XML 28 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | 9. Commitments and Contingencies Legal, Regulatory, and Environmental Matters We are regularly subject to various legal, regulatory, and environmental matters in connection with our business. While we believe we have meritorious positions and will continue to vigorously defend our positions in these matters, we may not be successful in our efforts, and we cannot predict the effect of an adverse outcome of any such matter. If an unfavorable outcome is probable and can be reasonably estimated, a liability is recognized. In the event of an unfavorable outcome, the liability may be in excess of amounts currently accrued. Because of the inherently unpredictable nature of legal, regulatory, and environmental matters and the wide range of potential outcomes for any such matter, no estimate of the possible losses in excess of amounts accrued, if any, can be made at this time regarding any matter specifically described below. As a result, additional losses actually incurred in excess of amounts accrued could be substantial. Unless otherwise disclosed below, we are unable to predict the outcome of any matter discussed below or reasonably estimate the amount of any associated costs and (or) potential liabilities. Additionally, it is possible that the outcome of any such matter, including market modifications, could materially impact our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, and (or) liquidity. Legal Matters We are involved in various legal and administrative proceedings, investigations, claims, and litigation from time to time in the course of our business. Such matters may include, but are not limited to, those relating to employment and benefits, commercial disputes, personal injury, property damage, regulatory matters, environmental matters, and various other claims for injuries and (or) damages. While we believe we have meritorious positions and will continue to appropriately respond to all legal matters, because of the inherently unpredictable nature of legal proceedings, there is a wide range of potential outcomes for any such matter. Labor Market Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit Against Nuclear Power Generators. On July 11, 2025, two individuals filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against Human Resources Consultants, LLC, Accelerant Technologies, and 26 nuclear power companies, including Talen, alleging that since at least May 2003 the defendants conspired to fix and suppress employee wages and benefits in violation of federal antitrust law. The proposed class includes a wide range of nuclear power generation workers, such as nuclear operators, engineers, and technicians, who were compensated with hourly wages or annual salaries, as well as benefits and other forms of compensation. The complaint alleges that the nuclear power operators used Accelerant and HR Consultants to facilitate a conspiracy to exchange employee compensation data and held in-person meetings where the power companies aligned on wage schedules, suppressed wages, and fixed compensation. The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, injunctive relief, a declaratory judgment that the defendants’ conduct violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit. Talen believes the alleged claims are without merit and will vigorously defend itself. Brunner Island CCR Litigation. On April 2, 2025, the Center for Biological Diversity (the “CBD”) filed a citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania alleging that the Company and its subsidiary, Brunner Island, LLC, have failed to comply with groundwater monitoring and corrective action requirements at Brunner Island’s Ash Basin 5 and have therefore violated the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) and the EPA CCR Rule. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Talen believes the alleged claims are without merit and that the CBD’s factual and legal conclusions are incorrect. Talen filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on June 2, 2025, which was followed by an amicus brief from the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group in support of Talen’s motion; briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on June 30, 2025. No assurance can be provided as to the outcome of the litigation or its impacts on Talen’s operations. ERCOT Weather Event (Winter Storm Uri) Lawsuits. In connection with the ERCOT Sale, the Company retained certain potential liabilities relating to claims filed from 2021 onward against its former Texas subsidiaries seeking unspecified damages for alleged losses caused by the defendants’ failure to provide sufficient power to the grid during Winter Storm Uri. The claims also allege similar liability against numerous other ERCOT power market participants. In December 2023, five multi-district litigation (“MDL”) bellwether lawsuits, which were selected by the MDL court as representative of all 58 cases filed in the Uri litigation, were dismissed by the MDL court, a ruling subsequently upheld by the Texas First Court of Appeals. In January and February 2025, the plaintiffs (in two groups) filed for relief in the Texas Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the lower courts. In July 2025, the Texas Supreme Court ordered merits briefing by the parties. If the Court of Appeals decision is affirmed by the Texas Supreme Court, Talen expects the dismissal ruling to apply broadly to all Uri cases against Talen’s former subsidiaries. Pursuant to the Plan of Reorganization, Talen’s maximum potential damages on prepetition Uri claims are expressly limited to payments from Talen’s insurers. However, claims filed after Talen’s restructuring by plaintiffs who did not receive effective notice of the restructuring, if any, may not be subject to the limitations in the Plan of Reorganization. Spent Nuclear Fuel Litigation. Federal law requires the U.S. government to provide for the permanent disposal of commercial spent nuclear fuel (“SNF”), but the government has not yet done so. Until May 2014, the DOE required nuclear generation facility operators to contribute to a fund intended to pay for the transportation and disposal of SNF, and Talen cannot predict if or when the government will reinstate any such fee in the future. In May 2023, an existing settlement agreement between Susquehanna and the U.S. government was extended through the end of 2025. The settlement agreement requires the government to reimburse Susquehanna for certain SNF storage costs through 2025 and requires Susquehanna to waive certain claims against the government relating to temporary SNF storage. In July 2025, the Company reached an agreement with the DOE for a reimbursement of $14 million (reflecting Talen’s 90% share) related to the 2023-2024 period. Regulatory Matters We are subject to regulation by federal and state agencies and other bodies that exercise regulatory authority in the various regions where we conduct business, including but not limited to the FERC; the DOE; the NRC; NERC; the Federal Communications Commission; and state public utility commissions. In addition, the RTOs and ISOs in the regions in which we conduct business inherently have complex rules that are intended to balance the interests of market stakeholders. Proposed market structure modifications may lead to disputes among stakeholders that might not be resolved for a period of time as a result of regulatory and (or) legal proceedings. Accordingly, we are subject to uncertainty with respect to: (i) new or amended regulations issued by regulatory agencies; and (ii) changes in market design, tariff structure, capacity auctions, and (or) pricing rules. PJM Capacity Market Reform. In June 2023, the FERC accepted a request by PJM to delay certain PJM Base Residual Auctions in order for PJM to propose market reforms. PJM filed its market reform proposals with the FERC in October 2023. In early 2024, the FERC accepted portions of PJM’s proposed market changes. PJM held the PJM BRA for the 2025/2026 PJM Capacity Year in July 2024, which incorporated the FERC-accepted changes. The PJM BRAs for the 2026/2027, 2027/2028, and 2028/2029 PJM Capacity Years were previously scheduled for December 2024, June 2025 (later changed to July 2025), and December 2025, respectively; however, in September 2024, the Sierra Club and other organizations filed a complaint at the FERC challenging PJM’s rules establishing must-offer exceptions for PJM BRA participation by RMR resources and seeking to delay the 2026/2027 PJM BRA pending resolution of its complaint. In October 2024, PJM announced it had concerns about the FERC considering the Sierra Club’s complaints about RMR resources in isolation and therefore intended to file a Section 205 proceeding under the Federal Power Act seeking the FERC’s approval of to-be-determined market reforms, including but not limited to potential revisions to the treatment of RMR resources. As a result, in October 2024, PJM formally requested that the FERC approve six-month delays in the PJM BRAs for the 2026/2027, 2027/2028, 2028/2029, and 2029/2030 PJM Capacity Years and in November 2024, the FERC approved the auction delays. The 2026/2027 PJM BRA was held in July 2025. Talen can provide no assurance that the remaining three scheduled auctions will be held as scheduled or at all. A series of filings aimed at reforming the PJM capacity market were filed at the FERC. In November 2024, the Joint Consumer Advocates, comprised of consumer advocacy groups and government entities from Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, and the District of Columbia filed a complaint against PJM asking the FERC to find that PJM’s existing capacity market rules are unjust and unreasonable and to issue an order requiring certain short-term and longer-term changes to PJM’s capacity market rules. In response, PJM made two FERC filings in December 2024 to address what they perceive as capacity market design issues (the “PJM Capacity Market 205 Proceeding”). PJM proposed to retain the dual fuel combustion turbine as the reference resource and to implement a uniform non-performance charge throughout the RTO for the 2026/2027 and 2027/2028 delivery years, and to administratively include RMR units that meet certain criteria as price takers in the capacity auctions for the next two delivery years and will not assess penalties or pay bonuses to these RMR units. PJM’s filing also clarifies that being excused from being required to offer into the capacity market is no defense to exercising market power by electing not to offer. Further, PJM proposed to make changes to the capacity market mitigation rules. This proposal will eliminate the must-offer exception for intermittent and limited duration resources that are eligible to participate in the capacity market and will allow market sellers to incorporate a risk component in their capacity market offers. In February 2025, the FERC accepted PJM’s proposals in the PJM Capacity Market 205 Proceeding and as a result, the changes to the PJM BRA parameters described above as part of that proceeding will be adopted for the 2026/2027 and 2027/2028 PJM Capacity Years. In December 2024, the Pennsylvania Governor filed a complaint against PJM at the FERC to address alleged elevated costs to consumers from the PJM capacity market in the 2026/2027 and 2027/2028 delivery years and proposed, among other things, a lower capacity price cap. As a result of a subsequent agreement between the State of Pennsylvania and PJM that resolved the Governor’s complaint, the Governor withdrew the complaint in February 2025. In April 2025, the FERC accepted PJM’s proposals reflecting its agreement with the State of Pennsylvania. As a result, the PJM BRA imposed a price collar with an approximate minimum and maximum price of $175/MWd and $325/MWd, respectively, which was effective for the 2026/2027 PJM BRA and will also be effective for the 2027/2028 PJM BRA. The 2026/2027 PJM BRA was held in July 2025. See Note 3 for additional information on the results. In February 2025, the FERC initiated a technical conference docket to consider broad resource adequacy issues across all RTOs, with the initial proceedings taking place in June 2025. The Company has intervened in the new technical conference docket and is closely monitoring those proceedings. Environmental Matters Extensive federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations are applicable to our business, including those related to air emissions, water discharges, and hazardous substances and solid waste management. From time to time, in the ordinary course of our business, Talen may be: (i) subject to environmental remediation work at its facilities; (ii) involved in other environmental matters; or (iii) become subject to other, new or revised environmental statutes, regulations, or requirements. It may be necessary for us to modify, curtail, replace, or cease operation of certain facilities or performance of certain operations to comply with statutes, regulations, and other requirements imposed by regulatory bodies, courts, or environmental groups. We may incur significant costs to comply with these requirements, including increased capital expenditures or operation and maintenance expenses, monetary fines, remediation costs, penalties, or other restrictions. Legal challenges to environmental rules or permits add to the uncertainty of estimating future compliance costs. In addition, in January 2025, President Trump issued executive orders directing the heads of all federal agencies to identify and begin the processes to suspend, revise, or rescind all agency actions, including existing regulations, that are unduly burdensome on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources. Consequently, in March 2025, the EPA announced that it will reconsider and potentially roll back 31 regulations and policies, many of which directly impact Talen, and various executive actions were taken in April 2025 to further encourage deregulation. Certain executive orders have subsequently been challenged by states and individual plaintiffs. Future provisions, implementation, and enforcement of these executive actions and the environmental rules has continued to be uncertain. Further, costs may increase significantly if the requirements or scope of environmental laws or regulations, or similar rules, are expanded or changed in other ways. EPA CSAPR and Nitrogen Oxides (“NOx”) Requirements. Coal-fired generation facilities, including those in which Talen has ownership, have been the subject of EPA regulations and efforts by certain states and other parties to strengthen applicable NOx emission limits under the Clean Air Act. In 2015, the EPA revised the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ground-level ozone to 70 parts per billion (the “EPA 2015 Ozone Standard”). This action triggered updates to state-specific compliance requirements as well as provisions that are intended to limit cross-state emissions. In June 2023, the EPA published a rule in connection with the EPA 2015 Ozone Standard updating the EPA CSAPR ozone season NOx allowance trading program for 2023 and beyond (the “Good Neighbor Plan”). Talen’s facilities in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey were subject to the new rule; however, the entire rule was challenged by multiple parties, and subsequently the Good Neighbor Plan was stayed in its entirety by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2024 pending a complete review of the rule by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In November 2024, the EPA issued an interim final rule indicating it plans to provide NOx allocations and budgets from the previously applicable and less restrictive Revised CSAPR Update Rule until the Good Neighbor Plan matter is resolved. After initially denying the EPA’s request in February 2025, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on April 14, 2025, granted the EPA’s motion requesting the Good Neighbor Plan litigation be held in abeyance pending the EPA’s review of the stayed rule and further orders by the court. As a result, future implementation and enforcement of the Good Neighbor Plan remains has continued to be uncertain. EPA MATS Rule. In May 2024, the EPA published a rule that requires coal-fired generation facilities to reduce particulate matter emissions by the middle of 2027 (or 2028, if an extension is approved). If the rule remains in effect, Colstrip is not expected to meet the new particulate matter standard without substantial upgrades to its control equipment. As a result, Talen Montana and the other Colstrip co-owners face the decision either to invest in new cost-prohibitive control equipment or retire the Colstrip facility. Such a decision must be evaluated in conjunction with compliance requirements under the May 2024 EPA GHG Rule due to timing and costs. Challenges to the EPA MATS Rule have been filed in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, including by Talen and 23 states. After motions to stay the EPA MATS Rule during the pendency of the litigation were denied by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Talen and other parties filed emergency stay request applications with the U.S. Supreme Court in September 2024, which were denied in October 2024. The appeal on the merits of the 2024 rule remains pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The litigation has been held in abeyance since February 2025, while the EPA reconsiders the rule. No assurance can be provided as to when the challenges to the EPA MATS Rule will be resolved or whether such challenges will be resolved in the Company’s favor. In March 2025, the EPA formally announced that it was reconsidering the 2024 EPA MATS Rule as part of its deregulation agenda. Concurrently, the Trump administration announced it was considering a two-year exemption from compliance obligations via Section 112(i)(4) of the Clean Air Act for affected power plants while the EPA reconsiders the rule. Talen applied for the exemption and received official notification that the request had been granted on April 14, 2025. This authorization affords more time for the Colstrip owners to consider the operational future of Colstrip. On June 11, 2025, the EPA proposed a rule to repeal certain 2024 amendments to the EPA MATS Rule and revert to standards promulgated in the 2012 EPA MATS Rule. The EPA is accepting public comments on its proposal until August 11, 2025. The day after the EPA announced its reconsideration rule, multiple environmental groups filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for D.C. challenging the presidential exemptions issued to Colstrip and other fossil fuel-fired power plants. The Company could be forced to make operating decisions about the future of Colstrip before clarity is obtained on the reconsideration rule and (or) litigation. EPA GHG Rule. In May 2024, the EPA published a rule that establishes carbon dioxide limits for new electric generating units (“EGUs”) and GHG guidelines for certain existing EGUs. Under the guidelines, if existing coal-fired EGUs operate beyond 2031, GHG reductions, such as those achieved by the addition of carbon capture and sequestration (“CCS”), are required to be implemented by the end of 2031. Colstrip is not expected to meet the new rules without substantial technology upgrades and pipeline infrastructure build-out. As a result, Talen Montana and the other Colstrip co-owners face the decision either to invest in new cost-prohibitive controls (e.g., CCS technology) or retire the Colstrip facility by the end of 2031. Such a decision must be evaluated in conjunction with compliance requirements under the May 2024 EPA MATS Rule. Petitions have been filed in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, including by coalitions representing 27 states and an ad hoc coalition of power producers of which Talen is a member, requesting a review of the EPA GHG Rule. Stay motions were denied by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in July 2024 and the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2024. Appeals of the EPA GHG Rule remain pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has held the litigation in abeyance since February 2025 to allow the EPA to reconsider the rule. No assurance can be provided as to when the challenges to the EPA GHG Rule will be resolved or whether such challenges will be resolved in the Company’s favor. On June 11, 2025, the EPA released a proposed rule to repeal all GHG emission standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants. As an alternative, the EPA is proposing a narrow repeal of GHG standards, which would eliminate all emissions guidelines and standards for existing power plants and the Phase 2 GHG emissions standards that would apply to new combustion turbines beginning in 2032. Under the alternative proposal, Phase 1 GHG emissions standards applicable to new and reconstructed baseload fossil fuel-fired stationary combustion turbines would be retained. The EPA is accepting public comments on its proposal until August 7, 2025. The EPA has also in the past stated its intent to develop GHG regulations for existing natural gas combustion turbines; however, no rule has been proposed and no recent statements have been made. Operating decisions about the future of Colstrip are highly dependent on the fate of the EPA GHG Rule as well as the EPA MATS Rule. Given the legal and regulatory uncertainties with both rules, it is possible the Company will be required to make decisions about Colstrip’s future before it has clarity about the outcome of litigation and (or) the EPA’s regulations. GHG Endangerment Finding. In July 2025, the EPA also issued a proposal to repeal its 2009 finding that greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) endanger public health and welfare. The EPA made the 2009 endangerment finding in order to promulgate GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The EPA has subsequently relied on its 2009 endangerment finding as a basis to regulate other sources of GHGs, including power plants. If finalized, the EPA’s proposal would repeal all GHG emission standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles and engines. The proposed rule does not explicitly state how a repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding would impact its authority to regulate GHG emissions from stationary sources. However, the EPA states that the endangerment finding has been broadly used to justify regulation of stationary sources in a manner inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. The EPA also notes that it is currently reconsidering its authority to regulate GHGs from other sources, including stationary sources, in separate rulemakings. The EPA will accept public comment on its proposal for 45 days once it is published in the Federal Register. No assurance can be provided as to whether the rule will be finalized and whether a final rule will survive judicial challenge. Pennsylvania RGGI. In October 2019, the then-Governor of Pennsylvania signed an executive order directing the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (the “PADEP”) to draft regulations establishing a cap-and-trade program with the intent of enabling Pennsylvania to join the RGGI, a multi-state regional cap-and-trade program comprised of several Eastern U.S. states. In April 2022, Pennsylvania entered the RGGI program, with compliance set to begin on July 1, 2022. However, in November 2023, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ruled RGGI was an invalid tax and voided the rulemaking. The PADEP appealed this decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and filed notice with the court that the RGGI program would not be implemented while the appeal is pending. In July 2024, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court permitted certain non-profit environmental groups to intervene in the case. Oral argument in the case took place in May 2025. The litigation is ongoing. EPA ELG Rule. In November 2015, the EPA revised the effluent limitation guidelines for certain power generation facilities, which imposed more stringent standards for wastewater streams as facility discharge permits are renewed. In 2020, the EPA issued changes that would exempt coal generation facility operators from meeting certain wastewater standards if the facility would commit to cease coal-fired generation by the end of 2028, which Talen elected for its wholly owned coal operations. In May 2024, the EPA published revisions to the EPA ELG Rule, which imposed additional requirements for legacy wastewater and combustion residual leachate. These revisions impact Talen’s active generation facilities that have both CCR units and hold National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) discharge permits. These sites include Brandon Shores, Brunner Island, Montour, and potentially Martins Creek. Talen is evaluating what: (i) potential discharge limits may apply; (ii) treatment may be required; and (iii) the implementation timeline may be. Obligations for installing any new wastewater treatment equipment, if necessary, will not be known until each applicable state where the active generation facilities operate makes its own determination with respect to NPDES permit renewals with new limits and associated timing. As a result of the future permit conditions, additional capital expenditures and (or) AROs may be required, which may have a material impact on Talen’s operations and (or) financial condition. Multiple challenges, including stay requests, to the EPA ELG Rule have been filed in various U.S. Courts of Appeal by parties that include 15 states, environmental groups, and industry groups, including the Utility Water Act Group, of which Talen is a member. The appeals have been consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which denied requests to stay the rule in October 2024. At the EPA’s request, the Eighth Circuit has held the consolidated challenges in abeyance since February 2025 to allow the EPA to reconsider the rule. In March 2025, the EPA announced that it will revise the EPA ELG Rule as part of its deregulation agenda while considering immediate relief from some of the existing leachate requirements. In June 2025, the EPA announced that it will issue a proposal in the summer of 2025 to revise the ELGs for coal-fired power plants. The EPA stated its proposed rule would extend compliance deadlines under the 2024 EPA ELG Rule and seek information to potentially inform further rulemaking. No assurance can be provided as to what changes will come from the EPA’s regulatory reconsideration of the rule, when the challenges to the EPA ELG Rule merits will be resolved, or whether such changes and challenges will be resolved in the Company’s favor. EPA CCR Rule. In April 2015, the EPA established regulations under the RCRA to identify CCRs as nonhazardous solid waste and provided CCR management and siting requirements. The 2015 rule was modified in 2020 after a 2018 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling found that, among other things, the EPA did not adequately regulate unlined impoundments. In its 2020 rulemaking, the EPA specified procedures for owners to extend the operating timeline of certain unlined impoundments. Talen submitted an extension request under this process for an unlined impoundment at Montour, which was withdrawn in December 2024, following the end of basin operations and the initiation of basin closure. The 2018 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling also found that the EPA did not properly address legacy surface impoundments in the 2015 CCR rule. As a result of the finding, in May 2024, the EPA finalized additional federal CCR regulations effective in November 2024 (the “Legacy CCR Rule”), which provided new requirements for legacy CCR surface impoundments and new requirements for other CCR disposal and management areas at active power plants (“CCR Management Units” or “CCRMUs”). This rule has been challenged in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by multiple parties, including two industry groups of which Talen is a member. In December 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a requested stay of the Legacy CCR Rule. At the EPA’s request, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has held the case in abeyance since February 2025 to allow the EPA to reconsider the rule. Additionally, the EPA is being challenged by other industry parties on new regulatory interpretations that could be consequential to CCR unit closure practices and costs. In March 2025, the EPA announced that it will prioritize the coal ash program by expediting state permit reviews and complete a rule change within a year. In July 2025, the EPA issued a direct final rule and companion proposal extending compliance deadlines for elements of the Legacy CCR Rule. The rule will take effect six months after being published in the Federal Register unless the EPA receives adverse comments on the rule. If adverse comments are received, the EPA will proceed with a traditional notice-and-comment rulemaking. No assurance can be provided as to when and how the regulations will change, when the legal challenges to the Legacy CCR Rule and the EPA’s interpretations will be resolved, or whether such challenges will be decided in the Company’s favor. Talen continues to review the new Legacy CCR Rule provisions that went into effect in 2024, perform the required applicability assessments, and await additional information and guidance from the EPA concerning the rule’s requirements. Pursuant to the regulations, initial facility evaluation reports to identify CCR areas which may become regulated and subject to the rule’s requirements are due in February 2026. Following that, site investigation may be required to further investigate applicability, and a subsequent facility report is due in February 2027. The Company has initiated reviews under the facility evaluation report requirements at locations with ash impoundments that have long since ceased coal operations as well as at locations with current coal operations. No assurance can be provided as to whether any specific ash impoundments owned by the Company may or may not be within scope of the updated Legacy CCR Rule until the Company completes its assessments within the regulatory timeframe. As of June 30, 2025, the Company has recognized cost estimates in complying with the Legacy CCR Rule’s initial compliance requirements and deadlines, including the initial groundwater monitoring requirements. The Company does not yet have sufficient information available to estimate costs for the future compliance obligations under the rule. As the Company continues its applicability evaluations and site assessments to determine the scope of work on its properties imposed by the new rule, additional new AROs and (or) revisions could be required. It is expected estimates will be available, under the timeline provided for by the regulations, as described above, at the completion of the initial facility evaluation reports or at the completion of a subsequent site investigation. Such AROs or ARO changes could be material and, as a result, may have a material impact on Talen’s operations and (or) financial condition. In April 2025, a citizen suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania alleging that the Company and its subsidiary, Brunner Island, LLC, are in violation of RCRA and the EPA CCR Rule. See the “Legal Matters” section above for additional information. Certain Resolved Matters See Note 12 to the Annual Financial Statements for certain legal matters previously resolved. Guarantees and Other Assurances In the normal course of business, the Company enters into agreements to provide financial performance assurance to third parties on behalf of certain subsidiaries. These agreements primarily support or enhance the stand-alone creditworthiness attributed to a subsidiary or facilitate the commercial activities in which these subsidiaries engage. Such agreements may include guarantees, stand-by LCs, and (or) surety bonds. Additionally, they may include customary indemnifications to third parties related to asset sales and other transactions. The probability of expected material payment and (or) performance for these assurance agreements is believed to be remote. Surety Bonds. Surety bonds provide financial performance assurance to third parties on behalf of certain Company subsidiaries for obligations including but not limited to environmental obligations and AROs. In the event of nonperformance by the applicable subsidiary, the beneficiary would make a claim to the surety, and the Company would be required to reimburse any payment by the surety. Talen’s liability with respect to any particular surety bond is released once the obligations secured by the surety bond are performed. Surety bond providers generally have the right to request additional collateral or request that such bonds be replaced by alternate surety providers. As of June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the aggregate amount of surety bonds outstanding was $263 million and $234 million, respectively, including surety bonds posted on behalf of Talen Montana as discussed below. Talen Montana Financial Assurance. Pursuant to the Colstrip Administrative Order on Consent (the “Colstrip AOC”), Talen Montana, in its capacity as the Colstrip operator, is obligated to close and remediate coal ash disposal impoundments at Colstrip. The Colstrip AOC specifies an evaluation process between Talen Montana and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (the “MDEQ”) on the scope of remediation and closure activities, requires the MDEQ to approve such scope, and requires financial assurance to be provided to the MDEQ on approved plans. Each of the co-owners of Colstrip has provided its proportionate share of financial assurance to the MDEQ for estimates of coal ash disposal impoundments remediation and closure activities approved by the MDEQ. The aggregate amount of surety bonds posted to the MDEQ on behalf of Talen Montana’s proportionate share of such activities wa s $114 million and $125 million as of June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively. Talen Montana’s surety bond requirements may increase due to scope changes, cost revisions, and (or) other factors when the MDEQ conducts annual reviews of approved remediation and closure plans as required under the Colstrip AOC. The surety bond requirements are expected to decrease as Colstrip’s coal ash impoundments remediation and closure activities are completed. See Note 8 for additional information on Colstrip AROs.

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/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: 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 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: 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/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: 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 6: 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