Vistra Corp

We are subject to extensive environmental regulation by governmental authorities, including the EPA and the environmental regulatory bodies of states in which we operate. The EPA has finalized or proposed several regulatory actions establishing new requirements for control of certain emissions from sources, including electricity generation facilities. However, in January 2025, President Trump issued a series of executive orders, including an order titled Unleashing American Energy (the Order) that ordered that all federal agencies are to review all existing regulations, orders, and other actions for consistency with the policy goals, and develop an action plan within 30 days to resolve any policy inconsistencies. The Order requires the EPA to review the GHG, CSAPR, Legacy CCR and ELG rules discussed below. Additionally, the Order states the U.S. Attorney General may request a stay of the litigation involving these rules while the EPA conducts its reviews. See Item 1A. Risk Factors and Note 15 to the Financial Statements for additional information.

Climate Change

There is continuing interest from our stakeholders domestically and internationally on global climate change and how GHG emissions, such as CO 2, contribute to global climate change. GHG emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels, primarily by our coal-fueled-generation plants as well as our natural gas-fueled generation plants represent the substantial majority of our total GHG emissions. CO 2, methane and nitrous oxide are emitted in this combustion process, with CO 2 representing the largest portion of these GHG emissions. We estimate that our generation facilities produced approximately 95 million short tons of CO 2 in the year ended 2024. Vistra's carbon intensity for power generation improved from 0.56 short tons of CO 2 per MWh in 2023 to 0.48 short tons of CO 2 per MWh in 2024, a 15% year-over-year improvement driven by our Energy Harbor acquisition.

To manage our environmental impact from our business activities and reduce our emissions profile, Vistra set emissions reduction targets. Vistra is targeting to achieve a 60% reduction in Scope 1 and Scope 2 CO 2 equivalent emissions by 2030 as compared to a 2010 baseline with a long-term goal to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, assuming necessary advancements in technology and supportive market constructs and public policy. Since 2010, Vistra has retired more than 15,100 MW of coal and natural gas power plants resulting in a 50% reduction in carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions, a 66% reduction in nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions, and an 90% reduction in sulfur dioxide (SO 2) emissions through year-end 2024, compared to a 2010 baseline. Vistra also has targets validated through the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). Our near-term science-based targets are to reduce absolute scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions 58% by 2028 from a 2018 base year, reduce absolute scope 1 and 3 GHG emissions from all sold electricity 58% within the same timeframe, and reduce absolute scope 3 GHG emissions from use of sold products 42% within the same timeframe. Vistra is exploring multiple options to meet these targets, but we must balance these efforts with the need to prioritize reliability and affordability for our customers.

The evolution of our generation portfolio is focused on ensuring reliability and affordability in the markets we serve with an emphasis on resilient dispatchable assets complemented by zero-carbon assets. We seek to serve our customers through a variety of generation sources, including efficient natural gas units, nuclear generation, renewables, and battery ESS, while we also continuously explore new technologies with lower carbon footprints.

We have already taken or announced significant steps to transform our generation portfolio with the goal of maintaining reliability while also reducing the emissions intensity of our generation fleet, including:

•Acquisition of Nuclear Generation Facilities— In 2024, we acquired 4,048 MW of nuclear generation facilities in PJM from Energy Harbor.

•Re-powered generation assets— In May 2024, we announced our intention to repower the coal-fueled Coleto Creek Power Plant near Goliad, Texas as a natural-gas fueled plant with up to 600 MW of capacity.

•Uprated capacity at existing natural gas plants— Additional capacity has been added to existing natural gas plants through technological upgrades improving efficiency and overall fleet intensity.

•Battery Energy Storage Projects — As of December 31, 2024, we owned battery ESS totaling 750 MW in California, 270 MW in Texas and 4 MW in Illinois. We have announced our plans to develop additional battery ESS at retired or to-be-retired plant sites in Illinois.

•Solar Projects — As of December 31, 2024, we owned solar generations facilities totaling 338 MW in Texas and 112 MW in Illinois. We have announced our plans to develop additional solar generation facilities in Texas, with expected commercial operation dates beginning in 2025, and additional solar generation facilities at retired or to-be retired plant sites in Illinois with expected commercial operation dates beginning in 2026.

We will only invest in growth projects if we are confident in the expected returns.

Green Finance Framework

In December 2021, we announced the publication of our Green Finance Framework, which allows us to issue green financial instruments to fund new or existing projects that support renewable energy and energy efficiency with alignment to our ESG strategy.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG)

In May 2023, the EPA released a proposal regulating power plant GHG emissions, while also proposing to repeal the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule that had been finalized by the EPA in July 2019. In May 2024, the EPA published a final GHG rule that repealed the ACE rule and sets limits for (a) new natural gas-fired combustion turbines and (b) existing coal-, oil- and natural gas-fired steam generation units. The standards are based on technologies such as carbon capture and sequestration/storage (CCS) and natural gas co-firing. Starting in 2030, the rule would begin to require more CO 2 emissions control at certain existing fossil fuel-fired steam generating units, with more stringent standards beginning in 2032 for coal-fired units that plan to operate for a longer period of time. For new natural gas combustion turbines that operate more frequently, the rule would phase in increasingly stringent CO 2 requirements over time. Under the rule, states would be required to submit plans to the EPA within 24 months of the rule's publication in the Federal Register that provide for the establishment, implementation, and enforcement of standards of performance for existing sources. These state plans must generally establish standards that are at least as stringent as the EPA's emission guidelines. Under the rule, existing coal-fired steam generation units that will operate on or after January 1, 2039 must start complying with their standards of performance (based on application of CCS with 90 percent capture) by January 1, 2032. Units that are permanently retiring before January 1, 2039, but after December 31, 2031, must start complying with their standards of performance (based on co-firing with 40 percent natural gas on a heat input basis) beginning on January 1, 2030. Units permanently retiring by January 1, 2032 are exempt from the rule. Given our previously announced coal unit retirement commitments, our Martin Lake and Oak Grove plants are the only coal units that are subject to this rule. Our Graham, Lake Hubbard, Stryker Creek and Trinidad oil/natural gas facilities are also regulated under this rule. None of our existing large or small combustion turbines are subject to this rule. The rule also regulates any new gas units. For new combustion turbine units, the rule establishes three different categories depending on how intensively those units are operated, with immediate compliance obligations for all three categories but more stringent standards beginning in 2032 only for the category of units operating the most intensively. Following finalization of the rule in May 2024, 17 petitions for review from various states, industry groups and companies were filed in the D.C. Circuit Court along with multiple motions to stay the rule. We are participating in an industry coalition challenging the rule. In July 2024, the D.C. Circuit Court denied the motions to stay and a number of parties subsequently filed an emergency request with the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the rule which was denied in October 2024. Oral argument on the merits of the legal challenges to the rule was held in December 2024 before the D.C. Circuit Court. In February 2025, the D.C. Circuit granted the unopposed motion filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of the EPA, holding the litigation in abeyance for a period of 60 days while the new leadership at the EPA evaluates the rule and determines how it wishes to proceed.

State Regulation of GHGs

Many states where we operate generation facilities have, are considering, or are in some stage of implementing, state-only regulatory programs intended to reduce emissions of GHGs from stationary sources as a means of addressing climate change.

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) — RGGI is a state-driven GHG emission control program that took effect in 2009 and was initially implemented by ten New England and Mid-Atlantic states to reduce CO 2 emissions from power plants. The participating RGGI states implemented a cap-and-trade program. Compliance with RGGI can be achieved by reducing emissions, purchasing or trading allowances, or securing offset allowances from an approved offset project. We are required to hold allowances equal to at least 50 percent of emissions in each of the first two years of the three-year control period.

In December 2017, the RGGI states released an updated model rule with changes to the CO 2 budget trading program, including an additional 30 percent reduction in the CO 2 annual cap by the year 2030, relative to 2020 levels. RGGI is currently conducting its third program review which may include an updated model rule.

Our generation facilities in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Virginia emitted approximately 11 million short tons of CO 2 during 2024. The spot market price of RGGI allowances required to operate these facilities as of December 31, 2024 was approximately $24.13 per allowance. While the cost of allowances required to operate our RGGI-affected facilities is expected to increase in future years, we expect that the cost of compliance would be reflected in the power market, and the actual impact to gross margin would be largely offset by an increase in revenue.

Massachusetts — In August 2017, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) adopted final rules establishing an annual declining limit on aggregate CO 2 emissions from 21 in-state fossil-fueled electricity generation units. The rules establish an allowance trading system under which the annual aggregate electricity generation unit sector cap on CO 2 emissions declines from 8.96 million metric tons in 2018 to 1.8 million metric tons in 2050. MassDEP allocated emission allowances to affected facilities for 2018. Beginning in 2019, the allocation process transitioned to a competitive auction process whereby allowances are partially distributed through a competitive auction process and partially distributed based on the process and schedule established by the rule. Beginning in 2021, all allowances were distributed through the auction. Limited banking of unused allowances is allowed.

Virginia — In May 2019, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality issued a final rule to adopt a carbon cap-and trade program for fossil-fueled electricity generation units, including our Hopewell facility, beginning in 2020. The program is based on the RGGI proposed 2017 model rule and linked Virginia to RGGI in 2021. The Governor of Virginia issued an executive order in January 2022 to begin the process of removing the state from RGGI. The Virginia State Pollution Control Board withdrew the state from RGGI at the end of 2023, coinciding with the end of the program's three-year compliance period and contract with RGGI, Inc. In August 2023, opponents of the state's action filed suit seeking a stay alleging withdrawal from RGGI is impermissible without new legislation. In November 2024, a state circuit court judge ruled that the removal of Virginia from RGGI was unlawful, but the state has moved to stay the circuit court's judgment. Virginia is not participating in RGGI at this time.

New Jersey — In January 2018, the Governor of New Jersey signed an executive order directing the state's environmental agency and public utilities board to begin the process of rejoining RGGI, and New Jersey formally rejoined RGGI in June 2019. In June 2019, New Jersey adopted two rules that govern New Jersey's reentry into the RGGI auction and distribution of the RGGI auction proceeds.

Pennsylvania — In April 2022, the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board finalized regulations that would establish Pennsylvania's participation in RGGI. In July 2022, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth Court) took action to uphold a preliminary injunction over Pennsylvania's RGGI regulations. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied a request for emergency relief from the injunction in August 2022. In November 2023, the Commonwealth Court found that Pennsylvania cannot join RGGI without legislative approval and enjoined the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection from implementing RGGI. The state has appealed this decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court where it is still pending. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protections has indicated it will not seek to implement RGGI until the Pennsylvania Supreme Court acts. As a result, RGGI is not being implemented or enforced in Pennsylvania at this time.

California — Our assets in California are subject to the California Global Warming Solutions Act, which required the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop a GHG emission control program to reduce emissions of GHGs in the state to 1990 levels by 2020. In April 2015, the Governor of California issued an executive order establishing a new statewide GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 to ensure California meets its 2050 GHG reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels. We have participated in quarterly auctions or in secondary markets, as appropriate, to secure allowances for our affected assets.

In July 2017, California enacted legislation extending its GHG cap-and-trade program through 2030 and the CARB adopted amendments to its cap-and-trade regulations that, among other things, established a framework for extending the program beyond 2020 and linking the program to the new cap-and-trade program in Ontario, Canada beginning in January 2018.

Air Emissions

The Clean Air Act (CAA)

The CAA and comparable state laws and regulations relating to air emissions impose various responsibilities on owners and operators of sources of air emissions, which include requirements to obtain construction and operating permits, pay permit fees, monitor emissions, submit reports and compliance certifications, and keep records. The CAA requires that fossil-fueled electricity generation plants meet certain pollutant emission standards and have sufficient emission allowances to cover SO 2 emissions and in some regions NOX emissions.

In order to ensure continued compliance with the CAA and related rules and regulations, we utilize various emission reduction technologies. These technologies include flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems, dry sorbent injection (DSI), baghouses and activated carbon injection or mercury oxidation systems on select units and electrostatic precipitators, selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems, low-NOX burners and/or overfire air systems on all units.

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and Good Neighbor Plan

In 2016, the EPA finalized the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update (CSAPR Update) to address 22 states' obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In 2019, following challenges by numerous parties, the D.C. Circuit Court found that the CSAPR Update did not fully address certain states' 2008 ozone NAAQS obligations. In October 2020, the EPA proposed an action to address the outstanding 2008 ozone NAAQS obligations in response to the D.C. Circuit Court's 2019 ruling. Vistra subsidiaries filed comments on that rulemaking in December 2020, and the EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register on April 30, 2021 that reduces ozone season NOX budgets in certain states. We do not believe that the final rule causes a material adverse impact on our future financial results.

In October 2015, the EPA revised the primary and secondary ozone NAAQS to lower the 8-hour standard for ozone emissions during ozone season (May to September). As required under the CAA, in October 2018, the State of Texas submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to the EPA demonstrating that emissions from Texas sources do not contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to the revised ozone NAAQS. In February 2023, the EPA disapproved Texas' SIP and the State of Texas, Luminant, certain trade groups, and others challenged that disapproval in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit Court). In March 2023, those same parties filed motions to stay the EPA's SIP disapproval in the Fifth Circuit Court, and the EPA moved to transfer our challenges to the D.C. Circuit Court or have those challenges dismissed.

In April 2022, prior to the EPA's disapproval of Texas' SIP, the EPA proposed a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 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. In March 2023, the EPA administrator signed its final FIP, called the Good Neighbor Plan (GNP). The FIP applied to 22 states beginning with the 2023 ozone seasons. States where Vistra operates generation units that would be subject to this rule are Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. Texas would be moved into the revised (and more restrictive) Group 3 trading program previously established in the Revised CSAPR Update Rule that includes emission budgets for 2023 that the EPA says are achievable through existing controls installed at power plants. Allowances will be limited under the program and will be further reduced beginning in ozone season 2026 to a level that is intended to reduce operating time of coal-fueled power plants during ozone season or force coal plants to retire, particularly those that do not have selective catalytic reduction systems such as our Martin Lake power plant.

In May 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court granted our motion to stay the EPA's disapproval of Texas' SIP pending a decision on the merits and denied the EPA's motion to transfer our challenge to the D.C. Circuit Court. As a result of the stay, we do not believe the EPA has authority to implement the GNP FIP as to Texas sources pending the resolution of the merits, meaning that Texas will remain in Group 2 and not be subject to any requirements under the GNP FIP at least until the Fifth Circuit Court rules on the merits. Oral argument was heard in December 2023 before the Fifth Circuit Court. In June 2023, the EPA published the final FIP in the Federal Register, which included requirements as to Texas despite the stay of the SIP disapproval by the Fifth Circuit Court. In June 2023, the State of Texas, Luminant and various other parties also filed challenges to the GNP FIP in the Fifth Circuit Court, filed a motion to stay the FIP and confirm venue for this dispute in the Fifth Circuit Court. After the motion to stay and to confirm venue was filed, the EPA signed an interim final rule on June 29, 2023 that confirms the GNP FIP as to Texas is stayed. In February 2025, the Department of Justice filed a motion on behalf of the EPA in the Fifth Circuit Court, seeking to hold the litigation in abeyance while the new leadership at the EPA evaluates the rule and determines how it wishes to proceed. In February 2025, the State of Texas filed a response opposing the requested abatement, which we joined. In July 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled that the GNP FIP challenge would be held in abeyance pending the resolution of the litigation on the SIP disapproval and denied the motion to stay as not needed given the EPA's administrative stay. In a related action brought by other states and parties challenging the GNP FIP, in June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of the GNP FIP pending a review of the merits by the D.C. Circuit Court and any further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. As a result, the GNP FIP is now stayed for all covered states until the courts resolve the legality of the FIP. In February 2025, the D.C. Circuit Court denied a motion filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of the EPA, seeking to hold the litigation in abeyance for a period of 60 days while the new leadership at the EPA evaluates the rule and determines how it wishes to proceed.

Regional Haze — Reasonable Progress and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for Texas

The Regional Haze Program of the CAA establishes "as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory class I federal areas which impairment results from man-made pollution." There are two components to the Regional Haze Program. First, states must establish goals for reasonable progress for Class I federal areas within the state and establish long-term strategies to reach those goals and to assist Class I federal areas in neighboring states to achieve reasonable progress set by those states towards a goal of natural visibility by 2064. Second, certain electricity generation units built between 1962 and 1977 are subject to BART standards designed to improve visibility if such units cause or contribute to impairment of visibility in a federal class I area.

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 SIP and a partial 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 generation 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 NOX, 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 EPA is in the process of reconsidering the BART rule, and the challenges in the D.C. Circuit Court have been held in abeyance pending the EPA's final action on reconsideration. In May 2023, a proposed BART rule was published in the Federal Register that would withdraw the trading program provisions of the prior rule and would establish SO 2 limits on six facilities in Texas, including Martin Lake and Coleto Creek. Under the current proposal, compliance would be required within 3 years for Martin Lake and 5 years for Coleto Creek. Due to the announced shutdown for Coleto Creek, we do not anticipate any impacts at that facility, and we are evaluating potential compliance options at Martin Lake should this proposal become final. We submitted comments to the EPA on this proposal in August 2023.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

The CAA requires the EPA to regulate emissions of pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The EPA has established NAAQS for six such pollutants, including SO 2 and ozone. Each state is responsible for developing a SIP that will attain and maintain the NAAQS. These plans may result in the imposition of emission limits on our facilities.

SO 2 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 Fifth Circuit Court. 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 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 reduced 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. In January 2024, in a split decision, the Fifth Circuit Court denied the petitions for review we and the State of Texas filed over the EPA's 2016 nonattainment designation for SO 2 for the area around Martin Lake. As a result of this decision, the EPA's nonattainment designation – originally made in 2016 – remains in place. In February 2024, we filed a petition asking the full Fifth Circuit Court to review the panel decision issued in January 2024, which remains pending before the full Fifth Circuit Court. In August 2024, the EPA proposed a Finding of Failure to attain the SO 2 standard for Rusk and Panola Counties, a partial approval and partial disapproval of the Texas SIP and a proposed federal plan for the area. In December 2024, the EPA finalized the Finding of Failure to attain the standard and stated that it would take final action of the SIP partial approval and disapproval in a future action. In February 2025, we, along with the State of Texas, filed a challenge to the Finding of Failure in the Fifth Circuit Court.

Ozone Designations

The EPA issued a final rule in October 2015 lowering the ozone NAAQS from 75 to 70 parts per billion. Areas surrounding our Dicks Creek, Miami Fort and Zimmer facilities in Ohio, our Calumet facility in Illinois and our Wise, Ennis and Midlothian facilities in Texas were designated marginal nonattainment areas in June 2018 by the EPA with an attainment deadline of August 2021. In June 2022, the areas surrounding our Ohio Dicks Creek and Miami Fort facilities were redesignated "attainment." The EPA redesignated the area around our Texas Wise, Ennis and Midlothian facilities to "moderate" in October 2022 and again "bumped up" the classification to serious in June 2024. Middlesex County in New Jersey, where our Sayreville facility is located, was designated a "moderate" nonattainment area. In July 2024, the state of New Jersey, in collaboration with the states of New York and Connecticut requested a voluntary bump up of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area, which includes Middlesex County where our Sayreville facility is located. States will be required to develop SIPs to address emissions in areas with a higher (more stringent) classification.

Particulate Matter

In February 2024, the EPA issued a rule addressing the annual health-based national ambient air quality standards for fine particulate matter (or PM2.5). In general, the rule lowers the level of the annual PM2.5 standard from 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 9.0 µg/m3. The effective date of the rule is 60 days from publication in the Federal Register, and the earliest attainment date for areas exceeding the new standard is 2032. Based on 2021-2023 design value associated with the rule, we have just four plants (Calumet (Illinois), Dicks Creek and Miami Fort (Ohio), and Lake Hubbard (Texas)) operating in areas where the air quality monitoring data are currently exceeding the new PM2.5 standard. We have previously announced that our Miami Fort generation facility will close by the end of 2027. States will have to develop a plan (by late 2027 at the earliest) to get those areas into attainment and there would be a possibility that additional controls would be required for those sites. However, before the state begins this planning process, the designation process will occur within two years from the issuance of the final rule. The states develop recommendations about the boundaries of the nonattainment counties and the EPA must finalize the designations including the boundaries of each nonattainment area.

Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR)/Groundwater

The combustion of coal to generate electric power creates large quantities of ash and byproducts that are managed at power generation facilities in dry form in landfills and in wet form in surface impoundments. Each of our coal-fueled plants has at least one CCR surface impoundment.

CCR Rule Revisions and Extension Applications

The EPA's CCR rule, which took effect in October 2015, establishes minimum federal requirements for the construction, retrofitting, operation and closure of, and corrective action with respect to, existing and new CCR landfills and surface impoundments, as well as inactive CCR surface impoundments. The requirements include location restrictions, structural integrity criteria, groundwater monitoring, operating criteria, liner design criteria, closure and post-closure care, recordkeeping and notification. The deadlines for beginning and completing closure vary depending on several factors. The Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (the WIIN Act), which was enacted in December 2016, provides for EPA review and approval of state CCR permit programs.

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 2020 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 to seek extensions, we submitted applications to the EPA requesting compliance extensions under both conversion and retirement scenarios. 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. 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 asked 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 intervened in support of the petitions filed by the Vistra subsidiaries and USWAG, and various environmental groups have intervened on behalf of the EPA. In June 2024, the D.C. Circuit Court dismissed the petitions filed challenging the EPA's January 2022 statements because it found the statements did not amend the existing CCR regulations, and thus the D.C. Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction to review them.

Legacy CCR Rulemaking

In May 2024, the EPA published a final rule that expands coverage of groundwater monitoring and closure requirements to the following two new categories of units: (a) legacy CCR surface impoundments which are CCR surface impoundments that no longer receive CCR but contained both CCR and liquids on or after October 19, 2015 and (b) "CCR management units" (CCRMUs) which generally could encompass noncontainerized ash deposits greater than one ton and impoundments and landfills that closed prior to October 19, 2015. As part of the rule, the EPA identified numerous CCR management units across the country, including ten of our potential units. The Vermilion ash ponds discussed below are the only unit which we believe qualify as a legacy CCR surface impoundment and given our closure plan for that site we do not believe the rule will have any impact on that site. CCRMUs with 1,000 or more tons of CCR must comply with the CCR's groundwater monitoring, corrective action, closure and post-closure requirements. For CCRMUs, complete facility evaluation reports are due within 33 months after publication of the rule, initial groundwater reports are due January 31, 2029, and the deadline to initiate closure, if needed, will start in 2029. Closure of the CCRMUs may also be deferred beyond those dates depending on certain factors, including where the CCRMU is located beneath critical infrastructure. In addition, certain closures may not be required when closure was previously approved under a state program. Because facility evaluation reports will determine our unit-specific compliance obligations, we cannot determine them at this time. In August 2024, we, along with USWAG, several other generating companies, and 17 states, including Texas, filed a challenge to the rule in the D.C. Circuit Court. In February 2025, the D.C. Circuit Court granted an unopposed motion filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of the EPA, holding the litigation in abeyance for a period of 120 days while the new leadership at the EPA evaluates the rule and determines how it wishes to proceed.

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 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 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. The interim order was modified in December 2022 to require certain amendments to the Safety Emergency Response Plan. In June 2023, the Illinois state court approved and entered the final consent order, which included the terms above and a requirement that when IEPA issues a final closure permit for the site, DMG will demolish the power station and submit for approval to construct an on-site landfill within the footprint of the former plant to store and manage the coal ash. These proposed closure costs are reflected in the ARO in the consolidated balance sheets (see Note 13 to the Financial Statements).

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 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, along with other industry petitioners, filed an appeal in the Illinois Fourth Judicial District over certain provisions of the final rule. In March 2024, the Illinois Fourth Judicial District issued a decision denying the industry petitions. We do not anticipate any impacts from this decision. 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 five of our sites in July 2022. One additional closure construction application was filed for our Baldwin facility in August 2023.

For all of the above CCR 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 and as such, an estimate of such costs cannot be made. The CCR surface impoundment and landfill closure costs currently reflected in our existing ARO liabilities reflect the costs of closure methods that our operations and environmental services teams determined were appropriate based on the existing closure requirements at the time we recorded those ARO liabilities, and is reasonably possible for those to increase once the IEPA determines final closure requirements. Once the IEPA acts on our permit applications, we will reassess the decommissioning costs and adjust our ARO liabilities accordingly.

Water

The EPA and the environmental regulatory bodies of states in which we operate have jurisdiction over the diversion, impoundment and withdrawal of water for cooling and other purposes and the discharge of wastewater (including storm water) from our facilities. We believe our facilities are presently in material compliance with applicable federal and state requirements relating to these activities. We believe we hold all required permits relating to these activities for facilities in operation and have applied for or obtained necessary permits for facilities under construction. We also believe we can satisfy the requirements necessary to obtain any required permits or renewals.

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 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 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. 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. In May 2024, the EPA published the final ELG rule revisions, which contain new requirements for legacy wastewater and combustion residual leachate. The final rule also leaves in place the subcategory for facilities that permanently cease coal combustion by 2028. We are reviewing the rule for impact but believe it will require additional treatment costs for legacy wastewaters during pond closure activities and combustion residual leachate. At this time, we don't expect the impact of these additional treatment costs to be material. A number of parties have since challenged the rule and that case is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. We are not a party to that litigation. In February 2025, the Department of Justice on behalf of the EPA filed an unopposed motion seeking to hold the litigation in abeyance while the new leadership at the EPA evaluates the rule and determines how it wishes to proceed.

Radioactive Waste

The nuclear industry has developed ways to store used nuclear fuel on site at nuclear generation facilities, primarily using dry cask storage, since there are no facilities for reprocessing or disposal of used nuclear fuel currently in operation in the U.S. Luminant stores its used nuclear fuel on-site in storage pools or dry cask storage facilities and believes its on-site used nuclear fuel storage capability is sufficient for the foreseeable future.