| Commitments And Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Guarantees We have entered into contracts, including the assumed Dynegy senior unsecured notes described above, that contain guarantees to unaffiliated parties that could require performance or payment under certain conditions. As of March 31, 2019 , 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 March 31, 2019 , we had outstanding letters of credit totaling $1.247 billion as follows: • $1.080 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 or RTOs; • $46 million to support executory contracts and insurance agreements; • $55 million to support our REP financial requirements with the PUCT, and • $66 million for other credit support requirements. Surety Bonds At March 31, 2019 , we had outstanding surety bonds totaling $27 million to support performance under various contracts and legal obligations in the normal course of business. 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 was taken on an interlocutory appeal to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit Court). In August 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court vacated the district court orders denying class certification and remanded the cases to the district court for further consideration of the class certification issue. In September 2018, the defendants filed a joint motion for entry of an order denying class certification, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for remand of the cases to the transferor courts to decide class certification issues. In January 2019, the judge issued an order remanding the consolidated cases in the multi-district proceedings back to their respective courts of origin. Along with the other defendants, we had previously reached settlement terms in the Kansas and Missouri cases, and plaintiffs in those cases filed a Notice of Settlement with the judge in the multi-district court proceeding. 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 back to the court of origin 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 were unsuccessful. The arbitration hearing occurred in October 2018, and the arbitration panel issued an interim award in March 2019, including pre-award and post-award interest totaling approximately $42 million , of which $40 million was recorded as a liability as part of our purchase price allocation of the Merger and $2 million was recorded as interest expense in our condensed statements of consolidated income (loss). Advatech has submitted its request for its fees and expenses in the amount of approximately $4 million , and Genco will submit a response in opposition before the arbitration panel issues its final award. We cannot predict the outcome or range of costs that may be included in the final award, and we are evaluating all legal options. 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. The arbitration hearing on the merits is scheduled for February 2020. 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. Greenhouse Gas Emissions In August 2015, the EPA finalized rules to address greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) 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, but the D.C. Circuit Court has not issued a decision and the case remains in abeyance due to the EPA's decision 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 (CAA). 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 on the proposed repeal in April 2018. In August 2018, the EPA published a proposed replacement rule called the Affordable Clean Energy rule. We submitted comments on the proposed Affordable Clean Energy rule in October 2018. In December 2018, the EPA issued proposed revisions to the emission standards for new, modified and reconstructed units. Vistra has submitted comments on that proposed rulemaking. 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. Regional Haze — Reasonable Progress and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for Texas In January 2016, the EPA issued a final rule approving in part and disapproving in part Texas's 2009 State Implementation Plan (SIP) as it relates to the reasonable progress component of the Regional Haze program and issuing a Federal Implementation Plan (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 generation units (including Big Brown Units 1 and 2, Monticello Units 1 and 2 and Coleto Creek) and upgrades to existing scrubbers at seven generation units (including Martin Lake Units 1, 2 and 3, Monticello Unit 3 and Sandow Unit 4). 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. In July 2016, the Fifth Circuit Court granted motions to stay the rule filed by Luminant and the other parties pending final review of the petitions for review. 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. 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. In September 2017, the EPA signed a final rule addressing BART for Texas electricity generation units, 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, Coleto Creek, Stryker 2 and Graham 2 plants). The compliance obligations in the program started on January 1, 2019, and the identified units receive an annual allowance allocation that is equal to their most recent annual CSAPR SO 2 allocation. Cumulatively, our units covered by the program are allocated 100,279 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 electricity generation 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. In August 2018, the EPA issued a proposed rule affirming the prior BART final rule and seeking comments on that proposal, which were due in October 2018. 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 operations, liquidity or financial condition. Affirmative Defenses During Malfunctions In February 2013, the EPA proposed a rule requiring certain states to remove SIP exemptions for excess emissions during malfunctions or replace them with an affirmative defense. 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 final rule impacted 36 states, including Texas, Illinois and Ohio, in which we operate. The EPA's final rule would require covered states to remove or replace either EPA-approved exemptions or affirmative defense provisions for excess emissions during startup, shutdown and maintenance events. Several states (including the State of Texas and the State of Ohio) and various industry parties (including Luminant) filed petitions for review of the EPA's final rule, and all of those petitions were consolidated in the D.C. Circuit Court. Before the oral argument was held, in April 2017, the D.C. Circuit 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 D.C. Circuit Court on the EPA's review of the action at 90-day intervals. In October 2018, the EPA partially granted Texas' petition for reconsideration of the Texas SIP call. 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. Illinois Multi-Pollutant Standards (MPS) In 2007, our MISO coal-fueled generation facilities became subject to the Illinois multi-pollutant standard rule (MPS rule), which requires compliance with NO X , SO 2 and mercury emissions limits. We are in compliance with the MPS rule. In October 2017, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) filed a proposed rule with the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) that would amend the MPS rule by replacing the two separate group-wide annual emission rate limits that currently apply to our eight downstate Illinois coal-fueled stations with tonnage limits for both SO 2 (annual) and NO X (annual and seasonal) that apply to the eight stations as a single group. In March 2019, we were asked to agree to even further reduced emission caps and in order to move the rule forward, committed to 2,000 MW of coal plant retirements following finalization of the rule. Under the current version of the proposal, allowable annual emissions of SO 2 would be 37% lower than the current rule. All other federal and state air quality regulations, including health-based standards, would remain unchanged and in place. The proposed rule also would impose new requirements to ensure the continuous operation of existing selective catalytic reduction (SCR) control systems during the ozone season, require SCR-controlled units to meet an ozone season NO X emission rate limit, and set an additional, site-specific annual SO 2 limit for our Joppa Power Station. We are supportive of the proposed rule as it would provide operational flexibility to our MISO fleet while also providing a number of regulatory and environmental benefits. We expect the rule to be finalized in 2019. 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 considering 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 designations for Freestone County and Titus County are based solely on the Sierra Club modeling, which we dispute, of SO 2 emissions from Monticello and Big Brown. Regardless, considering these retirements, the nonattainment designations 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 electricity generation 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. In April 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court vacated and remanded portions of the EPA's ELG rule for steam electric power generators pertaining to best available technology for legacy wastewater and leachate. 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-fueled 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 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 NSR standards, at our Big Brown and Martin Lake generation facilities. 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 to apply for pre-construction permits which may require the installation of best available control technology at the affected units. 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. In October 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the district court. The Fifth Circuit Court's decision held that the district court properly dismissed all of the civil penalties as time-barred. The Fifth Circuit Court further held that the grounds cited by the district court did not support dismissal of the injunctive relief claims at this early stage of the case and remanded the case back to the district court for further consideration. In November 2018, we filed a petition for rehearing en banc on two issues and the EPA has filed a response to that petition. We believe that we have complied with all requirements of the CAA and intend to continue to vigorously defend against the remaining allegations. 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. 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 a notice of violation (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. 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 parties completed briefing on motions for summary judgment on remedy issues in October 2018. In January 2019, the court canceled the bench trial scheduled for March 2019 and denied the parties' motions for summary judgment on remedy issues. A bench trial on the remedy issues is scheduled for the end of September 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 In July 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 became effective in August 2018, and we are continuing to evaluate the impact on our CCR facilities. Also, on August 21, 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. The EPA is expected to undertake further revisions to its CCR regulations in response to the D.C. Circuit Court's ruling. In October 2018, the rule that extends certain closure deadlines to 2020 was challenged in the D.C. Circuit Court. In December 2018, the EPA and petitioners filed cross-motions, with the EPA seeking remand without vacatur and petitioners seeking a partial stay or vacatur of the rule. We have intervened in the litigation and filed a motion in support of the EPA. The D.C. Circuit Court granted the EPA's request for remand without vacatur. 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 Environmental Protection Agency (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 was not 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, 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 (PRN) provided 60-day notice of its intent to sue our subsidiary Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC (DMG) 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. 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. Plaintiffs have appealed the judgment to the U.S Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. That appeal is now stayed. 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. This matter is in very early stages and we dispute the allegations in the complaint. We dispute the allegations in both of these matters 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 and that notice has since been referred to the Illinois Attorney General. In December 2018, the Sierra Club filed a complaint with the IPCB alleging the disposal and storage of coal ash at the Coffeen, Edwards and Joppa generation facilities are causing exceedances of the applicable groundwater standards. We dispute the allegations and will vigorously defend our position. If remediation measures concerning groundwater are necessary 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. At this time, in part because of the revisions to the CCR rule that the EPA published in July 2018 and the D.C. Circuit Court's vacatur and remand of certain provisions of the EPA's 2015 CCR rule, 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 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. On December 31, 2015, FERC issued an order on the |
