| Commitments And Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Guarantees We have entered into contracts, including the assumed Dynegy senior notes described above, that contain guarantees to unaffiliated parties that could require performance or payment under certain conditions. As of June 30, 2018 , there are no material outstanding claims related to our guarantee obligations, and we do not anticipate we will be required to make any material payments under these guarantees. Letters of Credit At June 30, 2018 , we had outstanding letters of credit under the Vistra Operations Credit Facilities totaling $1.435 billion as follows: • $1.221 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; • $51 million to support executory contracts and insurance agreements; • $55 million to support our REP financial requirements with the PUCT, and • $108 million for other credit support requirements. Litigation Gas Index Pricing Litigation — We, through our subsidiaries, and other energy companies are named as defendants in several lawsuits 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 cases allege that the defendants engaged in an antitrust conspiracy to inflate natural gas prices in three states (Kansas, Missouri and Wisconsin) during the relevant time period and seek damages under the respective state antitrust statutes. Four of the cases are putative class actions and one case, Reorganized FLI (nka J.P. Morgan Trust Co., National Assn.) v. Oneok Inc., et al ., is an individual action on behalf of Farmland Industries, Inc. (Farmland), with Farmland seeking full consideration damages ( i.e ., the full amount it paid for natural gas purchases during the relevant timeframe). The cases are consolidated in a multi-district litigation proceeding pending in the U. S. District Court for Nevada. In March 2017, the court denied the class plaintiffs' motions to certify class actions in each of the states, which decision now is on an interlocutory appeal to U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit Court); the appeal is fully briefed and was argued in July 2018. As for the Farmland matter, in March 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed a summary judgment in favor of the defendants and it shortly will be remanded for further discovery and other pretrial proceedings. While we cannot predict the outcome of these legal proceedings, or estimate a range of costs, they could have a material impact on our results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. Advatech Dispute — In September 2016, , Illinois Power Generating Company (Genco), terminated its Second Amended and Restated Newton Flue Gas Desulfurization System Engineering, Procurement, Construction and Commissioning Services Contract dated as of December 15, 2014 with Advatech, LLC (Advatech). Advatech issued Genco its final invoice in September 2016 totaling $81 million . Genco contested the invoice in October 2016 and believes the proper amount is less than $1 million . In October 2016, Advatech initiated the dispute resolution process under the contract and filed for arbitration in March 2017. Settlement discussions required under the dispute resolution process have been unsuccessful. The arbitration hearing is scheduled for October 2018. We dispute the allegations and will defend our position vigorously. While we cannot predict the outcome of this legal proceeding, or estimate a range of costs, it could have a material impact on our results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. Wood River Rail Dispute — In November 2017, Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC (DMG) received notification that BNSF Railway Company and Norfolk Southern Railway Company were initiating dispute resolution related to DMG's suspension of its Wood River Rail Transportation Agreement with the railroads. Settlement discussions required under the dispute resolution process have been unsuccessful. In March 2018, BNSF Railway Company and Norfolk Southern Railway Company filed a demand for arbitration. We dispute the railroads' allegations and will defend our position vigorously. While we cannot predict the outcome of this legal proceeding, or estimate a range of costs, it could have a material impact on our results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. Litigation Related to the Merger — In January 2018, a purported Dynegy stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern Division of Texas, Houston Division, alleging that Dynegy, each member of the Dynegy board of directors and Vistra Energy violated federal securities laws by filing a Form S-4 Registration Statement in connection with the Merger that omitted purportedly material information. The lawsuit sought to enjoin the Merger and to have Dynegy and Vistra Energy issue an amended Form S-4 or, alternatively, damages if the Merger closed without an amended Form S-4 having been filed. Two other related lawsuits were also filed but neither of those named Vistra Energy as a respondent. In February 2018, Vistra Energy and Dynegy filed supplemental disclosures to the Registration Statement and the plaintiffs agreed to forego any further effort to enjoin the Merger and dismiss the individual claims with prejudice, and they dismissed without prejudice claims of the putative class following the stockholder vote on March 2, 2018. These cases have been dismissed. Greenhouse Gas Emissions In August 2015, the EPA finalized rules to address greenhouse gas emissions from new, modified and reconstructed and existing electricity generation units, referred to as the Clean Power Plan, including rules for existing facilities that would establish state-specific emissions rate goals to reduce nationwide CO 2 emissions. Various parties (including Luminant) filed petitions for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) and subsequently, in January 2016, a coalition of states, industry (including Luminant) and other parties filed applications with the U.S. Supreme Court (Supreme Court) asking that the Supreme Court stay the rule while the D.C. Circuit Court reviews the legality of the rule for existing plants. In February 2016, the Supreme Court stayed the rule pending the conclusion of legal challenges on the rule before the D.C. Circuit Court and until the Supreme Court disposes of any subsequent petition for review. Oral argument on the merits of the legal challenges to the rule was heard in September 2016 before the entire D.C. Circuit Court. The D.C. Circuit Court granted a renewed 60-day abeyance of the case on June 26, 2018, which will expire in August 2018. Following a March 2017 Executive Order entitled Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth issued by President Trump covering a number of matters, including the Clean Power Plan (Order), in April 2017, in accordance with the Order, the EPA published its intent to review the Clean Power Plan. In October 2017, the EPA issued a proposed rule that would repeal the Clean Power Plan, with the proposed repeal focusing on what the EPA believes to be the unlawful nature of the Clean Power Plan and asking for public comment on the EPA's interpretations of its authority under the Clean Air Act. In December 2017, the EPA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) soliciting information from the public as the EPA considers proposing a future rule. Vistra Energy submitted comments on the ANPR in February 2018. Vistra Energy submitted comments to the proposed repeal in April 2018. While we cannot predict the outcome of these rulemakings and related legal proceedings, or estimate a range of reasonably probable costs, if the rules are ultimately implemented or upheld as they were issued, they could have a material impact on our results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) In July 2011, the EPA issued the CSAPR, compliance with which would have required significant additional reductions of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and nitrogen oxide (NO X ) emissions from our fossil fueled generation units. After certain EPA revisions to the rule, the CSAPR became effective January 1, 2015. With respect to Texas's SO 2 and annual NO X emission budgets, in November 2016, the EPA proposed to withdraw the CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) addressing SO 2 and annual NO X for Texas, and in September 2017, the EPA finalized its proposal to remove Texas from these annual CSAPR programs. The Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit Court challenging that final rule and Luminant intervened on behalf of the EPA. On April 10, 2018, the D.C. Circuit Court granted the EPA's and petitioners' motion to hold the case in abeyance pending the EPA's consideration of a pending petition for administrative reconsideration. As a result of the EPA's action, Texas electric generating units are no longer subject to the CSAPR annual SO 2 and NO X limits, but remain subject to the CSAPR's ozone season NO X requirements. In October 2016, the EPA issued a CSAPR update, which revised the ozone season NO X limits for 22 eastern states, including Texas. Various parties (including Luminant) filed petitions for review in the D.C. Circuit Court. The case has been fully briefed and is scheduled for oral argument in October 2018. While we cannot predict the outcome of future proceedings related to the CSAPR, based upon our current operating plans, including the retirements of our Monticello, Big Brown and Sandow 4 plants (see Note 4 ), we do not believe that the CSAPR in its current form will cause any material operational, financial or compliance issues to our business or require us to incur any material compliance costs. Regional Haze — Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategies The Regional Haze Program of the CAA establishes "as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory class I federal areas which impairment results from man-made pollution." In February 2009, the TCEQ submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning regional haze (Regional Haze SIP) to the EPA. In December 2011, the EPA proposed a limited disapproval of the Regional Haze SIP due to its reliance on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) instead of the EPA's replacement CSAPR program. The EPA finalized the limited disapproval of Texas's Regional Haze SIP in June 2012 and, on March 20, 2018, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a decision upholding the EPA's actions and denying all of Luminant's petitions for review. In January 2016, the EPA issued a final rule approving in part and disapproving in part Texas's SIP addressing the reasonable progress component of the Regional Haze program and issuing a FIP. The EPA's emission limits in the FIP assume additional control equipment for specific lignite/coal-fueled generation units across Texas, including new flue gas desulfurization systems (scrubbers) at seven electricity generating units and upgrades to existing scrubbers at seven generation units. Specifically, for Luminant, the EPA's FIP is based on new scrubbers at Big Brown Units 1 and 2 and Monticello Units 1 and 2 and scrubber upgrades at Martin Lake Units 1, 2 and 3, Monticello Unit 3 and Sandow Unit 4. Under the terms of the rule, subject to the legal proceedings described in the following paragraph, the scrubber upgrades would be required by February 2019, and the new scrubbers would be required by February 2021. In March 2016, Luminant and a number of other parties, including the State of Texas, filed petitions for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit Court) challenging the FIP's Texas requirements. Luminant and other parties also filed motions to stay the FIP while the court reviews the legality of the EPA's action. In July 2016, the Fifth Circuit Court denied the EPA's motion to dismiss Luminant's challenge to the FIP and granted the motions to stay filed by Luminant and the other parties pending final review of the petitions for review. The case was abated until the end of November 2016 in order to allow the parties to pursue settlement discussions. Settlement discussions were unsuccessful, and in December 2016 the EPA filed a motion seeking a voluntary remand of the rule back to the EPA for further consideration of Luminant's pending request for administrative reconsideration. In March 2017, the Fifth Circuit Court remanded the rule back to the EPA for reconsideration in light of the Court's prior determination that we and the other petitioners demonstrated a substantial likelihood that the EPA exceeded its statutory authority and acted arbitrarily and capriciously, but the Court denied all of the other pending motions. The stay of the rule (and the emission control requirements) remains in effect, and the EPA is required to file status reports of its reconsideration every 60 days. The retirements of our Monticello, Big Brown and Sandow 4 plants should have a favorable impact on this rulemaking and litigation. While we cannot predict the outcome of the rulemaking and legal proceedings, or estimate a range of reasonably possible costs, the result could have a material impact on our results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. Regional Haze — Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) In September 2017, the EPA signed the final BART FIP for Texas, with the rule serving as a partial approval of Texas's 2009 SIP and a partial FIP. For SO 2 , the rule creates 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 generating units (including our Martin Lake, Big Brown, Monticello, Sandow 4, Stryker 2 and Graham 2 plants). The compliance obligations in the program will start on January 1, 2019 and the identified units will receive an annual allowance allocation that is equal to their most recent annual CSAPR SO 2 allocation. Luminant's units covered by the program are allocated 91,222 allowances annually. Under the rule, a unit that is listed that does not operate for two consecutive years starting after 2018 would no longer receive allowances after the fifth year of non-operation. We believe the retirements of our Monticello, Big Brown and Sandow 4 plants will enhance our ability to comply with this BART rule for SO 2 . For NO X , the rule adopts the CSAPR's ozone program as BART and for particulate matter, the rule approves Texas's SIP that determines that no electric generating units are subject to BART for particulate matter. The National Parks Conservation Association, the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund filed a petition challenging the rule in the Fifth Circuit Court as well as a petition for reconsideration filed with the EPA. Luminant intervened on behalf of the EPA in the Fifth Circuit Court action. In March 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court granted a joint motion filed by the EPA and the environmental groups involved to abate the Fifth Circuit Court proceedings until the EPA has taken action on the reconsideration petition and concludes the reconsideration process. While we cannot predict the outcome of the rulemaking and legal proceedings, we believe the rule, if ultimately implemented or upheld as issued, will not have a material impact on our results of operation, liquidity or financial condition. Affirmative Defenses During Malfunctions In February 2013, the EPA proposed a rule requiring certain states to replace SIP exemptions for excess emissions during malfunctions with an affirmative defense. Texas was not included in that original proposal since it already had an EPA-approved affirmative defense provision in its SIP that was found to be lawful by the Fifth Circuit Court in 2013. In May 2015, the EPA finalized its 2013 proposal to extend the EPA's proposed findings of inadequacy to states that have affirmative defense provisions, including Texas. The EPA's revised proposal would require Texas to remove or replace its EPA-approved affirmative defense provisions for excess emissions during startup, shutdown and maintenance events. In June 2015, the State of Texas and various industry parties (including Luminant) filed petitions for review in the Fifth Circuit Court challenging certain aspects of the EPA's final rule as they apply to the Texas SIP. In August 2015, the Fifth Circuit Court transferred the petitions that Luminant and other parties filed to the D.C. Circuit Court, and in October 2015 the petitions were consolidated with the pending petitions challenging the EPA's action in the D.C. Circuit Court. Before the originally scheduled oral argument was held, in April 2017, the court granted the EPA's motion to continue oral argument and ordered that the case be held in abeyance with the EPA to provide status reports to the court on the EPA's review of the action at 90-day intervals. We cannot predict the timing or outcome of this proceeding, or estimate a range of reasonably possible costs, but implementation of the rule as finalized could have a material impact on our results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. SO 2 Designations for Texas In November 2016, the EPA finalized its nonattainment designations for counties surrounding our Big Brown, Monticello and Martin Lake generation 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. Subsequently, in October 2017, the Fifth Circuit Court granted the EPA's motion to hold the case in abeyance in light of the EPA's representation that it intended to revisit the nonattainment rule. In December 2017, the TCEQ submitted a petition for reconsideration to the EPA. In addition, with respect to Monticello and Big Brown, the retirement of those plants should favorably impact our legal challenge to the nonattainment designations in that the nonattainment designation for Freestone County and Titus County are based solely on the Sierra Club modeling, which we dispute, of alleged SO 2 emissions from Monticello and Big Brown. Regardless, considering these retirements, the nonattainment designation for those counties are no longer supported. While we cannot predict the outcome of this matter, or estimate a range of reasonably possible costs, the result could have a material impact on our results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs) In November 2015, the EPA revised the ELGs for steam electric generating facilities, which will impose more stringent standards (as individual permits are renewed) for wastewater streams, flue desulfurization, fly ash, bottom ash and flue gas mercury control. 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 final rule issued in 2015 and administratively stayed the ELG rule's compliance date deadlines pending ongoing judicial review of the rule. The legal challenges pertaining to bottom ash transport water, flue gas desulfurization wastewater and gasification wastewater have been suspended while the EPA reconsiders the rules. The EPA issued a final rule in September 2017 postponing the earliest compliance dates in the ELG rule for bottom ash transport water and flue-gas desulfurization wastewater by two years, from November 1, 2018 to November 1, 2020. Given the EPA's decision to reconsider the bottom ash transport water and flue gas desulfurization wastewater provisions of the ELG rule, the rule postponing the ELG rule's earliest compliance dates for those provisions, and the intertwined relationship of the ELG rule with the Coal Combustion Residuals rule discussed below, which is also being reconsidered by the EPA, as well as pending legal challenges concerning both rules, substantial uncertainty exists regarding our projected capital expenditures for ELG compliance, including the timing of such expenditures. While we cannot predict the outcome of this matter, or estimate a range of costs, it could have a material impact on our results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. New Source Review and CAA Matters New Source Review — Since 1999, the EPA has engaged in a nationwide enforcement initiative to determine whether coal-fired power plants failed to comply with the requirements of the New Source Review (NSR) and New Source Performance Standard provisions under the CAA when the plants implemented changes. The EPA's NSR initiative focuses on whether projects performed at power plants triggered various permitting requirements, including the need to install pollution control equipment. In August 2012, the EPA issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) alleging that projects performed in 1997, 2006 and 2007 at the Newton facility violated Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), Title V permitting and other CAA requirements. The NOV remains unresolved. We believe our defenses to the allegations described in the NOV are meritorious. A decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Seventh Circuit Court) in 2013 held that similar PSD claims older than five years were barred by the statute of limitations. That determination is in line with the majority of other circuit court decisions that have held that PSD claims arise at the time of the projects at issue are not continuing for statute of limitations purposes. This Seventh Circuit Court decision may provide an additional defense to the allegations in the Newton facility NOV. In September 2016, the Newton Unit 2 was retired. While we cannot predict the outcome of this matter, or estimate a range of costs, it could have a material impact on our results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. In August 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), acting as the attorneys for the EPA, filed a civil enforcement lawsuit against Luminant in federal district court in Dallas, alleging violations of the CAA, including its New Source Review standards, at our Big Brown and Martin Lake generation facilities. In August 2015, the district court granted Luminant's motion to dismiss seven of the nine claims asserted by the EPA in the lawsuit. In January 2017, the EPA dismissed its two remaining claims with prejudice and the district court entered final judgment in Luminant's favor. In March 2017, the EPA and the Sierra Club appealed the final judgment to the Fifth Circuit Court. After the parties filed their respective briefs in the Fifth Circuit Court, the appeal was argued before the Fifth Circuit Court in March 2018. We believe that we have complied with all requirements of the CAA and intend to vigorously defend against the remaining allegations. The lawsuit requests (i) the maximum civil penalties available under the CAA to the government of up to $32,500 to $37,500 per day for each alleged violation, depending on the date of the alleged violation, and (ii) injunctive relief, including an order requiring the installation of best available control technology at the affected units. An adverse outcome could require substantial capital expenditures that cannot be determined at this time or retirement of the remaining plant at issue, Martin Lake, and could possibly require the payment of substantial penalties. The retirement of the Big Brown plant should have a favorable impact on this litigation. We cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings, including the financial effects, if any. Zimmer NOVs — In December 2014, the EPA issued an NOV alleging violation of opacity standards at the Zimmer facility. The EPA previously had issued NOVs to Zimmer in 2008 and 2010 alleging violations of the CAA, the Ohio State Implementation Plan and the station's air permits including standards applicable to opacity, sulfur dioxide, sulfuric acid mist and heat input. The NOVs remain unresolved. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters. Killen and Stuart NOVs — The EPA issued NOVs in December 2014 for Killen and Stuart, and in February 2017 for Stuart, alleging violations of opacity standards. In May and June 2017, we received two letters from the Sierra Club providing notice of its intent to sue various Dynegy entities and the owner and operator of the Killen and Stuart facilities, respectively, alleging violations of opacity standards under the CAA. The Dayton Power and Light Company, the operator of Killen and Stuart, is expected to act on behalf of itself and the co-owners with respect to these matters. We are unable to predict the outcome of these claims or estimate a range of costs. Both Killen and Stuart ceased operations in May 2018 as previously approved and announced by PJM. Edwards CAA Citizen Suit — In April 2013, environmental groups filed a CAA citizen suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois alleging violations of opacity and particulate matter limits at our MISO segment's Edwards facility. In August 2016, the District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on certain liability issues. We filed a motion seeking interlocutory appeal of the court’s summary judgment ruling. In February 2017, the appellate court denied our motion for interlocutory appeal. The District Court has scheduled the remedy phase trial for March 2019. We dispute the allegations and will defend the case vigorously. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters. Ultimate resolution of any of these CAA matters could have a material adverse impact on our future financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. A resolution could result in increased capital expenditures for the installation of pollution control equipment, increased operations and maintenance expenses, and penalties, or could result in an order or a decision to retire these plants. While we cannot predict the outcome of these legal proceedings, or estimate a range of costs, they could have a material impact on our results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. Coal Combustion Residuals/Groundwater On July 30, 2018, the EPA published a final rule that amends certain provisions of the Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) rule that the agency issued in 2015. The 2018 revisions extend closure deadlines to October 31, 2020, related to the aquifer location restriction and groundwater monitoring requirements. The 2018 revisions also (1) establish groundwater protection standards for cobalt, lithium, molybdenum and lead (2) allow authorized state programs to waive groundwater monitoring requirements when there is a demonstration of no potential for contaminant migration, and (3) allow the permitting authority to issue certifications in lieu of a qualified professional engineer. The 2018 revisions will become effective on August 29, 2018, and we are currently evaluating the impact on our CCR facilities. While we cannot predict the impacts of these rule revisions (including whether and if so how the states in which we operate will utilize the authority delegated to the states through the revisions), or estimate a range of reasonably possible costs related to these revisions, the changes that result from these revisions could have a material impact on our results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. MISO Segment — In 2012, the Illinois EPA (IEPA) issued violation notices alleging violations of groundwater standards onsite at our Baldwin and Vermilion facilities' CCR surface impoundments. 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 are working towards implementation of those closure plans. At our retired Vermilion facility, which is not subject to the federal CCR rule, 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, with revised plans submitted 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. By letter dated January 31, 2018, Prairie Rivers Network provided 60-day notice of its intent to sue our subsidiary Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC under the federal Clean Water Act for alleged unauthorized discharges from the surface impoundments at our Vermilion facility and alleged related violations of the facility's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. Prairie Rivers Network filed a citizen suit in May 2018, alleging violations of the Clean Water Act for alleged unauthorized discharges. We dispute the allegations and will vigorously defend our position. 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. If remediation measures concerning groundwater are necessary at any of our coal-fired facilities, we may incur significant costs that could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. At this time, in part because of the revisions to the CCR rule that the EPA published on July 30, 2018, we cannot reasonably estimate the costs, or range of costs, of groundwater remediation, if any, that ultimately may be required. CCR surface impoundment and landfill closure costs, as determined by our operations and environmental services teams, are reflected in our AROs. MISO 2015-2016 Planning Resource Auction In May 2015, three complaints were filed at 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., have challenged the results of the PRA as unjust and unreasonable, requested rate relief/refunds, and requested changes to the MISO PRA structure going forward. Complainants have also alleged that Dynegy could have engaged in economic or physical withholding in Zone 4 constituting market manipulation in the 2015-2016 PRA. The Independent Market Monitor for MISO (MISO IMM), which was responsible for monitoring the MISO 2015-2016 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 proposed remedies. We filed our Answer to these complaints and believe that we complied fully with the terms of the MISO tariff in connection with the 2015-2016 PRA, disputed the allegations, and will defend our actions vigorously. In addition, the Illinois Industrial Energy Consumers filed a complaint at FERC against MISO on June 30, 2015 requesting prospective changes to the MISO tariff. Dynegy also responded to this complaint. On October 1, 2015, FERC issued an order of non-public, formal investigation, stating that shortly after the conclusion of the 2015-2016 PRA, FERC's Office of Enforcement began a non-public informal investigation into whether market manipulation or other potential violations of FERC orders, rules, and regulations occurred before or during the PRA (the Order). The Order noted that the investigation is ongoing, and that the conversion of the informal, non-public investigation to a formal, non-public investigation does not indicate that FERC has determined that any entity has engaged in market manipulation or otherwise violated any FERC order, rule, or regulation. Vistra Energy is participating in the investigation on behalf of Dynegy following the closing of the Merger. We believe that our conduct was proper and will defend our position vigorously, but we cannot predict the outcome of the investigation or the amount, if any, of loss that may result. While we cannot predict th |
