| 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 September 30, 2022, we had outstanding letters of credit totaling $3.040 billion as follows: • $2.635 billion to support commodity risk management collateral requirements in the normal course of business, including over-the-counter and exchange-traded transactions and collateral postings with ISOs/RTOs; • $247 million to support battery and solar development projects; • $27 million to support executory contracts and insurance agreements; • $74 million to support our REP financial requirements with the PUCT, and • $57 million for other credit support requirements. Surety Bonds At September 30, 2022, we had outstanding surety bonds totaling $693 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 have been named as defendants in 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 now remain as a defendant in only one action, which is a consolidated putative class action lawsuit pending in federal court in Wisconsin where a class has been certified and an interlocutory appeal has been filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Seventh Circuit Court). Illinois Attorney General Complaint Against Illinois Gas & Electric (IG&E) — In May 2022, the Illinois Attorney General filed a complaint against IG&E, a subsidiary we acquired when we purchased Crius in July 2019. The complaint filed in Illinois state court alleges, among other things, that IG&E engaged in improper marketing conduct and overcharged customers. The vast majority of the conduct in question occurred prior to our acquisition of IG&E. In July 2022, we moved to dismiss the complaint, and in October 2022, the district court granted in part our motion to dismiss, barring all claims asserted by the Illinois Attorney General that were outside of the 5-year statute of limitations period, which now limits the period during which claims may be made to start in May 2017 rather than extending back to 2013 as the Illinois Attorney General had alleged in its complaint. Winter Storm Uri Legal Proceedings Repricing Challenges — In March 2021, we filed an appeal in the Third Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas (Third Court of Appeals), challenging the PUCT's February 15 and February 16, 2021 orders governing ERCOT's determination of wholesale power prices during load-shedding events. We filed our opening brief in June 2021, and response briefs were filed in September 2021. Oral argument was held in April 2022. In our brief, we argue that the prior PUCT rushed to adopt a rule that dramatically raised the price of electricity in ERCOT, but in doing so failed to follow any of the rulemaking procedures required for the PUCT to undertake an emergency rulemaking, and we have asked the court to vacate this rule. Other parties also filed briefs in support of our challenge to the PUCT's orders. In addition, we have also submitted settlement disputes with ERCOT over power prices and other issues during Winter Storm Uri. Following an appeal of the PUCT's March 5, 2021 verbal order and other statements made by the PUCT, the Texas Attorney General, on behalf of the PUCT, its client, represented in a letter agreement filed with the Third Court of Appeals that we and other parties may continue disputing the pricing during Winter Storm Uri through the ERCOT process and, to the extent the outcome of that process comes before the PUCT for review, the PUCT has not prejudged or made a final decision on that matter. 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. Koch subsequently filed its own related lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court, and the Delaware Chancery Court ruled that all claims related to the APA dispute (including our equitable claims) would proceed in Delaware. We contested 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. In the three months ended March 31, 2021, we recorded a $286 million liability in other noncurrent liabilities and deferred credits in our condensed consolidated balance sheets. In March 2021, we also filed a lawsuit in New York state court against Koch for breach of contract and ineffective notice of force majeure related to Koch's failure to deliver contracted-for quantities of gas during Winter Strom Uri, which Koch removed to federal court. In November 2021, the disputes we had with Koch were resolved to the parties' mutual satisfaction and all the lawsuits have been dismissed. The matter was resolved within the amount that was reserved and was paid in the second quarter of 2022. Brazos Electric Cooperative Inc. (Brazos) Bankruptcy — As a result of the lengthy period of peak pricing administratively imposed by the PUCT during Winter Storm Uri, certain market participants within ERCOT were not able to pay their full obligations to ERCOT. Consequently, ERCOT was "short-paid" approximately $2.9 billion, the majority of which was related to Brazos, a Texas-based non-profit electric cooperative corporation that provides wholesale electricity to its members, which, in turn, provide retail electricity to Texas consumers. In March 2021, Brazos commenced a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. As part of the Brazos bankruptcy proceeding, ERCOT filed a claim to recover approximately $1.9 billion from Brazos. In response, Brazos filed an adversary proceeding against ERCOT seeking to disallow or greatly reduce ERCOT's claim. ERCOT and Brazos subsequently engaged in mediation seeking to resolve the dispute as an alternative to ERCOT's imposition of its market default protocols which specify recovery of these losses through issuance of default uplift invoices to all market participants. Under this short-pay recovery process, uplifted short-paid amounts are allocated to all market participants based on market share on a monthly basis until the full short-paid amounts are recovered. The ERCOT protocols limit the amount of short-paid amounts that ERCOT can uplift to the entire market to $2.5 million per month which would have taken approximately 63 years to recover the full Brazos short-pay claim. As a result of applying these standard ERCOT market default protocols, we recognized an approximately $189 million default uplift liability in the first quarter of 2021 based on our market share which was subsequently reduced in the second quarter of 2021 to $124 million as ERCOT collected amounts owed from certain defaulting entities through other means, primarily through securitization. The $124 million remaining default uplift liability relates entirely to our estimated share over time of the Brazos short pay to ERCOT. After extensive negotiations, Brazos and ERCOT reached a settlement in September 2022 that is incorporated in a proposed Brazos plan of reorganization filed with the bankruptcy court. Under the settlement, Brazos will make two payments to ERCOT upon its emergence from bankruptcy: first, an approximately $600 million payment, which ERCOT will use to replenish its Congestion Revenue Rights (CCR) Reserve Account and pay down its portion of the securitization program adopted by the legislature for electric cooperatives and municipal-owned utilities, and second, an approximately $554 million payment to fund an initial distribution to be made by ERCOT to market participants with claims against the Brazos short-pay based on each market participant's payment election. Brazos will also make certain installment payments (of up to $13.8 million per year over 12 years) and contribute a portion of the proceeds from the sale of its generation assets (approximately $117 million) to fund payments, to be distributed by ERCOT, to the applicable market participants. Importantly, the settlement precludes ERCOT from collecting default uplift from market participants for any prepetition amounts owed by Brazos ( i.e. , it supplants the process to uplift the short-pay claim to market participants), and, if approved, would allow Vistra to extinguish the remaining $124 million default uplift liability to ERCOT on account of the Brazos short pay. In September 2022, Brazos filed its plan of reorganization with the bankruptcy court and the proposed ERCOT settlement agreement is subject to the Brazos bankruptcy plan voting and confirmation processes, which is anticipated to conclude in November 2022. Regulatory Investigations and Other Litigation Matters — Following the events of Winter Storm Uri, various regulatory bodies, including ERCOT, the ERCOT Independent Market Monitor, the Texas Attorney General, the FERC and the NRC initiated investigations or issued requests for information of various parties related to the significant load shed event that occurred during the event as well as operational challenges for generators arising from the event, including performance and fuel and supply issues. We responded to all those investigatory requests. In addition, a 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 requested that all pretrial proceedings in these personal injury cases be consolidated and transferred to a single multi-district litigation (MDL) pretrial judge. In June 2021, the MDL panel granted the request to consolidate all these cases into a MDL for pretrial proceedings. In addition, in January 2022, an insurance subrogation lawsuit was filed in Austin state court by over one hundred insurance companies against ERCOT, Vistra and several other defendants. The lawsuit seeks recovery of insurance funds paid out by these insurance companies to various policyholders for claims related to Winter Storm Uri, and that case has also now been consolidated with the MDL proceedings. In the summer of 2022, various defendant groups filed motions to dismiss five so-called bellwether cases, and the court heard oral argument on those motions in October 2022. We believe we have strong defenses to these lawsuits and intend to defend against these cases vigorously. 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 July 2019, the EPA finalized a rule that repealed the Clean Power Plan (CPP) that had been finalized in 2015 and established new regulations addressing GHG emissions from existing coal-fueled electric generation units, referred to as the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule. The ACE rule developed emission guidelines that states must use when developing plans to regulate GHG emissions from existing coal-fueled electric generating units. In response to challenges brought by environmental groups and certain states, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) vacated the ACE rule, including the repeal of the CPP, in January 2021 and remanded the rule to the EPA for further action. In October 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court granted four petitions for certiorari of the D.C. Circuit Court's decision and consolidated the cases for review. In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion reversing the D.C. Circuit Court's decision, and finding that the EPA exceeded its authority under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act when the EPA set emission requirements in the CPP based on generation shifting. In October 2022, the parties filed motions to govern in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision. In addition, the EPA has opened a docket seeking input on questions related to the regulation of GHGs under Section 111(d). Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) In April 2022, the EPA proposed a revised version of the CSAPR to address the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The rule would apply to 25 states beginning with the 2023 ozone seasons. States where Vistra operates generation units that would be subject to this proposed rule are Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. The revised Group 3 trading program (previously established in the Revised CSAPR Update Rule) would include emission budgets that the EPA says are achievable through existing controls installed at power plants. Starting in 2026, the budgets would be based on levels achieved through installation of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) controls at the approximately 20% of large coal-fueled power plants that do not currently have such controls. Starting in 2025, the budgets would be updated annually to account for source retirements. Starting in 2024, the rule would also impose a daily emissions rate limit for coal-fired units with existing controls and would impose such a limit for units installing new controls in 2027. We, along with many other companies, trade groups, states and ISOs, including ERCOT, PJM and MISO, filed responsive comments to the EPA's proposal in June 2022, expressing concerns about certain elements of the proposal, particularly those that may result in challenges to electric reliability under certain conditions. The EPA is expected to finalize a rule by early 2023. We cannot predict the outcome of the final rule or the effects of the final rule on operations of our generation fleet. 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 the Martin Lake, Big Brown, Monticello, Sandow 4, Coleto Creek, Stryker 2 and Graham 2 plants). The compliance obligations in the program started on January 1, 2019. For NO X , the rule adopted the CSAPR's ozone program as BART and for particulate matter, the rule approved Texas' SIP that determines that no electricity generation units are subject to BART for particulate matter. In August 2020, the EPA issued a final rule affirming the prior BART final rule but also included additional revisions that were proposed in November 2019. Challenges to both the 2017 rule and the 2020 rules have been consolidated in the D.C. Circuit Court, where we have intervened in support of the EPA. We are in compliance with the rule, and the retirements of our Monticello, Big Brown and Sandow 4 plants have enhanced our ability to comply. The BART rule is subject to the Environment Executive Order discussed above, and the EPA has stated it is starting a proceeding for reconsideration of the BART rule. The challenges in the D.C. Circuit Court have been held in abeyance pending the EPA's action on reconsideration. SO2 Designations for Texas In November 2016, the EPA finalized its nonattainment designations for counties surrounding our Martin Lake generation plant and our now retired Big Brown and Monticello plants. The final designations require Texas to develop nonattainment plans for these areas. In February 2017, the State of Texas and Luminant filed challenges to the nonattainment designations in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (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 have revised its previous nonattainment designations and each area at issue would be designated unclassifiable. In August 2020, the EPA issued a Finding of Failure for Texas to submit an attainment plan. In May 2021, the EPA finalized a "Clean Data" determination for the areas surrounding the retired Big Brown and Monticello plants, redesignating those areas as attainment based on monitoring data supporting an attainment designation. In June 2021, the EPA published two notices; one that it was withdrawing the August 2019 Error Correction Rule and a second separate notice denying petitions from Luminant and the State of Texas to reconsider the original nonattainment designations. We, along with the State of Texas, challenged that EPA action and have consolidated it with the pending challenge in the Fifth Circuit Court, and this case was argued before the Fifth Circuit Court in July 2022. In September 2021, the TCEQ considered a proposal for its nonattainment SIP revision for the Martin Lake area and an agreed order to reduce SO 2 emissions from the plant. The proposed agreed order associated with the SIP proposal reduces emission limits as of January 2022. Emission reductions required are those necessary to demonstrate attainment with the NAAQS. The TCEQ's SIP action was finalized in February 2022 and has been submitted to the EPA for review and approval. 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. Based on these administrative developments, the Fifth Circuit Court agreed to sever and hold in abeyance challenges to those 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. The EPA published a final rule in October 2020 that extends the compliance date for both FGD and bottom ash transport water to no later than December 2025, as negotiated with the state permitting agency. Additionally, the final rule allows for a retirement exemption that exempts facilities certifying that units will retire by December 2028 provided certain effluent limitations are met. In November 2020, environmental groups petitioned for review of the new ELG revisions, and Vistra subsidiaries filed a motion to intervene in support of the EPA in December 2020. In July 2021, the EPA announced its intent to revise the ELG rule and moved to hold the 2020 ELG revision litigation in abeyance pending the EPA's completion of its reconsideration rulemaking. Notifications were made to Texas, Illinois and Ohio state agencies on the retirement exemption for applicable coal plants by the regulatory deadline of October 13, 2021. Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR)/Groundwater In August 2018, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a decision that vacates and remands certain provisions of the 2015 CCR rule, including an applicability exemption for legacy impoundments. In August 2020, the EPA issued a final rule establishing a deadline of April 11, 2021 to cease receipt of waste and initiate closure at unlined CCR impoundments. The final rule allows a generation plant to seek the EPA's approval to extend this deadline if no alternative disposal capacity is available and either a conversion to comply with the CCR rule is underway or retirement will occur by either 2023 or 2028 (depending on the size of the impoundment at issue). Prior to the November 2020 deadline, we submitted applications to the EPA requesting compliance extensions under both conversion and retirement scenarios. In 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 August 2021, we submitted a request to transfer our conversion application for the Zimmer facility to a retirement application following announcement that Zimmer will close by May 31, 2022. In January 2022, the EPA determined that our conversion and retirement applications for our CCR facilities were complete but has not yet proposed action on any of those applications. In addition, in January 2022, the EPA also made a series of public statements, including in a press release, that purported to impose new, more onerous closure requirements for CCR units. The EPA issued these new purported requirements without prior notice and without following the legal requirements for adopting new rules. These new purported requirements announced by the EPA are contrary to existing regulations and the EPA's prior positions. In April 2022, we, along with the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), a trade association of over 130 utility operating companies, energy companies, and certain other industry associations, filed petitions for review with the D.C. Circuit Court and intend to ask the court to determine that the EPA cannot implement or enforce the new purported requirements because the EPA has not followed the required procedures. The State of Texas and the TCEQ have intervened in support of the petitions filed by the Vistra subsidiaries and USWAG, and various environmental groups have intervened on behalf of the EPA. MISO — In 2012, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) issued violation notices alleging violations of groundwater standards onsite at our Baldwin and Vermilion facilities' CCR surface impoundments. These violation notices remain unresolved; however, in 2016, the IEPA approved our closure and post-closure care plans for the Baldwin old east, east, and west fly ash CCR surface impoundments. We have completed closure activities at those ponds at our Baldwin facility. At our retired Vermilion facility, which was not potentially subject to the EPA's 2015 CCR rule until the aforementioned D.C. Circuit Court decision in August 2018, we submitted proposed corrective action plans involving closure of two CCR surface impoundments ( i.e. , the old east and the north impoundments) to the IEPA in 2012, and we submitted revised plans in 2014. In May 2017, in response to a request from the IEPA for additional information regarding the closure of these Vermilion surface impoundments, we agreed to perform additional groundwater sampling and closure options and riverbank stabilizing options. In May 2018, Prairie Rivers Network (PRN) filed a citizen suit in federal court in Illinois against DMG, alleging violations of the Clean Water Act for alleged unauthorized discharges. In August 2018, we filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In November 2018, the district court granted our motion to dismiss and judgment was entered in our favor. In June 2021, the Seventh Circuit Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the lawsuit, but stated that PRN may refile. In April 2019, PRN also filed a complaint against DMG before the IPCB, alleging that groundwater flows allegedly associated with the ash impoundments at the Vermilion site have resulted in exceedances both of surface water standards and Illinois groundwater standards dating back to 1992. We answered that complaint in July 2021, and this matter remains 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, which is owned by our subsidiary DMG, and that notice was referred to the Illinois Attorney General. In June 2021, the Illinois Attorney General and the Vermilion County State Attorney filed a complaint in Illinois state court with an agreed interim consent order which the court subsequently entered. Given the violation notices and the enforcement action, the unique characteristics of the site, and the proximity of the site to the only national scenic river in Illinois, we agreed to enter into the interim consent order to resolve this matter. Per the terms of the agreed interim consent order, DMG is required to evaluate the closure alternatives under the requirements of the newly implemented Illinois Coal Ash regulation (discussed below) and close the site by removal. In addition, the interim consent order requires that during the impoundment closure process, impacted groundwater will be collected before it leaves the site or enters the nearby Vermilion river and, if necessary, DMG will be required to install temporary riverbank protection if the river migrates within a certain distance of the impoundments. These proposed closure costs are reflected in the ARO in our condensed consolidated balance sheets (see Note 17). In July 2019, coal ash disposal and storage legislation in Illinois was enacted. The legislation addresses state requirements for the proper closure of coal ash ponds in the state of Illinois. The law tasks the IEPA and the IPCB to set up a series of guidelines, rules and permit requirements for closure of ash ponds. Under the final rule, which was finalized and became effective in April 2021, coal ash impoundment owners would be required to submit a closure alternative analysis to the IEPA for the selection of the best method for coal ash remediation at a particular site. The rule does not mandate closure by removal at any site. In May 2021, we filed an appeal in the Illinois Fourth Judicial District over certain provisions of the final rule. We filed our opening brief in October 2021. Other parties have also filed appeals of certain provisions of the final rule. In October 2021, we filed operating permit applications for 18 impoundments as required by the Illinois coal ash rule, and filed construction permit applications for three of our sites in January 2022 and six of our sites in July 2022. One additional closure construction application will be filed for our Baldwin facility in 2023. For all of the above matters, if certain corrective action measures, including groundwater treatment or removal of ash, are required at any of our coal-fueled facilities, we may incur significant costs that could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. The Illinois coal ash rule was finalized in April 2021 and does not require removal. However, the rule required us to undertake further site specific evaluations required by each program. We will not know the full range of decommissioning costs, including groundwater remediation, if any, that ultimately may be required under the Illinois rule until permit applications have been approved by the IEPA. However, the currently anticipated CCR surface impoundment and landfill closure costs, as reflected in our existing ARO liabilities, reflect the costs of closure methods 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 the FERC regarding the Zone 4 results for the 2015-2016 planning resource auction (PRA) conducted by MISO. Dynegy is a named party in one of the complaints. The complainants, Public Citizen, Inc., the Illinois Attorney General and Southwestern Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Complainants), challenged the results of the PRA as unjust and unreasonable, requested rate relief/refunds, and requested changes to the MISO planning resource auction structure going forward. Complainants also alleged that Dynegy may have engaged in economic or physical withholding in Zone 4 constituting market manipulation in the PRA. The Independent Market Monitor for MISO (MISO IMM), which was responsible for monitoring the PRA, determined that all offers were competitive and that no physical or economic withholding occurred. The MISO IMM also stated, in a filing responding to the complaints, that there is no basis for the remedies sought by the Complainants. We filed our answer to these complaints explaining that we complied fully with the terms of the MISO tariff in connection with the PRA and disputing the allegations. The Illinois Industrial Energy Consumers filed a related complaint at the FERC against MISO in June 2015 requesting prospective changes to the MISO tariff. Dynegy also responded to this complaint with respect to Dynegy's conduct alleged in the complaint. In October 2015, the FERC issued an order of nonpublic, formal investigation (the investigation) into whether market manipulation or other potential violations of the |
