process of reconsidering the BART rule, and the challenges in the D.C. Circuit Court have been held in abeyance pending the EPA's final action on reconsideration. In May 2023, a proposed BART rule was published in the Federal Register that would withdraw the trading program provisions of the prior rule and would establish SO 2 limits on six facilities in Texas, including Martin Lake and Coleto Creek. Under the current proposal, compliance would be required within 3 years for Martin Lake and 5 years for Coleto Creek. Due to the announced shutdown for Coleto Creek, we do not anticipate any impacts at that facility, and we are evaluating potential compliance options at Martin Lake should this proposal become final. We submitted comments to the EPA on this proposal in August 2023. SO 2 Designations for Texas In November 2016, the EPA finalized its nonattainment designations for counties surrounding our Martin Lake generation plant and our now retired Big Brown and Monticello plants. The final designations require Texas to develop nonattainment plans for these areas. In February 2017, the State of Texas and Luminant filed challenges to the nonattainment designations in the Fifth Circuit Court. In August 2019, the EPA issued a proposed Error Correction Rule for all three areas, which, if finalized, would have revised its previous nonattainment designations and each area at issue would be designated unclassifiable. In May 2021, the EPA finalized a "Clean Data" determination for the areas surrounding the retired Big Brown and Monticello plants, redesignating those areas as attainment based on monitoring data supporting an attainment designation. In June 2021, the EPA published two notices; one that it was withdrawing the August 2019 Error Correction Rule and a second separate notice denying petitions from Luminant and the State of Texas to reconsider the original nonattainment designations. We, along with the State of Texas, challenged that EPA action and have consolidated it with the pending challenge in the Fifth Circuit Court, and this case was argued before the Fifth Circuit Court in July 2022. In September 2021, the TCEQ considered a proposal for its nonattainment SIP revision for the Martin Lake area and an agreed order to reduce SO 2 emissions from the plant. The proposed agreed order associated with the SIP proposal reduces emission limits as of January 2022. Emission reductions required are those necessary to demonstrate attainment with the NAAQS. The TCEQ's SIP action was finalized in February 2022 and has been submitted to the EPA for review and approval. In January 2024, in a split decision, the Fifth Circuit Court denied the petitions for review we and the State of Texas filed over the EPA's 2016 nonattainment designation for SO 2 for the area around Martin Lake. As a result of this decision, the EPA's nonattainment designation – originally made in 2016 – remains in place. We anticipate the EPA will likely move forward with either proposing a federal plan for the area in light of an approved consent decree between the Sierra Club and the EPA that requires the EPA taking final action promulgating a FIP for the nonattainment area by December 13, 2024 or the EPA may approve Texas' SIP submittal discussed above. In February 2024, we filed a petition asking the full Fifth Circuit Court to review the panel decision issued in January 2024. Particulate Matte r In February 2024, the EPA issued a rule addressing the annual health-based national ambient air quality standards for fine particulate matter (or PM2.5). In general, the rule lowers the level of the annual PM2.5 standard from 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 9.0 µg/m3. The effective date of the rule is 60 days from publication in the Federal Register, and the earliest attainment date for areas exceeding the new standard is 2032. At this time, we are still determining what impact, if any, this rule will have on our existing plants or any plants we may build in the future. Based on 2020-2022 design value associated with the rule, we have just five plants (Oakland (California), Calumet (Illinois), Liberty (Pennsylvania), Miami Fort (Ohio) and Lake Hubbard (Texas)) operating in areas where the air quality monitoring data are currently exceeding the new PM2.5 standard. We have previously announced that our Miami Fort generation facility will close by the end of 2027. States will have to develop a plan (by late 2027 at the earliest) to get those areas into attainment and there would be a possibility that additional controls would be required for those sites. However, before the state begins this planning process, the designation process will occur within two years from the issuance of the final rule. The states develop recommendations about the boundaries of the nonattainment counties and the EPA must finalize the designations including the boundaries of each nonattainment area. Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs) In November 2015, the EPA revised the ELGs for steam electricity generation facilities, which will impose more stringent standards (as individual permits are renewed) for wastewater streams, such as flue gas desulfurization (FGD), fly ash, bottom ash and flue gas mercury control wastewaters. Various parties filed petitions for review of the ELG rule, and the petitions were consolidated in the Fifth Circuit Court. In April 2017, the EPA granted petitions requesting reconsideration of the ELG rule and administratively stayed the rule's compliance date deadlines. In April 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court vacated and remanded portions of the EPA's ELG rule pertaining to effluent limitations for legacy wastewater and leachate. The EPA published a final rule in October 2020 that extends the compliance date for both FGD and bottom ash transport water to no later than December 2025, as negotiated with the state permitting agency. Additionally, the final rule allows for a retirement exemption that exempts facilities certifying that units will retire by December 2028 provided certain effluent limitations are met. In November 2020, environmental groups petitioned for review of the new ELG revisions, and Vistra subsidiaries filed a motion to intervene in support of the EPA in December 2020. Notifications were made to Texas, Illinois and Ohio state agencies on the retirement exemption for applicable coal plants by the regulatory deadline of October 13, 2021. In March 2023, the EPA published its proposed supplemental ELG rule, which retains the retirement exemption from the 2020 ELG rule and sets new limits for plants that are continuing to operate. The proposed rule also establishes pretreatment standards for combustion residual leachate, and we are currently evaluating the impact of those proposed requirements. We submitted comments on the proposal in May 2023. Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR)/Groundwater In August 2018, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a decision that vacates and remands certain provisions of the 2015 CCR rule, including an applicability exemption for legacy impoundments. In August 2020, the EPA issued a final rule establishing a deadline of April 11, 2021 to cease receipt of waste and initiate closure at unlined CCR impoundments. The final rule allows a generation plant to seek the EPA's approval to extend this deadline if no alternative disposal capacity is available and either a conversion to comply with the CCR rule is underway or retirement will occur by either 2023 or 2028 (depending on the size of the impoundment at issue). Prior to the November 2020 deadline, we submitted applications to the EPA requesting compliance extensions under both conversion and retirement scenarios. In 2022 and 2023, we withdrew the applications for Coffeen, Martin Lake, Joppa and Zimmer stations because extensions were no longer needed. In November 2020, environmental groups petitioned for review of this rule in the D.C. Circuit Court, and Vistra subsidiaries filed a motion to intervene in support of the EPA in December 2020. Also, in November 2020, the EPA finalized a rule that would allow an alternative liner demonstration for certain qualifying facilities. In November 2020, we submitted an application for an alternate liner demonstration for one CCR unit at Martin Lake, however, we withdrew the application for an alternate liner demonstration in November 2023 after determining the pond was no longer needed for CCR. In August 2021, we submitted a request to transfer our conversion application for the Zimmer facility to a retirement application following the announcement that Zimmer will close by May 31, 2022. In January 2022, the EPA determined that our conversion and retirement applications for our CCR facilities were complete but has not yet proposed action on any of those applications. In addition, in January 2022, the EPA also made a series of public statements, including in a press release, that purported to impose new, more onerous closure requirements for CCR units. The EPA issued these new purported requirements without prior notice and without following the legal requirements for adopting new rules. These new purported requirements announced by the EPA are contrary to existing regulations and the EPA's prior positions. In April 2022, we, along with the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), a trade association of over 130 utility operating companies, energy companies, and certain other industry associations, filed petitions for review with the D.C. Circuit Court and have asked the court to determine that the EPA cannot implement or enforce the new purported requirements because the EPA has not followed the required procedures. The State of Texas and the TCEQ have intervened in support of the petitions filed by the Vistra subsidiaries and USWAG, and various environmental groups have intervened on behalf of the EPA. Briefing before the D.C. Circuit Court is complete and the court will hear argument in March 2024. In May 2023, the EPA issued another proposal that further revises the federal CCR rule that would expand coverage of groundwater monitoring and closure requirements to the following two new categories of units: (a) legacy units which are CCR impoundments at inactive sites that ceased receiving waste before October 19, 2015 and (b) so-called "CCR management units" which generally could encompass areas of CCR located at a facility that is currently regulated by the existing CCR rule. CCR Management Units, as defined by the EPA in the proposal, could include any ash deposits, haul roads, and previously closed impoundments and landfills. As part of the proposed rule, the EPA identified 134 CCR management units at 82 different facilities across the country, including six of our potential units. The Vermilion ash ponds discussed below are the only unit which we believe qualify as a legacy CCR surface impoundment and given our closure plan for that site we do not believe this proposal, if finalized, will have any impact on that site. We are continuing to evaluate what would be required of the CCR management units identified in the proposal should the proposal become final in its current form. We submitted comments in July 2023. MISO — In 2012, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) issued violation notices alleging violations of groundwater standards onsite at our Baldwin and Vermilion facilities' CCR surface impoundments. These violation notices remain unresolved; however, in 2016, the IEPA approved our closure and post-closure care plans for the Baldwin old east, east, and west fly ash CCR surface impoundments. We have completed closure activities at those ponds at our Baldwin facility. At our retired Vermilion facility, which was not potentially subject to the EPA's 2015 CCR rule until the aforementioned D.C. Circuit Court decision in August 2018, we submitted proposed corrective action plans involving closure of two CCR surface impoundments (i.e., the old east and the north impoundments) to the IEPA in 2012, and we submitted revised plans in 2014. In May 2017, in response to a request from the IEPA for additional information regarding the closure of these Vermilion surface impoundments, we agreed to perform additional groundwater sampling and closure options and riverbank stabilizing options. In May 2018, Prairie Rivers Network (PRN) filed a citizen suit in federal court in Illinois against Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC (DMG), alleging violations of the Clean Water Act for alleged unauthorized discharges. In August 2018, we filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In November 2018, the district court granted our motion to dismiss and judgment was entered in our favor. In June 2021, the Seventh Circuit Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the lawsuit. In April 2019, PRN also filed a complaint against DMG before the IPCB, alleging that groundwater flows allegedly associated with the ash impoundments at the Vermilion site have resulted in exceedances both of surface water standards and Illinois groundwater standards dating back to 1992. We answered that complaint in July 2021. In July 2023, PRN filed an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss the case with prejudice, which the IPCB granted in August 2023 and closed the case. In 2012, the IEPA issued violation notices alleging violations of groundwater standards at the Newton and Coffeen facilities' CCR surface impoundments. We are addressing these CCR surface impoundments in accordance with the federal CCR rule. In June 2018, the IEPA issued a violation notice for alleged seep discharges claimed to be coming from the surface impoundments at our retired Vermilion facility, which is owned by our subsidiary DMG, and that notice was referred to the Illinois Attorney General. In June 2021, the Illinois Attorney General and the Vermilion County State Attorney filed a complaint in Illinois state court with an agreed interim consent order which the court subsequently entered. Given the violation notices and the enforcement action, the unique characteristics of the site, and the proximity of the site to the only national scenic river in Illinois, we agreed to enter into the interim consent order to resolve this matter. Per the terms of the agreed interim consent order, DMG is required to evaluate the closure alternatives under the requirements of the newly implemented Illinois Coal Ash regulation (discussed below) and close the site by removal. In addition, the interim consent order requires that during the impoundment closure process, impacted groundwater will be collected before it leaves the site or enters the nearby Vermilion river and, if necessary, DMG will be required to install temporary riverbank protection if the river migrates within a certain distance of the impoundments. The interim order was modified in December 2022 to require certain amendments to the Safety Emergency Response Plan. In June 2023, the Illinois state court approved and entered the final consent order, which included the terms above and a requirement that when IEPA issues a final closure permit for the site, DMG will demolish the power station and submit for approval to construct an on-site landfill within the footprint of the former plant to store and manage the coal ash. These proposed closure costs are reflected in the ARO in our consolidated balance sheets (see Note 22). In July 2019, coal ash disposal and storage legislation in Illinois was enacted. The legislation addresses state requirements for the proper closure of coal ash ponds in the state of Illinois. The law tasks the IEPA and the IPCB to set up a series of guidelines, rules and permit requirements for closure of ash ponds. Under the final rule, which was finalized and became effective in April 2021, coal ash impoundment owners would be required to submit a closure alternative analysis to the IEPA for the selection of the best method for coal ash remediation at a particular site. The rule does not mandate closure by removal at any site. In May 2021, we filed an appeal in the Illinois Fourth Judicial District over certain provisions of the final rule and that case remains pending. Other parties have also filed appeals of certain provisions of the final rule. In October 2021, we filed operating permit applications for 18 impoundments as required by the Illinois coal ash rule, and filed construction permit applications for three of our sites in January 2022 and five of our sites in July 2022. One additional closure construction application was filed for our Baldwin facility in August 2023. For all of the above matters, if certain corrective action measures, including groundwater treatment or removal of ash, are required at any of our coal-fueled facilities, we may incur significant costs that could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. The Illinois coal ash rule was finalized in April 2021 and does not require removal. However, the rule required us to undertake further site specific evaluations required by each program. We will not know the full range of decommissioning costs, including groundwater remediation, if any, that ultimately may be required under the Illinois rule until permit applications have been approved by the IEPA. However, the CCR surface impoundment and landfill closure costs currently reflected in our existing ARO liabilities reflect the costs of closure methods that our operations and environmental services teams believe are appropriate based on existing closure requirements and protective of the environment for each location. Once the IEPA acts on our permit applications, we will reassess the decommissioning costs and adjust our ARO liabilities accordingly. MISO 2015-2016 Planning Resource Auction In May 2015, three complaints were filed at the FERC regarding the Zone 4 results for the 2015-2016 planning resource auction (PRA) conducted by MISO. Dynegy is a named party in one of the complaints. The complainants, Public Citizen, Inc., the Illinois Attorney General and Southwestern Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Complainants), challenged the results of the PRA as unjust and unreasonable, requested rate relief/refunds, and requested changes to the MISO planning resource auction structure going forward. Complainants also alleged that Dynegy may have engaged in economic or physical withholding in Zone 4 constituting market manipulation in the PRA. The Independent Market Monitor for MISO (MISO IMM), which was responsible for monitoring the PRA, determined that all offers were competitive and that no physical or economic withholding occurred. The MISO IMM also stated, in a filing responding to the complaints, that there is no basis for the remedies sought by the Complainants. We filed our answer to these complaints explaining that we complied fully with the terms of the MISO tariff in connection with the PRA and disputing the allegations. The Illinois Industrial Energy Consumers filed a related complaint at the FERC against MISO in June 2015 requesting prospective changes to the MISO tariff. Dynegy also responded to this complaint with respect to Dynegy's conduct alleged in the complaint. In October 2015, the FERC issued an order of nonpublic, formal investigation (the investigation) into whether market manipulation or other potential violations of the FERC orders, rules and regulations occurred before or during the PRA. In December 2015, the FERC issued an order on the complaints requiring a number of prospective changes to the MISO tariff provisions effective as of the 2016-2017 planning resource auction. The order did not address the arguments of the Complainants regarding the PRA and stated that those issues remained under consideration and would be addressed in a future order. In July 2019, the FERC issued an order denying the remaining issues raised by the complaints and noted that the investigation into Dynegy was closed. The FERC found that Dynegy's conduct did not constitute market manipulation and the results of the PRA were just and reasonable because the PRA was conducted in accordance with MISO's tariff. A request for rehearing was denied by the FERC in March 2020. The order was appealed by Public Citizen, Inc. to the D.C. Circuit Court in May 2020, and Vistra, Dynegy and Illinois Power Marketing Company intervened in the case in June 2020. In August 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a ruling denying Public Citizen, Inc.'s arguments that the FERC failed to meet its obligation to ensure just and reasonable rates because it did not review the prices resulting from the auction before those prices went into effect and that the FERC was arbitrary and capricious in failing to adequately explain its decision to close its investigation into whether Dynegy engaged in market manipulation. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted Public Citizen, Inc.'s petition in part finding that the FERC's decision that the auction results were just and reasonable solely because the auction process complied with the filed tariff was unreasoned and remanded the case back to the FERC for further proceedings on that issue. On February 4, 2022 the Illinois Attorney General and Public Citizen, Inc. filed a motion at the FERC requesting that the FERC on remand reverse its prior decision and either find that auction results were not just and reasonable and order Dynegy to pay refunds to Illinois or, in the alternative, initiate an evidentiary hearing and discovery. We filed a response to this motion and will continue to vigorously defend our position. In June 2022, the FERC issued an order on remand establishing paper hearing procedures and directing the Office of Enforcement to file a remand report within 90 days providing the Office of Enforcement's assessment of Dynegy's actions with regard to the 2015-2016 planning resource auction. Although the FERC directed the Office of Enforcement to file a remand report, the FERC stated in the June 2022 order that it is not reopening the Office of Enforcement investigation. In September 2022, the Office of Enforcement filed its remand report stating that the Office of Enforcement staff found during its investigation that Dynegy knowingly engaged in manipulative behavior to set the Zone 4 price in the 2015-2016 PRA. In June 2023, the Company filed its initial brief and response to the remand report, and in August 2023 the Company filed a reply to the initial briefs from other parties. We will continue to vigorously defend our position. Other Matters We are involved in various legal and administrative proceedings and other disputes in the normal course of business, the ultimate resolutions of which, in the opinion of management, are not anticipated to have a material effect on our results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. Labor Contracts We employ certain personnel who are represented by labor unions, the terms of whose employment are governed by collective bargaining agreements. The terms of all current collective bargaining agreements covering represented personnel engaged in lignite mining operations, lignite-, coal-, natural gas- and nuclear-fueled generation operations, as well as some battery operations, expire on various dates between March 2024 and March 2028, but remain effective thereafter unless and until terminated by either party. While we cannot predict the outcome of labor contract negotiations, we do not expect any changes in our existing agreements to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. Nuclear Insurance Nuclear insurance includes nuclear liability coverage, property damage, nuclear accident decontamination and accidental premature decommissioning coverage and accidental outage and/or extra expense coverage. We maintain nuclear insurance that meets or exceeds requirements promulgated by Section 170 (Price-Anderson) of the Atomic Energy Act (the Act) and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. We intend to maintain insurance against nuclear risks as long as such insurance is available. We are self-insured to the extent that losses (i) are within the policy deductibles, (ii) are not covered per policy exclusions, terms and limitations, (iii) exceed the amount of insurance maintained, or (iv) are not covered due to lack of insurance availability. Any such self-insured losses could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. With regard to nuclear liability coverage, the Act provides for financial protection for the public in the event of a significant nuclear generation plant incident. The Act sets the statutory limit of public liability for a single nuclear incident at $16.2 billion and requires nuclear generation plant operators to provide financial protection for this amount. However, the U.S. Congress could impose revenue-raising measures on the nuclear industry to pay claims that exceed the $16.2 billion limit for a single incident. As required, we insure against a possible nuclear incident at our Comanche Peak facility resulting in public nuclear-related bodily injury and property damage through a combination of private insurance and an industry-wide retrospective payment plan known as Secondary Financial Protection (SFP). Under the SFP, in the event of any single nuclear liability loss in excess of $450 million at any nuclear generation facility in the U.S., each operating licensed reactor in the U.S. is subject to an assessment of up to $165.9 million. This approximately $165.9 million maximum assessment is subject to increases for inflation every five years, with the next expected adjustment scheduled to occur by November 2028. Assessments are currently limited to $24.7 million per operating licensed reactor per year per incident. As of December 31, 2023, our maximum potential assessment under the industry retrospective plan would be approximately $331.8 million per incident but no more than $49.4 million in any one year for each incident. The potential assessment is triggered by a nuclear liability loss in excess of $450 million per accident at any nuclear facility. Effective January 1, 2024, the potential assessment is triggered by a nuclear liability loss in excess of $500 million per accident at any nuclear facility. The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires that nuclear generation plant license holders maintain at least $1.06 billion of nuclear accident decontamination and reactor damage stabilization insurance, and requires that the proceeds thereof be used to place a plant in a safe and stable condition, to decontaminate a plant pursuant to a plan submitted to, and approved by, the NRC prior to using the proceeds for plant repair or restoration, or to provide for premature decommissioning. We maintain nuclear accident decontamination and reactor damage stabilization insurance for our Comanche Peak facility in the amount of $2.25 billion and non-nuclear accident related property damage in the amount of $1.0 billion (subject to a $5 million deductible per accident except for natural hazards which are subject to a $9.5 million deductible per accident), above which we are self-insured. We also maintain Accidental Outage insurance to help cover the additional costs of obtaining replacement electricity from another source if one or both of the units at our Comanche Peak facility are out of service for more than twelve weeks as a result of covered direct physical damage. Such coverage provides for weekly payments per unit up to $4.5 million for the first 52 weeks and up to $3.6 million for a remaining 26 weeks for non-nuclear and 71 weeks for nuclear property damage outages. The total maximum coverage is $328 million for non-nuclear property damage and $490 million for nuclear property damage outages. The coverage amounts applicable to each unit will be reduced to 80% if both units are out of service at the same time as a result of the same accident.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//450/tableOfContent Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147480327/954-440-50-1 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 5: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration