| Commitments and Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Guarantees We have entered into contracts that contain guarantees to unaffiliated parties that could require performance or payment under certain conditions. Material guarantees are discussed below. Letters of Credit At March 31, 2021, we had outstanding letters of credit totaling $1.347 billion as follows: • $985 million to support commodity risk management collateral requirements in the normal course of business, including over-the-counter and exchange-traded transactions and collateral postings with ISOs/RTOs; • $196 million to support battery and solar development projects; • $34 million to support executory contracts and insurance agreements; • $74 million to support our REP financial requirements with the PUCT, and • $58 million for other credit support requirements. Surety Bonds At March 31, 2021, we had outstanding surety bonds totaling $131 million to support performance under various contracts and legal obligations in the normal course of business. Litigation and Regulatory Proceedings Our material legal proceedings and regulatory proceedings affecting our business are described below. We believe that we have valid defenses to the legal proceedings described below and intend to defend them vigorously. We also intend to participate in the regulatory processes described below. We record reserves for estimated losses related to these matters when information available indicates that a loss is probable and the amount of the loss, or range of loss, can be reasonably estimated. As applicable, we have established an adequate reserve for the matters discussed below. In addition, legal costs are expensed as incurred. Management has assessed each of the following legal matters based on current information and made a judgment concerning its potential outcome, considering the nature of the claim, the amount and nature of damages sought, and the probability of success. Unless specified below, we are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or reasonably estimate the scope or amount of any associated costs and potential liabilities, but they could have a material impact on our results of operations, liquidity, or financial condition. As additional information becomes available, we adjust our assessment and estimates of such contingencies accordingly. Because litigation and rulemaking proceedings are subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable rulings or developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters could be at amounts that are different from our currently recorded reserves and that such differences could be material. Gas Index Pricing Litigation — We, through our subsidiaries, and other 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 plaintiffs in these cases allege that the defendants engaged in an antitrust conspiracy to inflate natural gas prices during the relevant time period and seek damages under the respective state antitrust statutes. We remain as defendants in two consolidated putative class actions (Wisconsin) and one individual action (Kansas) both pending in federal court in those states. The Kansas action is currently on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. 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. In March 2018, BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) and Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NS) filed a demand for arbitration. In March 2021, the parties entered into a confidential settlement to resolve this matter and the Coffeen matter discussed below. In connection with that settlement, BNSF and NS dismissed with prejudice their arbitration disputes for Wood River and Coffeen and these matters are fully resolved. Coffeen and Duck Creek Rail Disputes — In April 2020, IPH, LLC (IPH) received notification that BNSF and NS were initiating dispute resolution related to IPH's suspension of its Coffeen Rail Transportation Agreement with the railroads, and Illinois Power Resources Generating, LLC (IPRG), received notification that BNSF was initiating dispute resolution related to IPRG's suspension of its Duck Creek Rail Transportation Agreement with BNSF. In November 2019, IPH and IPRG sent suspension notices to the railroads asserting that the Illinois Multi-Pollutant Standards (MPS) rule requirement to retire at least 2,000 megawatts of generation (see discussion below) was a change-in-law under the agreement that rendered continued operation of the plants no longer economically feasible. In addition, IPH and IPRG asserted that the MPS rule's retirement requirement also qualified as a force majeure event under the agreements excusing performance. In March 2021, we entered into a confidential settlement agreement with BNSF to resolve the Duck Creek matter and a separate confidential settlement agreement with BNSF and NS to resolve the Coffeen and Wood River matter discussed above. BNSF has dismissed with prejudice the Duck Creek arbitration dispute and this matter is now fully resolved. The settlement of these rail disputes did not have a material impact on our financial statements. Winter Storm Uri Legal Proceedings Repricing Challenges — In March 2021, we filed an appeal in the Third Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas (Third Court of Appeals), challenging the PUCT's February 15 and February 16, 2021 orders governing ERCOT's determination of wholesale power prices during load-shedding events. We expect our opening brief will be due in June 2021. We have also submitted settlement disputes with ERCOT over power prices and other issues during Winter Storm Uri. Following an appeal of the PUCT's March 5, 2021 verbal order and other statements made by the PUCT, the Texas Attorney General, on behalf of the PUCT, its client, represented in a letter agreement filed with the Third Court of Appeals that the PUCT has not prejudged or made a final decision on whether to reprice and that we and other parties may continue disputing the pricing through the ERCOT process. Koch Disputes — In March 2021, we filed a lawsuit in Texas state court against Odessa-Ector Power Partners, L.P., Koch Resources, LLC, Koch AG & Energy Solutions, LLC, and Koch Energy Services, LLC (Koch) seeking equitable relief in which we contested the amount of the February 2021 earnout payment under the terms of the 2017 asset purchase agreement (APA) with Koch pursuant to which we purchased our Odessa gas power plant for $350 million. Koch subsequently filed its own related lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court. The APA dispute will now proceed in Delaware Chancery Court which will consider all our equitable and other claims, including our claim contesting Koch's demand for $286 million for the February 2021 earnout payment as an unjust windfall and inconsistent with the parties' intent when they entered into the APA in 2017. Because Koch is seeking a $286 million payment in the lawsuit, we have recorded a liability of that amount in other noncurrent liabilities and deferred credits in our condensed consolidated balance sheets. However, we will defend the case vigorously and believe that it is reasonably possible we will prevail in litigation and will not be required to pay Koch this amount. In addition, in March 2021, we filed a lawsuit in New York state court against Koch for breach of contract and ineffective force majeure for Koch's failure to deliver gas during the event pursuant to a gas supply contract with them, as well as a claim for unjust enrichment by selling gas to others at higher prices rather than fulfilling their contract obligations to us. Koch has removed that case to New York federal court. Regulatory Investigations and Other Litigation Matters — Following the events of Winter Storm Uri, various regulatory bodies, including ERCOT, the ERCOT Independent Market Monitor, the Texas Attorney General, the FERC and the NRC initiated investigations or issued requests for information of various parties related to the significant load shed event that occurred during the event as well as operational challenges for generators arising from the event, including performance and fuel and supply issues. We are responding to all those investigatory requests. In addition, a number of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits related to Winter Storm Uri have been filed in various Texas state courts against us and numerous generators, transmission and distribution utilities, retail and electric providers, as well as ERCOT. We and other defendants have requested that all pretrial proceedings in these personal injury cases be consolidated and transferred to a single multi-district litigation pretrial judge, and the courts of origin have been ordered to stay further proceedings in these cases until the request for a multi-district litigation tribunal has been decided. Climate Change In January 2021, the Biden administration issued a series of Executive Orders, including one titled Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis (the Environment Executive Order) which directed agencies, including the EPA, to review various agency actions promulgated during the prior administration and take action where the previous administration's action conflicts with national objectives. Several of the EPA agency actions discussed below are now subject to this review. Greenhouse Gas Emissions In August 2015, the EPA finalized rules to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from 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 filed petitions for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court). In July 2019, petitioners filed a joint motion to dismiss in light of the EPA's issuance of the rule that replaced the Clean Power Plan, the Affordable Clean Energy rule, discussed below. In September 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court granted petitioners' motion to dismiss and dismissed all of the petitions challenging the Clean Power Plan as moot. In July 2019, the EPA finalized a rule to repeal the Clean Power Plan, with new regulations addressing GHG emissions from existing coal-fueled electric generation units, referred to as the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule. The ACE rule developed emission guidelines that states must use when developing plans to regulate GHG emissions from existing coal-fueled electric generating units. The ACE rule set a deadline of July 2022 for states to submit their plans for regulating GHG emissions from existing facilities. States where we operate coal plants ( i.e. , Texas, Illinois and Ohio) began to develop their state plans to comply with the rule. Environmental groups and certain states filed petitions for review of the ACE rule and the repeal of the Clean Power Plan in the D.C. Circuit Court, and the D.C. Circuit Court heard argument on those issues in October 2020. In January 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated the ACE rule and remanded the rule to the EPA for further action. In its decision, the D.C. Circuit Court concluded that the EPA's basis for repealing the Clean Power Plan and adopting the ACE rule was not supported by the Clean Air Act. In April 2021, the State of West Virginia and certain other parties filed a petition for review with the U.S. Supreme Court of the D.C. Circuit Court's decision. Additionally, in December 2018, the EPA issued proposed revisions to the emission standards for new, modified and reconstructed units. Vistra submitted comments on that proposed rulemaking in March 2019. In January 2021, the EPA, just prior to the transition to the Biden administration, issued a final rule setting forth a significant contribution finding for the purpose of regulating GHG emissions from new, modified, or reconstructed electric utility generating units. The final rule excludes sectors from future regulation where GHG emissions make up less than three percent of U.S. GHG emissions. The final rule did not set any specific emission limits for new, modified, or reconstructed electric utility generating units. In April 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court granted the EPA's unopposed motion for voluntary vacatur and remand of the GHG significant contribution rule. The ACE rule and the rule on significant contribution are subject to the Environment Executive Order discussed above. Regional Haze — Reasonable Progress and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for Texas In October 2017, the EPA issued a final rule addressing BART for Texas electricity generation units, with the rule serving as a partial approval of Texas' 2009 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and a partial Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). For SO 2 , the rule established an intrastate Texas emission allowance trading program as a "BART alternative" that operates in a similar fashion to a CSAPR trading program. The program includes 39 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. The retirements of our Monticello, Big Brown and Sandow 4 plants have enhanced our ability to comply with this BART rule for SO 2 . For NO X , the rule adopted the CSAPR's ozone program as BART and for particulate matter, the rule approved Texas's SIP that determines that no electricity generation units are subject to BART for particulate matter. Various parties filed a petition challenging the rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (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 abated its proceedings pending conclusion of the EPA's reconsideration process. In August 2020, the EPA issued a final rule affirming the prior BART final rule but also included additional revisions that were proposed in November 2019. In October 2020, environmental groups petitioned for review of this rule in both the D.C. Circuit Court and the Fifth Circuit Court. In December 2020, a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court consolidated the challenges to the BART final rule and issued an order transferring the case to the D.C. Circuit Court. As finalized, we expect that we will be able to comply with the rule. The BART rule is subject to the Environment Executive Order discussed above. Affirmative Defenses During Malfunctions In May 2015, the EPA finalized a rule requiring 36 states, including Texas, Illinois and Ohio, to remove or replace either EPA-approved exemptions or affirmative defense provisions for excess emissions during upset events and unplanned maintenance and startup and shutdown events, referred to as the SIP Call. Various parties (including Luminant, the State of Texas and the State of Ohio) filed petitions for review of the EPA's final rule, and all of those petitions were consolidated in the D.C. Circuit Court. In April 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court ordered the case to be held in abeyance. In April 2019, the EPA Region 6 proposed a rule to withdraw the SIP Call with respect to the Texas affirmative defense provisions. We submitted comments on that proposed rulemaking in June 2019. In February 2020, the EPA issued the final rule withdrawing the Texas SIP Call. In April 2020, a group of environmental petitioners, including the Sierra Club, filed a petition in the D.C. Circuit Court challenging the EPA's action with respect to Texas. In October 2020, the EPA issued new guidance on the inclusion of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) provisions in SIPs, which is intended to supersede the policy in the multi-state SIP Call. The guidance provides that the SIPs may contain provisions for SSM events if certain conditions are met. The EPA SSM guidance is subject to the Environment Executive Order discussed above. Illinois Multi-Pollutant Standards (MPS) In August 2019, changes proposed by the Illinois Pollution Control Board to the MPS rule, which places NO X , SO 2 and mercury emissions limits on our coal plants located in MISO went into effect. Under the revised MPS rule, our allowable SO 2 and NO X emissions from the MISO fleet are 48% and 42% lower, respectively, than prior to the rule changes. The revised MPS rule requires the continuous operation of existing selective catalytic reduction (SCR) control systems during the ozone season, requires 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. Additionally, in 2019, the Company retired its Havana, Hennepin, Coffeen and Duck Creek plants in order to comply with the MPS rule's requirement to retire at least 2,000 MW of our generation in MISO. SO2 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 August 2019, the EPA issued a proposed Error Correction Rule for all three areas, which, if finalized, would revise its previous nonattainment designations and each area at issue would be designated unclassifiable. In September 2019, we submitted comments in support of the proposed Error Correction Rule. In April 2020, the Sierra Club filed suit to compel the EPA to issue a Finding of Failure to submit an attainment plan with respect to the three areas in Texas. In August 2020, the EPA issued a Finding of Failure for Texas to submit an attainment plan. In September 2020, the EPA proposed a "Clean Data" determination for the areas surrounding the retired Big Brown and Monticello plants, which, if finalized, would redesignate those areas as attainment based on monitoring data supporting an attainment designation. We expect the TCEQ to develop a SIP for Texas for submittal to the EPA in 2021. Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs) In November 2015, the EPA revised the ELGs for steam electricity generation facilities, which will impose more stringent standards (as individual permits are renewed) for wastewater streams, such as flue gas desulfurization (FGD), fly ash, bottom ash and flue gas mercury control wastewaters. Various parties filed petitions for review of the ELG rule, and the petitions were consolidated in the Fifth Circuit Court. In April 2017, the EPA granted petitions requesting reconsideration of the ELG rule and administratively stayed the rule's compliance date deadlines. In August 2017, the EPA announced that its reconsideration of the ELG rule would be limited to a review of the effluent limitations applicable to FGD and bottom ash wastewaters and the agency subsequently postponed the earliest compliance dates in the ELG rule for the application of effluent limitations for FGD and bottom ash wastewaters from November 1, 2018 to November 1, 2020. Based on these administrative developments, the Fifth Circuit Court agreed to sever and hold in abeyance challenges to effluent limitations. The remainder of the case proceeded, and in April 2019 the Fifth Circuit Court vacated and remanded portions of the EPA's ELG rule pertaining to effluent limitations for legacy wastewater and leachate. In November 2019, the EPA issued a proposal that would extend the compliance deadline for FGD wastewater to no later than December 31, 2025 and maintains the December 31, 2023 compliance date for bottom ash transport water. The proposal also creates new sub-categories of facilities with more flexible FGD compliance options, including a retirement exemption to 2028 and a low utilization boiler exemption. The proposed rule also modified some of the FGD final effluent limitations. We filed comments on the proposal in January 2020. The EPA published the final rule in October 2020. The final rule extends the compliance date for both FGD and bottom ash transport water to no later than December 2025, as negotiated with the state permitting agency. Additionally, the final rule allows for a retirement exemption that exempts facilities certifying that units will retire by December 2028 provided certain effluent limitations are met. Notification to the state agency on the retirement exemption is due by October 2021. In November 2020, environmental groups petitioned for review of the new ELG revisions, and Vistra subsidiaries filed a motion to intervene in support of the EPA in December 2020. The final rule is subject to the Environment Executive Order discussed above. Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR)/Groundwater In July 2018, the EPA published a final rule, which became effective in August 2018, that amends certain provisions of the CCR rule that the agency issued in 2015. Among other changes, the 2018 revisions extended closure deadlines to October 31, 2020, related to the aquifer location restriction and groundwater monitoring requirements. Also, in August 2018, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a decision that vacates and remands certain provisions of the 2015 CCR rule, including an applicability exemption for legacy impoundments. In December 2019, the EPA issued a proposed rule containing a revised closure deadline for unlined CCR impoundments and new procedures for seeking extensions of that revised closure deadline. We filed comments on the proposal in January 2020. In August 2020, the EPA issued a rule finalizing the December 2019 proposal, establishing a deadline of April 11, 2021 to cease receipt of waste and initiate closure at unlined CCR impoundments. The final rule allows a generation plant to seek the EPA's approval to extend this deadline if no alternative disposal capacity is available and either a conversion to comply with the CCR rule is underway or retirement will occur by either 2023 or 2028 (depending on the size of the impoundment at issue). Prior to the November 2020 deadline, we submitted applications to the EPA requesting compliance extensions under both conversion and retirement scenarios. In November 2020, environmental groups petitioned for review of this rule in the D.C. Circuit Court, and Vistra subsidiaries filed a motion to intervene in support of the EPA in December 2020. Also, in November 2020, the EPA finalized a rule that would allow an alternative liner demonstration for certain qualifying facilities. In November 2020, we submitted an alternate liner demonstration for one CCR unit at Martin Lake. In October 2020, the EPA published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking requesting information to inform the EPA in the development of a rule to address legacy impoundments that existed prior to the 2015 CCR regulation as required by the August 2018 D.C. Circuit Court decision. We filed comments on this proposal in February 2021. The rules on revised closure deadlines and alternative liner demonstrations are subject to the Environment Executive Order discussed above. MISO — In 2012, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) issued violation notices alleging violations of groundwater standards onsite at our Baldwin and Vermilion facilities' CCR surface impoundments. These violation notices remain unresolved; however, in 2016, the IEPA approved our closure and post-closure care plans for the Baldwin old east, east, and west fly ash CCR surface impoundments. We 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, and we submitted revised plans in 2014. In May 2017, in response to a request from the IEPA for additional information regarding the closure of these Vermilion surface impoundments, we agreed to perform additional groundwater sampling and closure options and riverbank stabilizing options. In May 2018, Prairie Rivers Network filed a citizen suit in federal court in Illinois against DMG, alleging violations of the Clean Water Act for alleged unauthorized discharges. In August 2018, we filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In November 2018, the district court granted our motion to dismiss and judgment was entered in our favor. Plaintiffs have appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and argument was heard in November 2020. 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 the very early stages. 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. In April 2021, we entered into a settlement agreement with the Sierra Club to resolve this matter. As part of that agreement, we agreed to accelerate the timeline for the closure of the Joppa Power Plant and will now close the plant by September 1, 2022. This matter is now fully resolved. In July 2019, coal ash disposal and storage legislation in Illinois was enacted. The legislation addresses state requirements for the proper closure of coal ash ponds in the state of Illinois. The law tasks the IEPA and the IPCB to set up a series of guidelines, rules and permit requirements for closure of ash ponds. In March 2020, the IEPA issued its proposed rule. Under the proposed rule, coal ash impoundment owners would be required to submit a closure alternative analysis to the IEPA for the selection of the best method for coal ash remediation at a particular site. The proposed rule does not mandate closure by removal at any site. Public hearings for the proposed rule were held in August 2020 and September 2020. The rule was finalized and became effective in April 2021. For all of the above matters, if certain corrective action measures, including groundwater treatment or removal of ash, are required at any of our coal-fueled facilities, we may incur significant costs that could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. The Illinois coal ash rule was finalized in April 2021 and does not require removal. However, the rule will require us to undertake further site specific evaluations which are underway. We will not know the full range of decommissioning costs, including groundwater remediation, if any, that ultimately may be required under the Illinois rule until permit applications have been submitted and approved by the IEPA. However, the currently anticipated CCR surface impoundment and landfill closure costs, as contained in our AROs, reflect the costs of closure methods that meet the requirements and that our operations and environmental services teams believe are appropriate and protective of the environment for each location. 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. (Complainants), challenged the results of the PRA as unjust and unreasonable, requested rate relief/refunds, and requested changes to the MISO planning resource auction structure going forward. Complainants also alleged that Dynegy may have engaged in economic or physical withholding in Zone 4 constituting market manipulation in the PRA. The Independent Market Monitor for MISO (MISO IMM), which was responsible for monitoring the PRA, determined that all offers were competitive and that no physical or economic withholding occurred. The MISO IMM also stated, in a filing responding to the complaints, that there is no basis for the remedies sought by the Complainants. We filed our answer to these complaints explaining that we complied fully with the terms of the MISO tariff in connection with the PRA and disputing the allegations. The Illinois Industrial Energy Consumers filed a related complaint at FERC against MISO in June 2015 requesting prospective changes to the MISO tariff. Dynegy also responded to this complaint with respect to Dynegy's conduct alleged in the complaint. In October 2015, FERC issued an order of nonpublic, formal investigation (the investigation) into whether market manipulation or other potential violations of FERC orders, rules and regulations occurred before or during the PRA. In December 2015, FERC issued an order on the complaints requiring a number of prospective changes to the MISO tariff provisions effective as of the 2016-2017 planning resource auction. The order did not address the arguments of the Complainants regarding the PRA and stated that those issues remained under consideration and would be addressed in a future order. In July 2019, FERC issued an order denying the remaining issues raised by the complaints and noted that the investigation into Dynegy was closed. FERC found that Dynegy's conduct did not constitute market manipulation and the results of the PRA were just and reasonable because the PRA was conducted in accordance with MISO's tariff. With the issuance of the order, this matter has been resolved in Dynegy's favor. The request for rehearing was denied by FERC in March 2020. The order was appealed by Public Citizen, Inc. to the D.C. Circuit Court in May 2020, and Vistra, Dynegy and Illinois Power Marketing Company intervened in the case in June 2020. The appeal remains pending. Other Matters We are involved in various legal and administrative proceedings and other disputes in the normal course of business, including disputes over certain gas invoices, the ultimate resolutions of which, in the opinion of management, are not anticipated to have a material effect on our results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. |
