NRG ENERGY, INC.

Previous wording

As you read this discussion and analysis, refer to NRG's condensed consolidated statements of operations to this Form 10-Q, which present the results of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024. Also refer to NRG's 2024 Form 10-K, which includes detailed discussions of various items impacting the Company's business, results of operations and financial condition, including: General section; Strategy section; Business Overview section, including how regulation, weather, and other factors affect NRG's business; and Critical Accounting Estimates section.

Current wording

As you read this discussion and analysis, refer to NRG's condensed consolidated statements of operations to this Form 10-Q, which present the results of operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024. Also refer to NRG's 2024 Form 10-K, which includes detailed discussions of various items impacting the Company's business, results of operations and financial condition, including: General section; Strategy section; Business Overview section, including how regulation, weather, and other factors affect NRG's business; and Critical Accounting Estimates section.

Previous wording

NRG Energy, Inc., or NRG or the Company, is a leading energy and smart home company powering a brighter, smarter future. The Company delivers gas, electricity, and smart home solutions to approximately 8 million residential customers (comprised of 6 million retail energy customers and 2 million smart home customers) in addition to large commercial and industrial, hyperscaler, and wholesale customers. Across the U.S. and Canada, NRG is redefining customer’s experience with energy under brand names such as NRG, Reliant, Direct Energy, Green Mountain Energy, and Vivint. As of June 30, 2025, the Company’s core power and natural gas business consists of approximately 12 GW of competitive power generation, primarily in Texas, and a natural gas portfolio that serves approximately 1,800 MMDth annually.

Current wording

NRG Energy, Inc., or NRG or the Company, is a leading energy and smart home company powering a brighter, smarter future. The Company provides gas, electricity, and smart home solutions to approximately 8 million residential customers (comprised of 6 million retail energy customers and 2 million smart home customers) in addition to large commercial and industrial, hyperscaler, and wholesale customers. Across the U.S. and Canada, NRG is redefining customer’s experience with energy under brand names such as NRG, Reliant, Direct Energy, Green Mountain Energy, and Vivint. As of September 30, 2025, the Company’s core power and natural gas business consists of approximately 12 GW of competitive power generation, primarily in Texas, and a natural gas portfolio that serves approximately 1,800 MMDth annually.

Previous wording

Maryland Legislation — On May 9, 2024, Maryland Governor Wes Moore signed Senate Bill 1 into law, which restricts the competitive retail electric and natural gas market in Maryland, affecting residential customers but not commercial and industrial customers. Key provisions of the law took effect on January 1, 2025. The legislation imposes a price cap on residential contracts tied to a trailing 12-month historical average of utility rates, with only a limited exception for renewable power products. Renewable products must now have their price pre-approved by the Maryland Public Service Commission and source their renewable electricity certificates from within the PJM region. The law also requires that any variable-price contract not contain a change in price more than once a year, except time-of-use contracts, and limits contract terms to 12 months. It requires affirmative consent for the renewal of customer contracts for renewable power products. The law also imposes licensing requirements on energy salespeople. While the law states that it does not impair existing contracts, the Maryland Public Service Commission has ruled that grandfathering of existing contracts will end as of December 31, 2025, and that suppliers must issue separate bills for their charges for all new and renewing contracts as of January 1, 2025. On October 1, 2024, Green Mountain Energy Company, NRG’s renewable electricity provider, along with a retail trade association to which NRG belongs, filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1. On November 18, 2024, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs, including Green Mountain, have filed an appeal to this denial to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal is pending.

Current wording

Maryland Legislation — On May 9, 2024, Maryland Governor Wes Moore signed Senate Bill 1 into law, which restricts the competitive retail electric and natural gas market in Maryland, affecting residential customers but not commercial and industrial customers. Key provisions of the law took effect on January 1, 2025. The legislation imposes a price cap on residential contracts tied to a trailing 12-month historical average of utility rates, with only a limited exception for renewable power products. Renewable products must now have their price pre-approved by the Maryland Public Service Commission and source their renewable electricity certificates from within the PJM region. The law also requires that any variable-price contract not contain a change in price more than once a year, except time-of-use contracts, and limits contract terms to 12 months. It requires affirmative consent for the renewal of customer contracts for renewable power products. The law also imposes licensing requirements on energy salespeople. While the law states that it does not impair existing contracts, the Maryland Public Service Commission has ruled that grandfathering of existing contracts will end as of December 31, 2025, and that suppliers must issue separate bills for their charges for all new and renewing contracts as of January 1, 2025. On October 1, 2024, Green Mountain Energy Company, NRG’s renewable electricity provider, along with a retail trade association to which NRG belongs, filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1. On November 18, 2024, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs, including Green Mountain, filed an appeal to this denial in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and oral argument occurred on October 24, 2025.

Previous wording

Public Utility Commission of Texas’ Actions with Respect to Wholesale Pricing and Market Design —The PUCT continues to analyze and implement multiple options for promoting increased reliability in the wholesale electric market, including the adoption of a reliability standard for resource adequacy and market-based mechanisms to achieve this standard. The Commission adopted a reliability standard that became effective in September 2024.

Current wording

Public Utility Commission of Texas’s Actions with Respect to Wholesale Pricing and Market Design —The PUCT continues to analyze and implement multiple options for promoting increased reliability in the wholesale electric market, including the adoption of a reliability standard for resource adequacy and market-based mechanisms to achieve this standard. The Commission adopted a reliability standard that became effective in September 2024.

Previous wording

Texas Energy Fund —Through Senate Bill 2627, the Texas Legislature created the TEF, which received voter approval in November 2023, and will provide grants and low-interest loans (3%) to incentivize the development of more dispatchable generation and smaller backup generation in ERCOT. The PUCT adopted a rule in March 2024, which establishes the application and participation requirements and the process by which the Texas Energy Fund loan proceeds for dispatchable generation in ERCOT will be distributed. The initial window for submitting loan applications was opened on June 1, 2024 and closed on July 27, 2024. NRG, through its subsidiaries, filed for loan proceeds for three separate projects, totaling more than 1,500 MWs of capacity. The PUCT also adopted a rule for the completion bonus grant program in April 2024, which provides for opportunities for grants of $120,000 per MW for dispatchable generation projects interconnected before June 1, 2026, or $80,000 per MW for dispatchable generation projects interconnected on or after June 1, 2026 but before June 1, 2029, subject to performance requirements. In January 2025, the PUCT began accepting applications for completion bonus grants, and NRG, through its subsidiaries, has filed applications for each of the three projects referenced above. The 89th Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 2268, which separated the 10,000 MW collective cap on the ERCOT loan and grant programs resulting in a 10,000 MW cap for the loan program and a separate 10,000 MW cap for the completion bonus grant program.

Current wording

Texas Energy Fund —Through Senate Bill 2627, the Texas Legislature created the TEF, which received voter approval in November 2023, and will provide grants and low-interest loans (3%) to incentivize the development of more dispatchable generation and smaller backup generation in ERCOT. The PUCT adopted a rule in March 2024, which establishes the application and participation requirements and the process by which the TEF loan proceeds for dispatchable generation in ERCOT will be distributed. The initial window for submitting loan applications was opened on June 1, 2024 and closed on July 27, 2024. NRG, through its subsidiaries, filed for loan proceeds for three separate projects, totaling more than 1,500 MWs of capacity. The PUCT also adopted a rule for the completion bonus grant program in April 2024, which provides for opportunities for grants of $120,000 per MW for dispatchable generation projects interconnected before June 1, 2026, or $80,000 per MW for dispatchable generation projects interconnected on or after June 1, 2026 but before June 1, 2029, subject to performance requirements. In January 2025, the PUCT began accepting applications for completion bonus grants, and NRG, through its subsidiaries, has filed applications for each of the three projects referenced above. The 89th Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 2268, which separated the 10,000 MW collective cap on the ERCOT loan and grant programs resulting in a 10,000 MW cap for the loan program and a separate 10,000 MW cap for the completion bonus grant program.

Previous wording

On August 29, 2024, the PUCT approved an initial portfolio of projects to move into a due diligence process with its third-party administrator. T.H. Wharton generation facility's 415 MW gas peaking unit, which is projected to become commercially operational in 2026, was among the projects selected to move into due diligence, and that process is underway. On December 12, 2024, the PUCT approved Cedar Bayou Unit 5’s 689 MW combined cycle generating facility project to move into due diligence. On March 13, 2025, the PUCT approved Greens Bayou Unit 6’s 443 MW gas peaking unit project to move into due diligence. Cedar Bayou Unit 5 and Greens Bayou Unit 6 are projected to become commercially operational in 2028.

Current wording

On August 29, 2024, the PUCT approved an initial portfolio of projects to move into a due diligence process with its third-party administrator. T.H. Wharton was among the projects selected to move into due diligence. On December 12, 2024, the PUCT approved the Cedar Bayou 5 project to move into due diligence. On March 13, 2025, the PUCT approved the Greens Bayou 6 project to move into due diligence. Greens Bayou 6 is projected to become commercially operational in mid-2028.

Previous wording

Senate Bill 6 (“SB 6”)— On June 20, 2025, the Governor of Texas signed SB 6 into law, which includes various provisions that concern how both ERCOT, transmission and distribution utilities, and power generation companies plan for and serve large loads (defined as 75 MWs and above) in the ERCOT market. SB 6 requires load forecasting by requiring criteria for inclusion into the forecast and by requiring financial commitments upon a request for a large load customer seeking interconnection to begin engineering studies. In addition, SB 6 includes processes by which large loads should be required or incentivized to curtail their operations. At the same time, SB 6 establishes a PUCT regulatory procedure to minimize potential reliability and stranded-cost impacts that may be associated with large load co-locations with power generators that were interconnected to ERCOT as of September 1, 2025. Generators connected to the grid after this date and co-location arrangements that existed as of January 1, 2025 are exempt from this procedure. Finally, SB 6 requires the PUCT to investigate revising the cost allocation and rate design that governs the ERCOT transmission system. PUCT rulemaking will be required for each major component of SB 6.

Current wording

Senate Bill 6 (“SB 6”)— On June 20, 2025, the Governor of Texas signed SB 6 into law, which includes various provisions that concern how both ERCOT, transmission and distribution utilities, and power generation companies plan for and serve large loads (defined as 75 MWs and above) in the ERCOT market. SB 6 requires load forecasting by requiring criteria for inclusion into the forecast and by requiring financial commitments upon a request for a large load customer seeking interconnection to begin engineering studies. In addition, SB 6 includes processes by which large loads should be required or incentivized to curtail their operations. At the same time, SB 6 establishes a PUCT regulatory procedure to minimize potential reliability and stranded-cost impacts that may be associated with new large load co-locations with power generators that were interconnected to ERCOT and operating as stand-alone generators as of September 1, 2025. Generators connected to the grid after this date are exempt from this procedure. Finally, SB 6 requires the PUCT to investigate revising the cost allocation and rate design that governs the ERCOT transmission system. PUCT rulemaking is in progress.

Previous wording

Capacity Market Litigation and Reforms— On September 27, 2024, various public interest organizations filed a complaint at FERC against PJM seeking changes to the treatment of RMRs in the capacity market. On November 18, 2024, various state consumer advocates filed a complaint at FERC against PJM seeking revisions to several aspects of PJM’s capacity market, including requiring resources previously subject to categorical exemptions to participate in capacity auctions, longer notice periods for deactivating generating resources, and several other changes. On December 9, 2024, PJM submitted a filing at FERC proposing various capacity market updates regarding the treatment of qualifying resources that are retained under RMR agreements as capacity, retention of a dual-fuel fired combustion turbine plant as the reference resource, and updates to the Non-Performance Charge based on the RTO Net CONE for the 2026/2027 and 2027/2028 Delivery Years. On February 14, 2025, FERC approved PJM’s filings. On December 13, 2024, PJM filed tariff changes to add provisions enabling a one-time reliability-based expansion of the eligibility criteria for PJM’s interconnection process intended to allow a limited number of additional resources to participate in an upcoming interconnection queue. On February 11, 2025, FERC approved PJM’s filing. On December 20, 2024, PJM submitted tariff changes that propose to require all Existing Generation Capacity Resources to offer into the capacity auctions beginning with the 2026/2027 Delivery Year as well as certain enhancements to the Market Seller Offer Cap. On February 20, 2025, FERC approved PJM’s filing. On December 30, 2024, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed a complaint at FERC alleging that PJM’s demand curve cap is unjust and unreasonable. The complaint seeks to lower the demand curve cap to be 1.5 times net CONE of the reference resource. On January 28, 2025, PJM notified stakeholders that it had reached an agreement with Governor Shapiro, and on February 14, 2025, PJM and Governor Shapiro filed a joint stipulation establishing the capacity market temporary price cap and price floor for the next two auctions and a motion to dismiss the December 30, 2024 complaint. On February 20, 2025, PJM submitted proposed revisions to its tariff to establish a price cap and price floor for the auctions for 2026/2027 and 2027/2028 delivery years. On April 21, 2025, FERC accepted the filing and dismissed the December 30, 2024 complaint filed by Pennsylvania Governor Shapiro in accordance with the February 14, 2025 joint stipulation and motion to dismiss.

Current wording

Capacity Market Litigation and Reforms— On September 27, 2024, various public interest organizations filed a complaint at FERC against PJM seeking changes to the treatment of RMRs in the capacity market. On November 18, 2024, various state consumer advocates filed a complaint at FERC against PJM seeking revisions to several aspects of PJM’s capacity market, including requiring resources previously subject to categorical exemptions to participate in capacity auctions, longer notice periods for deactivating generating resources, and several other changes. On December 9, 2024, PJM submitted a filing at FERC proposing various capacity market updates regarding the treatment of qualifying resources that are retained under RMR agreements as capacity, retention of a dual-fuel fired combustion turbine plant as the reference resource, and updates to the Non-Performance Charge based on the RTO Net CONE for the 2026/2027 and 2027/2028 Delivery Years. On February 14, 2025, FERC approved PJM’s filings. One party filed a request for rehearing, and on August 8, 2025, FERC issued an order on the rehearing request.

Previous wording

Consumer Advocates Complaint— On April 14, 2025, various state consumer advocates filed a Complaint at FERC asking FERC to reprice the 2025/2026 PJM capacity auction results. If FERC were to grant the request, the capacity prices for the 2025/2026 delivery year would be expected to change.

Current wording

Consumer Advocates Complaint— On April 14, 2025, various state consumer advocates filed a complaint with FERC asking FERC to reprice the 2025/2026 PJM capacity auction results. If FERC were to grant the request, the capacity prices for the 2025/2026 delivery year would be expected to change. The complaint is pending at FERC.

Previous wording

Revisions to PJM Locational Deliverability Area ("LDA") Reliability Requirement — The Base Residual Auction ("BRA") for the 2024/2025 delivery year commenced on December 7, 2022 and closed on December 13, 2022. On December 19, 2022, PJM announced that it would delay the publication of the auction results. On December 23, 2022, PJM made a filing at FERC to revise the definition of LDA Reliability Requirement in the Tariff. This would allow PJM to exclude certain resources from the calculation of the LDA Reliability Requirement. On February 21, 2023, FERC accepted PJM's filing. Multiple parties, including NRG, filed for rehearing. Rehearing was denied by operation of law, and multiple parties, including the Company, filed appeals to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 12, 2024, the court vacated the portion of the FERC orders that allow PJM to apply the LDA Reliability Requirement to the 2024/2025 capacity auction. On March 29, 2024, PJM filed a petition seeking confirmation as to the capacity commitments rules for the 2024/2025 auction. On April 22, 2024, multiple parties filed a complaint seeking to find the revised rate unjust and unreasonable and implement rates consistent with

Current wording

Multiple parties, including NRG, filed for rehearing. Rehearing was denied by operation of law, and multiple parties, including the Company, filed appeals to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 12, 2024, the court vacated the portion of the FERC orders that allow PJM to apply the LDA Reliability Requirement to the 2024/2025 capacity auction. On March 29, 2024, PJM filed a petition seeking confirmation as to the capacity commitments rules for the 2024/2025 auction. On April 22, 2024, multiple parties filed a complaint seeking to find the revised rate unjust and unreasonable and implement rates consistent with FERC's February 2023 decision, which was denied on July 9, 2024. Those parties filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on November 5, 2024. Multiple parties, including NRG, intervened in the appeal and filed an opening brief on July 21, 2025. The petitioners filed a reply brief on August 20, 2025, with oral argument expected to be scheduled by the end of 2025.

Previous wording

On July 22, 2025, PJM announced the results of its Base Residual Auction for the 2026/2027 planning year. The price came in at the FERC-approved cap of $329.17/MW-day for the entire PJM footprint of which NRG cleared approximately 1,008 MWs from the Company’s PJM generation fleet. NRG’s expected capacity revenues from the base residual auction for the 2026/2027 delivery year is approximately $121 million.

Current wording

On July 22, 2025, PJM announced the results of its BRA for the 2026/2027 planning year. The price came in at the FERC-approved cap of $329.17/MW-day for the entire PJM footprint of which NRG cleared approximately 1,008 MWs from the Company’s PJM generation fleet. NRG’s expected capacity revenues from the BRA for the 2026/2027 delivery year is approximately $121 million.

Previous wording

NRG is subject to numerous environmental laws in the development, construction, ownership and operation of power plants. These laws generally require that governmental permits and approvals be obtained before construction and maintained during operation of power plants. In general, the electric generation industry has faced increasingly stringent requirements regarding air quality, GHG emissions, combustion byproducts, water use and discharge, and threatened and endangered species including several rules promulgated in 2024. Future laws may require the addition of emissions controls or other environmental controls or impose restrictions on the Company's operations including unit retirements or impose obligations related to historic coal ash use, storage and disposal. At the federal level, the President has issued several Executive Orders that indicate that the current administration intends to ease the regulatory burden on the electric generation industry, which may affect the outcome of the rulemakings and related legal challenges described below. Complying with environmental laws often involves specialized human resources and significant capital and operating expenses, as well as occasionally curtailing operations. NRG decides to invest capital for environmental controls based on the relative certainty of the requirements, an evaluation of compliance options and the expected economic returns on capital.

Current wording

NRG is subject to numerous environmental laws in the development, construction, ownership and operation of power plants. These laws generally require that governmental permits and approvals be obtained before construction and maintained during operation of power plants. In general, the electric generation industry has faced increasingly stringent requirements regarding air quality, GHG emissions, combustion byproducts, water use and discharge, and threatened and endangered species including several rules promulgated in 2024. In general, future laws are expected to require the addition of emissions controls or other environmental controls or to impose additional restrictions the operations of the Company's facilities including unit retirements or impose obligations related to historic coal ash use, storage and disposal. At the federal level, the President has issued several Executive Orders and the EPA has proposed rules that indicate that the current administration intends to relax or rescind some recently promulgated regulations, which will affect the outcome of the rulemakings and related legal challenges described below. Complying with environmental laws often involves specialized human resources and significant capital and operating expenses, as well as occasionally curtailing operations. NRG decides to invest capital for environmental controls based on the relative certainty of the requirements, an evaluation of compliance options and the expected economic returns on capital.

Previous wording

CSAPR— On March 15, 2023, the EPA signed and released a prepublication version of a FIP after earlier having disapproved numerous state plans to address the issue. Several states, including Texas, challenged the EPA's disapproval of their state plans. On May 1, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stayed the EPA's disapproval of Texas' and Louisiana's state plans, which disapprovals are a condition precedent to the EPA imposing its plan on Texas and Louisiana. On March 25, 2025, the Fifth Circuit upheld the EPA’s disapproval of Texas’ and Louisiana’s state plans but did not address the FIP. On May 9, 2025, Texas and other parties petitioned the Fifth Circuit for a rehearing with the whole court. On June 5, 2023, the EPA promulgated the FIP. On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the FIP in the 11 states where the rule had not already been stayed. On April 14, 2025, the D.C. Circuit granted the EPA’s request to hold the legal challenges in abeyance while the EPA revisits the rule. The Company cannot predict the outcome of the legal challenges to the various state disapprovals and the final rule promulgated on June 5, 2023.

Current wording

CSAPR— On March 15, 2023, the EPA signed and released a prepublication version of a FIP after earlier having disapproved numerous state plans to address the issue. Several states, including Texas, challenged the EPA's disapproval of their state plans. On May 1, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stayed the EPA's disapproval of Texas's and Louisiana's state plans, which disapprovals are a condition precedent to the EPA imposing its plan on Texas and Louisiana. On March 25, 2025, the Fifth Circuit upheld the EPA’s disapproval of Texas’s and Louisiana’s state plans but did not address the FIP. On May 9, 2025, Texas and other parties petitioned the Fifth Circuit for a rehearing with the whole court. On June 5, 2023, the EPA promulgated the FIP. On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the FIP in the 11 states where the rule had not already been stayed. On April 14, 2025, the D.C. Circuit granted the EPA’s request to hold the legal challenges in abeyance while the EPA revisits the rule. The Company cannot predict the outcome of the legal challenges to the various state disapprovals and the final rule promulgated on June 5, 2023.

Previous wording

Regional Haze Proposal — In May 2023, the EPA proposed to withdraw the existing Texas Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program and replace it with unit-specific SO 2 limits for 12 units in Texas to address requirements to improve visibility at National Parks and Wilderness areas. If finalized as proposed, the rule would result in more stringent SO 2 limits for two of the Company's coal-fired units in Texas. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this proposal.

Current wording

Regional Haze Proposal — In May 2023, the EPA proposed to withdraw the existing Texas Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program and replace it with unit-specific SO 2 limits for 12 units in Texas to address requirements to improve visibility at National Parks and Wilderness areas. If finalized as proposed, the rule would result in more stringent SO 2 limits for two of the Company's coal-fired units in Texas. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this proposal. On October 2, 2025, the EPA published an ANPRM announcing plans to revise the Regional Haze Rule and seeking public input on streamlining the requirements.

Previous wording

MATS— On May 7, 2024, the EPA promulgated a final rule that amends the MATS rule by, among other things, increasing the stringency of the filterable particulate matter standard at coal-burning units. The deadline for complying with this more stringent standard had been 2027. On April 8, 2025, the President signed a Proclamation that creates a 2-year exemption for compliance beginning on July 8, 2027 and ending on July 8, 2029 for certain coal units including those owned by the Company. Twenty three states have challenged this rule in the D.C. Circuit. On June 17, 2025, the EPA proposed to repeal the majority of the 2024 final rule amending the MATS rule. Accordingly, the outcome of this rulemaking is uncertain. The Company anticipates that the U.S. presidential administration will substantively revise this rule.

Current wording

MATS— On May 7, 2024, the EPA promulgated a final rule that amends the MATS rule by, among other things, increasing the stringency of the filterable particulate matter standard at coal-burning units. The deadline for complying with this more stringent standard had been 2027. On April 8, 2025, the President signed a Proclamation that creates a 2-year exemption for compliance beginning on July 8, 2027 and ending on July 8, 2029 for certain coal units including those owned by the Company. Twenty three states have challenged this rule in the D.C. Circuit. On June 17, 2025, the EPA proposed to repeal the majority of the 2024 final rule amending the MATS rule. The outcome of this rulemaking is uncertain. The Company anticipates that the U.S. presidential administration will substantively revise this rule.

Previous wording

ELG— In 2015, the EPA revised the ELG for Steam Electric Generating Facilities, which imposed more stringent requirements (as individual permits were renewed) for wastewater streams from FGD, fly ash, bottom ash and flue gas mercury control. In 2017, the EPA promulgated a final rule that, among other things, postponed the compliance dates to preserve the status quo for FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water by two years to November 2020 until the EPA amended the rule. On October 13, 2020, the EPA amended the 2015 ELG rule by: (i) altering the stringency of certain limits for FGD wastewater; (ii) relaxing the zero-discharge requirement for bottom ash transport water; and (iii) changing several deadlines. In 2021, NRG informed its regulators that the Company intends to comply with the ELG by ceasing combustion of coal by the end of 2028 at its domestic coal units outside of Texas, and installing appropriate controls by the end of 2025 at its two plants that have coal-fired units in Texas. On May 9, 2024, the EPA promulgated a rule that revises the ELG by, among other things, further restricting the discharge of (i) FGD wastewater, (ii) bottom ash transport water, and (iii) combustion residual leachate. The rule was challenged in numerous courts, but the cases have been consolidated in the Eighth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. The outcome of the legal challenges is uncertain. On February 19, 2025, the DOJ filed a motion asking the court to hold proceedings in abeyance while the U.S. presidential administration evaluates the rule, which the court granted. During the second quarter of 2025, the EPA announced its intent to update the 2024 rule to advance the goals of the current U.S.

Current wording

ELG— In 2015, the EPA revised the ELG for Steam Electric Generating Facilities, which imposed more stringent requirements (as individual permits were renewed) for wastewater streams from FGD, fly ash, bottom ash and flue gas mercury control. On October 13, 2020, the EPA amended the 2015 ELG rule by: (i) altering the stringency of certain limits for FGD wastewater; (ii) relaxing the zero-discharge requirement for bottom ash transport water; and (iii) changing several deadlines. In 2021, NRG informed its regulators that the Company intends to comply with the ELG by ceasing combustion of coal by the end of 2028 at its domestic coal units outside of Texas, and installing appropriate controls by the end of 2025 at its two plants that have coal-fired units in Texas. On May 9, 2024, the EPA promulgated a rule that again revises the ELG by, among other things, further restricting the discharge of (i) FGD wastewater, (ii) bottom ash transport water, and (iii) combustion residual leachate. The rule was challenged in numerous courts, but the cases were consolidated in the Eighth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. The outcome of the legal challenges is uncertain. On February 19, 2025, the DOJ filed a motion asking the court to hold proceedings in abeyance while the U.S. presidential administration evaluates the rule, which the court granted. On October 2, 2025, the EPA proposed to amend the ELG by extending deadlines that were part of the 2024 Rule, updating the transfer provisions to allow facilities to switch between compliance alternatives, and creating authority for alternative applicability dates. The EPA also is seeking comment on issues regarding a separate, future rulemaking on the underlying standards.

Previous wording

In April 2015, the EPA finalized the rule regulating byproducts of coal combustion (e.g., ash and gypsum) as solid wastes under the RCRA. On July 30, 2018, the EPA promulgated a rule that amended the ash rule by extending some of the deadlines and providing more flexibility for compliance. On August 21, 2018, the D.C. Circuit found, among other things, that the EPA had not adequately regulated unlined ponds and legacy surface impoundments. On August 28, 2020, the EPA finalized "A Holistic Approach to Closure Part A: Deadline to Initiate Closure," which amended the April 2015 Rule to address the August 2018 D.C. Circuit decision and extend some of the deadlines. On November 12, 2020, the EPA finalized "A Holistic Approach to Closure Part B: Alternative Demonstration for Unlined Surface Impoundments," which further amended the April 2015 Rule to, among other things, provide procedures for requesting approval to operate existing ash impoundments with an alternate liner. On May 8, 2024, the EPA promulgated a rule that establishes requirements for: (i) inactive (or legacy) surface impoundments at inactive facilities and (ii) CCR management units (regardless of how or when the CCR was placed) at regulated facilities. The rule also creates an obligation to conduct site assessments (at all active and certain inactive facilities) to determine whether CCR management units are present. The rule has been challenged in the D.C. Circuit and the outcome of the legal challenges is uncertain. The Company anticipates that the U.S. presidential administration will revisit this rule.

Current wording

In 2015, the EPA finalized the rule regulating byproducts of coal combustion (e.g., ash and gypsum) as solid wastes under the RCRA. On August 21, 2018, the D.C. Circuit found, among other things, that the EPA had not adequately regulated unlined ponds and legacy surface impoundments. On August 28, 2020, the EPA finalized "A Holistic Approach to Closure Part A: Deadline to Initiate Closure," which amended the April 2015 Rule to address the August 2018 D.C. Circuit decision and extend some of the deadlines. On November 12, 2020, the EPA finalized "A Holistic Approach to Closure Part B: Alternative Demonstration for Unlined Surface Impoundments," which further amended the April 2015 Rule to, among other things, provide procedures for requesting approval to operate existing ash impoundments with an alternate liner. On May 8, 2024, the EPA promulgated a rule that establishes requirements for: (i) inactive (or legacy) surface impoundments at inactive facilities and (ii) CCR management units (regardless of how or when the CCR was placed) at regulated facilities. The rule also creates an obligation to conduct site assessments (at all active and certain inactive facilities) to determine whether CCR management units are present. The rule has been challenged in the D.C. Circuit and the outcome of the legal challenges is uncertain. The Company anticipates that the U.S. presidential administration will revisit this rule.

Previous wording

On May 12, 2025, NRG entered into a definitive agreement with LS Power to acquire a power portfolio including 13 GW of natural gas-fired generation facilities and the C&I VPP platform with 6 GW of capacity. The consideration will consist of 24.25 million shares of NRG common stock, and $6.4 billion in cash, subject to working capital adjustments as set forth in the purchase agreement. As part of the transaction, NRG will also assume $3.2 billion of debt. The Company expects to fund the cash portion of the consideration using a combination of newly-issued secured debt and cash on hand. The acquisition is expected to close in the first quarter of 2026 and is subject to the satisfaction or waiver of specified closing conditions, consents and regulatory approvals, including HSR, FERC, DOJ, and NYSPSC. For further discussion, see Note 4, Acquisitions.

Current wording

On May 12, 2025, NRG entered into a definitive agreement with LS Power to acquire a power portfolio including 13 GW of natural gas-fired generation facilities and the C&I VPP platform with 6 GW of capacity. The consideration will consist of 24.25 million shares of NRG common stock and $6.4 billion in cash, subject to working capital adjustments as set forth in the purchase agreement. The Company intends to use a portion of the net proceeds from the New Unsecured Notes and the New Secured Notes to partially fund the cash portion of the purchase price of the acquisition of the LSP Portfolio. As part of the transaction, NRG will also assume approximately $3.2 billion of debt. The acquisition is expected to close in the first quarter of 2026, and is subject to the satisfaction or waiver of specified closing conditions, consents and regulatory approvals, including HSR, FERC, DOJ, and NYSPSC. For further discussion, see Note 4, Acquisitions and Dispositions.

Previous wording

On April 10, 2025, the Company acquired all of the ownership interests of six power generation facilities from Rockland Capital, LLC, adding 738 MW of natural gas-fired assets in Texas to its portfolio for $560 million in consideration, less $1 million in initial working capital adjustments. For further discussion, see Note 4, Acquisitions. The Company acquired the following generation facilities:

Current wording

On April 10, 2025, the Company acquired all of the ownership interests of six power generation facilities from Rockland Capital, LLC, adding 738 MW of natural gas-fired assets in Texas to its portfolio for $560 million in consideration, less $2 million in working capital adjustments. For further discussion, see Note 4, Acquisitions and Dispositions. The Company acquired the following generation facilities:

Previous wording

During the six months ended June 30, 2025, the Company completed $600 million of open market share repurchases at an average price of $107.14 per share. Through July 31, 2025, an additional $168 million of share repurchases were completed. As of July 31, 2025, $857 million is remaining under the $3.7 billion authorization. See Note 9, Changes in Capital Structure for additional discussion.

Current wording

During the nine months ended September 30, 2025, the Company completed $971 million of share repurchases at an average price of $119.78 per share. Through October 31, 2025, an additional $129 million of share repurchases were executed at an average price of $167.41 per share. On October 16, 2025, the Board of Directors authorized an additional share repurchase program of up to $3.0 billion, to be executed through 2028. See Note 9, Changes in Capital Structure for additional discussion.

Previous wording

In the first quarter of 2025, NRG increased the annual common stock dividend to $1.76 from $1.63 per share, representing an 8% increase from 2024. The Company targets an annual dividend growth rate of 7-9% per share in subsequent years.

Current wording

In the first quarter of 2025, NRG increased the annual common stock dividend to $1.76 from $1.63 per share, representing an 8% increase from 2024. Beginning in the first quarter of 2026, NRG will increase the annual dividend by 8% to $1.90 per share. The Company targets an annual dividend growth rate of 7-9% per share in subsequent years.

Previous wording

On July 31 2025, NRG entered into a $216 million loan agreement with the PUCT under the TEF to support development at its T.H. Wharton generation facility, which is currently under construction. The TEF loan bears interest at a fixed coupon rate of 3.000% per annum and has a final maturity date of July 31, 2045. The initial disbursement of funds for the TEF loan occurred in July 2025, and commercial operation of the 415 MW facility is expected by summer 2026. In March 2025, the PUCT selected the 443 MW Greens Bayou project to advance to the next phase of due diligence, marking the third NRG project chosen under the TEF due diligence process. This project is expected to be operational in 2028.

Current wording

In March 2025, the PUCT selected the Greens Bayou 6 project to advance to the next phase of due diligence, marking the third NRG project chosen under the TEF due diligence process. This project is expected to be operational in 2028.

Previous wording

Tariffs — NRG’s business is affected by various macroeconomic factors, including tariffs and inflationary trends. The U.S. has implemented, or is considering implementing, higher tariffs on imports into the U.S. Any potential increases in capital and operational expenditures may impact the Company’s procurement and sourcing strategies.

Current wording

Tariffs — NRG’s business is affected by various macroeconomic factors, including tariffs. The U.S. has implemented, or is considering implementing, higher tariffs on imports into the U.S. Any potential increases in capital and operational expenditures may impact the Company’s procurement and sourcing strategies.

Previous wording

Mark-to-market for economic hedging activities includes asset-backed hedges that have not been designated as cash flow hedges. Total net mark-to-market results decreased by $1.2 billion during the three months ended June 30, 2025, compared to the same period in 2024.

Current wording

Mark-to-market for economic hedging activities includes asset-backed hedges that have not been designated as cash flow hedges. Total net mark-to-market results increased by $1.3 billion during the three months ended September 30, 2025, compared to the same period in 2024.

Previous wording

(a)Includes $30 million, within the Texas segment, related to derivative contracts that were elected as NPNS on October 1, 2024 and are no longer valued at fair value on a recurring basis. For further discussion, see Note 6, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

Current wording

(a)Includes $(266) million, within the Texas segment, related to derivative contracts that were elected as NPNS on October 1, 2024 and are no longer valued at fair value on a recurring basis. For further discussion, see Note 6, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

Previous wording

For the six months ended June 30, 2025, the $16 million loss in revenues from economic hedge positions was driven primarily by the reversal of previously recognized unrealized gains on contracts that settled during the period and a decrease in the value of East open positions as a result of increases in Northeast power prices. The $64 million gain in operating costs and expenses from economic hedge positions was driven primarily by an increase in the value of Texas open positions as a result of increases in ERCOT power prices, partially offset by the reversal of previously recognized unrealized gains on contracts that settled during the period.

Current wording

For the three months ended September 30, 2025, the $34 million gain in revenues from economic hedge positions was driven primarily by an increase in the value of open positions as a result of decreases in natural gas prices and the reversal of previously recognized unrealized losses on contracts that settled during the period. The $410 million loss in operating costs and expenses from economic hedge positions was driven primarily by the reversal of previously recognized unrealized gains on contracts that settled during the period and a decrease in the value of open positions in West as a result of decreases in CAISO power prices.

Previous wording

For the three months ended June 30, 2024, the $84 million gain in revenues from economic hedge positions was driven primarily by an increase in the value of East open positions as a result of decreases in PJM power prices. The $791 million gain in operating costs and expenses from economic hedge positions was driven primarily by an increase in the value of open positions in Texas as a result of increases in ERCOT power prices, as well as the reversal of previously recognized unrealized losses on contracts that settled during the period.

Current wording

For the three months ended September 30, 2024, the $8 million gain in revenues from economic hedge positions was driven primarily by the reversal of previously recognized unrealized losses on contracts that settled during the period. The $1.6 billion loss in operating costs and expenses from economic hedge positions was driven primarily by a decrease in the value of open positions as a result of decreases in power prices, as well as the reversal of previously recognized unrealized gains on contracts that settled during the period.

Previous wording

Other cost of operations for the three months ended June 30, 2025 increased by $29 million, when compared to the same period in 2024, due to the following:

Current wording

Other cost of operations for the three months ended September 30, 2025 decreased by $30 million, when compared to the same period in 2024, due to the following:

Previous wording

Acquisition-related transaction and integration costs of $43 million and $6 million for the three months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively, include:

Current wording

Acquisition-related transaction and integration costs of $8 million and $7 million for the three months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively, include:

Previous wording

For the three months ended June 30, 2025, income tax benefit of $49 million was recorded on pre-tax loss of $153 million. For the same period in 2024, an income tax expense of $314 million was recorded on pre-tax income of $1.1 billion. The effective tax rates were 32.0% and 29.8% for the three months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively.

Current wording

For the three months ended September 30, 2025, income tax expense of $86 million was recorded on pre-tax income of $238 million. For the same period in 2024, an income tax benefit of $247 million was recorded on pre-tax loss of $1.0 billion. The effective tax rates were 36.1% and 24.4% for the three months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively.

Previous wording

For the three months ended June 30, 2025, the effective tax rate was higher than the statutory rate of 21%, primarily due to the state tax benefit and permanent differences. For the same period in 2024, the effective tax rate was higher than the statutory rate of 21% primarily due to the state tax expense and permanent differences.

Current wording

For the three months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024, the effective tax rate was higher than the statutory rate of 21%, primarily due to the state tax expense.

Previous wording

The following table summarizes average on peak power prices for each of the major markets in which NRG operates for the six months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024.

Current wording

The following table summarizes average on peak power prices for each of the major markets in which NRG operates for the nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024:

Previous wording

The following table summarizes the average Henry Hub natural gas price for the six months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024:

Current wording

The following table summarizes the average Henry Hub natural gas price for the nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024:

Previous wording

The following tables present the composition and reconciliation of gross margin and economic gross margin for the six months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024:

Current wording

The following tables present the composition and reconciliation of gross margin and economic gross margin for the nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024:

Previous wording

The following table represents the weather metrics for the six months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024:

Current wording

The following table represents the weather metrics for the nine months ended September 30, 2025 and 2024:

Previous wording

Gross margin decreased $989 million and economic gross margin increased $257 million, both of which include intercompany sales, during the six months ended June 30, 2025, compared to the same period in 2024.

Current wording

Gross margin increased $378 million and economic gross margin increased $387 million, both of which include intercompany sales, during the nine months ended September 30, 2025, compared to the same period in 2024.

Previous wording

Mark-to-market for economic hedging activities includes asset-backed hedges that have not been designated as cash flow hedges. Total net mark-to-market results decreased by $1.3 billion during the six months ended June 30, 2025, compared to the same period in 2024.

Current wording

Mark-to-market for economic hedging activities includes asset-backed hedges that have not been designated as cash flow hedges. Total net mark-to-market results decreased by $45 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2025, compared to the same period in 2024.

Previous wording

(a)Includes $(53) million, within the Texas segment, related to derivative contracts that were elected as NPNS on October 1, 2024 and are no longer valued at fair value on a recurring basis. For further discussion, see Note 6, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

Current wording

(a)Includes $(319) million, within the Texas segment, related to derivative contracts that were elected as NPNS on October 1, 2024 and are no longer valued at fair value on a recurring basis. For further discussion, see Note 6, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

Previous wording

For the six months ended June 30, 2024, the $24 million gain in revenues from economic hedge positions was primarily driven by an increase in the value of newly executed East open positions and decreases in PJM power prices, partially offset by the reversal of previously recognized unrealized gains on contracts that settled during the period. The $1.3 billion gain in operating costs and expenses from economic hedge positions was driven primarily by an increase in the value of Texas open positions as a result of increases in ERCOT power prices, as well as the reversal of previously recognized unrealized gains on contracts that settled during the period.

Current wording

For the nine months ended September 30, 2025, the $18 million gain in revenues from economic hedge positions was driven primarily by an increase in the value of open positions as a result of decreases in natural gas prices. The $346 million loss in operating costs and expenses from economic hedge positions was driven primarily by the reversal of previously recognized unrealized gains on contracts that settled during the period, partially offset by an increase in the value of Texas open positions as a result of increases in ERCOT power prices.

Previous wording

For the three months ended June 30, 2025, the $1 million loss in revenues from economic hedge positions was driven primarily by the reversal of previously recognized unrealized gains on contracts that settled during the period, largely offset by an increase in the value of open positions in East as a result of decreases in Northeast power prices. The $282 million loss in operating costs and expenses from economic hedge positions was driven primarily by a decrease in the value of open positions in East as a result of decreases in natural gas prices and Northeast power prices, partially offset by the reversal of previously recognized unrealized losses on contracts that settled during the period.

Current wording

For the nine months ended September 30, 2024, the $32 million gain in revenues from economic hedge positions was primarily driven by an increase in the value of open positions as a result of decreases in power prices, partially offset by the reversal of previously recognized unrealized gains on contracts that settled during the period. The $315 million loss in operating costs and expenses from economic hedge positions was driven primarily by a decrease in the value of open positions as a result of decreases in power prices, partially offset by the reversal of previously recognized unrealized losses on contracts that settled during the period.