Vistra Corp. 10-K

Item 1. BUSINESS References in this report to "we," "our," "us" and "the Company" are to Vistra and/or its subsidiaries, as apparent in the context. See Glossary for defined terms. Business Vistra is a holding company operating an integrated retail and electric power generation business primarily in markets throughout the U.S. Through our subsidiaries, we are engaged in competitive energy activities including electricity generation, wholesale energy sales and purchases, commodity risk management and retail sales of electricity and natural gas to end users. We incorporated under Delaware law in 2016. Effective July 2, 2020, we changed our name from Vistra Energy Corp. to Vistra Corp. to distinguish from companies that are involved in exploring for, producing, refining, or transporting fossil fuels (many of which use "energy" in their names) and to better reflect our integrated business model, which combines a retail electricity and natural gas business focused on serving its customers with new and innovative products and services and an electric power generation business powering the communities we serve with safe, reliable power. We serve approximately 4.5 million customers and operate in 20 states and the District of Columbia. Our generation fleet totals approximately 38,700 MW of generation capacity with a portfolio of natural gas, nuclear, coal, solar and battery energy storage facilities. Vistra has six reportable segments: (i) Retail, (ii) Texas, (iii) East, (iv) West, (v) Sunset and (vi) Asset Closure. In the third quarter of 2020, Vistra updated its reportable segments to reflect changes in how the Company's Chief Operating Decision Maker (CODM) makes operating decisions, assesses performance and allocates resources. Management believes that the revised reportable segments provide enhanced transparency into the Company's long-term sustainable assets and its commitment to managing the retirement of economically and environmentally challenged plants. See Market Discussion below and Note 20 to the Financial Statements for further information concerning the updates to our reportable segments. Acquisitions and Merger Ambit Transaction — On November 1, 2019, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Vistra completed the acquisition of Ambit (Ambit Transaction). Because the Ambit Transaction closed on November 1, 2019, Vistra's consolidated financial statements and the notes related thereto do not include the financial condition or the operating results of Ambit and its subsidiaries prior to November 1, 2019. See Note 2 to the Financial Statements for a summary of the Ambit Transaction. Crius Transaction — On July 15, 2019, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Vistra completed the acquisition of the equity interests of two wholly owned subsidiaries of Crius that indirectly own the operating business of Crius (Crius Transaction). Because the Crius Transaction closed on July 15, 2019, Vistra's consolidated financial statements and the notes related thereto do not include the financial condition or the operating results of Crius and its subsidiaries prior to July 15, 2019. See Note 2 to the Financial Statements for a summary of the Crius Transaction. Dynegy Merger Transaction — On the Merger Date, Vistra and Dynegy completed the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Dynegy merged with and into Vistra, with Vistra continuing as the surviving corporation. Because the Merger closed on April 9, 2018, Vistra's consolidated financial statements and the notes related thereto do not include the financial condition or the operating results of Dynegy prior to April 9, 2018. See Note 2 to the Financial Statements for a summary of the Merger transaction. 1 Table of Contents Business Strategy Our business strategy is to deliver long-term stakeholder value through a focus on the following areas: • Integrated business model. We believe the key factor that distinguishes us from others in the competitive electricity industry is the integrated nature of our business ( i.e. , pairing our reliable and efficient mining, diversified generation fleet and wholesale commodity risk management capabilities with our retail platform). Our business strategy is guided by our integrated business model because we believe it is our core competitive advantage and differentiates us from our non-integrated competitors by reducing the effects of commodity price movements and contributing to earnings and cash flow stability. Consequently, our integrated business model is at the core of our business strategy. • Growth and transformation. Vistra's strategy is to grow our business through prudent investments in attractive retail, renewable, and energy storage assets while reducing our carbon footprint and creating a more sustainable company with enduring long-term value for our stakeholders. We expect to meaningfully transform our generation portfolio over the next decade by growing our portfolio of zero-carbon resources, including solar and energy storage, through our Vistra Zero brand and by retiring approximately 7,000 MWs of coal assets between now and year-end 2027. We believe our long-term asset mix will support electric system reliability while providing customers with cost-effective energy that meets their sustainable preferences. Our growth strategy leverages our core capabilities of multi-channel retail marketing in large and competitive markets, operating large-scale, environmentally sensitive, and diverse assets across a variety of fuel technologies, fuel logistics and management, commodity risk management, cost control, and energy infrastructure investing. We intend to opportunistically evaluate the acquisition and development of high-quality energy infrastructure assets and businesses, including renewable energy and battery storage assets as well as retail businesses, that complement our core capabilities and enable us to achieve operational or financial synergies. While we are intent on growing our business and creating value for our stockholders, we are committed to making disciplined investments that are consistent with our focus on maintaining a strong balance sheet and strong liquidity profile. As a result, consistent with our disciplined capital allocation approval process, growth opportunities we pursue must have compelling economic value and align with or enhance our business strategy. • Disciplined capital allocation. Vistra takes a balanced approach to capital allocation, focusing on maintaining a strong balance sheet, investing prudently in the maintenance of our existing assets and potential growth acquisitions, and returning capital to stockholders. A strong balance sheet helps to ensure Vistra's interest expense is manageable in a variety of wholesale power price environments while giving Vistra access to flexible and diverse sources of liquidity. We prudently make necessary capital investments to maintain the safety and reliability of our facilities while also investing in new technologies when economic, including solar assets and battery storage systems, resulting in a continued modernization of Vistra's generation fleet. Because we believe cost discipline and strong management of our assets and commodity positions are necessary to deliver long-term value to our stakeholders, we generally make capital allocation decisions that we believe will lead to attractive cash returns on investment, including by returning capital to our stockholders through quarterly dividends and our share repurchase program (see Note 14 to the Financial Statements). • Superior customer service. Through our retail brands, including TXU Energy, Ambit Energy, Value Based Brands, Dynegy Energy Services, Homefield Energy, TriEagle Energy, Public Power and U.S. Gas & Electric, we serve the retail electricity and natural gas needs of end-use residential, small business, commercial and industrial electricity customers through multiple sales and marketing channels. In addition to benefitting from our integrated business model, we leverage our brands, our commitment to a consistent and reliable product offering, the backstop of the electricity generated by our generation fleet, our wholesale commodity risk management operations and our strong customer service to differentiate our products and services from our competitors. We strive to be at the forefront of innovation with new offerings and customer experiences to reinforce our value proposition. We maintain a focus on solutions that give our customers choice, convenience and control over how and when they use electricity and related services, including TXU Energy's Free Nights and Solar Days residential plans, MyEnergy Dashboard SM , TXU Energy's iThermostat product and mobile solution, the TXU Energy Rewards program, the TXU Energy Green Up SM renewable energy credit program and a diverse set of solar options. Our focus on superior customer service will guide our efforts to acquire new residential and commercial customers, serve and retain existing customers and maintain valuable sales channels for our electricity generation resources. We believe our customer service, products and trusted brands will result in high residential customer retention rates, particularly in Texas where our TXU Energy brand has maintained its residential customers in a highly competitive retail market. 2 Table of Contents • Excellence in operations while maintaining an efficient cost structure. We believe that operating our facilities in a safe, reliable, environmentally compliant, and cost-effective and efficient manner is a foundation for delivering long-term stakeholder value. We also believe stakeholder value is increased as a result of making disciplined investments that enable our generation facilities to operate not only effectively and efficiently, but also safely, reliably and in an environmentally compliant manner. We believe that an ongoing focus on operational excellence and safety is a key component to success in a highly competitive environment and is part of the unique value proposition of our integrated model. Additionally, we are committed to optimizing our cost structure, reducing our debt levels and implementing enterprise-wide process and operating improvements without compromising the safety of our communities, customers and employees. We believe we have a highly effective and efficient cost structure and that our cost structure supports excellence in our operations. • Integrated hedging and commercial management. Our commercial team is focused on managing risk, through opportunistic hedging, and optimizing our assets and business positions. We actively seek to manage our exposure to wholesale electricity prices in markets in which we operate, on an integrated basis, through contracts for physical delivery of electricity, exchange-traded and over-the-counter financial contracts, term, day-ahead and real-time market transactions, and bilateral contracts with other wholesale market participants, including other power generators and end-user electricity customers. We seek to hedge near-term cash flows and optimize long term value through hedging and forward sales contracts. We believe our integrated hedging and commercial management strategy, in combination with a strong balance sheet and strong liquidity profile, will provide a long-term advantage through cycles of higher and lower commodity prices. • Corporate responsibility and citizenship. We are committed to providing safe, reliable, cost-effective and environmentally compliant electricity for the communities and customers we serve. We strive to improve the quality of life in the communities in which we operate. We are also committed to being a good corporate citizen in the communities in which we conduct operations. We and our employees are actively engaged in programs intended to support and strengthen the communities in which we conduct operations. Our foremost giving initiatives are through the United Way, TXU Energy Aid and Ambit Cares campaigns. TXU Energy Aid serves as an integral resource for social service agencies that assist those in need across Texas pay their electricity bills. Ambit Cares partners with Feeding America® to assist those in need across the U.S. by fighting hunger through a network of food banks. Recent Developments Dividend Declaration — In February 2021, the Board declared a quarterly dividend of $0.15 per share that will be paid in March 2021. Change in Principal Financial Officer — In December 2020, James A. Burke, who previously served as the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, was elected as President and Chief Financial Officer and assumed the duties of serving as the Company's Principal Financial Officer following the resignation of David A. Campbell from his roles as Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company. Share Repurchase Program — In September 2020, we announced that the Board authorized a new share repurchase program (Share Repurchase Program) under which up to $1.5 billion of our outstanding shares of common stock may be repurchased. The Share Repurchase Program became effective January 1, 2021, at which time the prior share repurchase plan and all authorized amounts remaining thereunder terminated as of such date. From January 1, 2021 through February 23, 2021, 5,902,720 shares of our common stock had been repurchased under the Share Repurchase Program for $125 million. See Note 14 to the Financial Statements for more information concerning the Share Repurchase Program and the Prior Share Repurchase Program. 3 Table of Contents Market Discussion The operations of Vistra are aligned into six reportable business segments: (i) Retail, (ii) Texas, (iii) East, (iv) West, (v) Sunset and (vi) Asset Closure. In the third quarter of 2020, Vistra updated its reportable segments to reflect changes in how the Company's CODM makes operating decisions, assesses performance and allocates resources. Management believes that the revised reportable segments provide enhanced transparency into the Company's long-term sustainable assets and its commitment to managing the retirement of economically and environmentally challenged plants. The following is a summary of the updated segments: • The Sunset segment represents plants with announced retirement plans that were previously reported in the ERCOT, PJM and MISO segments. As we announced significant plant closures in the third quarter of 2020, management believes it is important to have a segment which differentiates between operating plants with defined retirement plans and operating plants without defined retirement plans. • The East segment represents Vistra's electricity generation operations in the Eastern Interconnection of the U.S. electric grid, other than assets that are now part of the Sunset or Asset Closure segments, respectively, and includes operations in PJM, ISO-NE and NYISO that were previously reported in the PJM and NY/NE segments, respectively. • The West segment represents Vistra's electricity generation operations in CAISO and was previously reported in the Corporate and Other non-segment. As reflected by the Moss Landing and Oakland ESS projects (see Note 3 to the Financial Statements), the Company expects to expand its operations in the West segment. In addition, the ERCOT segment was renamed the Texas segment. There were no changes to the Retail and Asset Closure segments. All historical segment results within these consolidated financial statements have been recast to be in alignment with our new segmentation. See Note 20 to the Financial Statements for further information concerning reportable segments. Independent System Operators (ISOs) and Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) Separately, ISOs/RTOs administer the transmission infrastructure and markets across a regional footprint in most of the markets in which we operate. They are responsible for dispatching all generation facilities in their respective footprints and are responsible for both maximum utilization and reliable and efficient operation of the transmission system. ISOs/RTOs administer energy and ancillary service markets in the short term, which usually consists of day-ahead and real-time markets. Several ISOs/RTOs also ensure long-term planning reserves through monthly, semiannual, annual and multi-year capacity markets. The ISOs/RTOs that oversee most of the wholesale power markets in which we operate currently impose, and will likely continue to impose, bid and price limits or other similar mechanisms. NERC regions and ISOs/RTOs often have different geographic footprints, and while there may be geographic overlap between NERC regions and ISOs/RTOs, their respective roles and responsibilities do not generally overlap. In ISO/RTO regions with centrally dispatched market structures (e.g., ERCOT, PJM, ISO-NE, NYISO, MISO, and CAISO), all generators selling into the centralized market receive the same price for energy sold based on the bid price associated with the production of the last MWh that is needed to balance supply with demand within a designated zone or at a given location. Different zones or locations within the same ISO/RTO may produce different prices respective to other zones within the same ISO/RTO due to transmission losses and congestion. For example, a less efficient and/or less economical natural gas-fueled unit may be needed in some hours to meet demand. If this unit's production is required to meet demand on the margin, its offer price will set the market clearing price that will be paid for all dispatched generation in the same zone or location (although the price paid at other zones or locations may vary because of transmission losses and congestion), regardless of the price that any other unit may have offered into the market. Generators will receive the location-based marginal price for their output. Retail Markets The Retail segment is engaged in retail sales of electricity, natural gas and related services to approximately 4.5 million customers. Substantially all of these activities are conducted by TXU Energy, Ambit Energy, Value Based Brands, Dynegy Energy Services, Homefield Energy, TriEagle Energy, Public Power and U.S. Gas & Electric across 19 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. 4 Table of Contents The largest portion of our retail operations are in Texas, where we provide retail electricity to approximately 2.4 million customers in ERCOT. We are an active participant in the competitive ERCOT retail market and continue to be a market leader, which we believe is driven by, among other things, strong brands, innovative products and services and excellent customer service. As of December 31, 2020, we provided electricity to approximately 31% of the residential customers in ERCOT and for approximately 15% of business customers' demand. We believe that we have differentiated ourselves by providing a distinctive customer experience predicated on delivering reliable and innovative power products and solutions to our customers, which give our customers choice, convenience and control over how and when they use electricity and related services. Our retail business also offers a comprehensive suite of green products and services, including 100% wind and solar options, as well as thermostats, dashboards and other programs designed to encourage reduced consumption and increased energy efficiency. Our integrated power generation and wholesale operation allows us to efficiently obtain the electricity needed to serve our customers at the lowest cost. The integrated model enables us to structure products and contracts in a way that offers significant value compared to stand-alone retail electric providers. Additionally, our wholesale commodity risk management operations protect our retail business from power price volatility by allowing us to bypass bid-ask spread in the market (particularly for illiquid products and time periods) and achieve lower collateral costs for our retail business as compared to other, non-integrated retail electric providers. Moreover, our retail business reduces, to some extent, the exposure of our wholesale generation business to wholesale power price volatility. This is because the retail load requirements of our retail operations provide a natural offset to the length of Luminant's generation portfolio thereby reducing the exposure to wholesale power price volatility as compared to a non-integrated independent power producer. Outside of ERCOT, we also serve residential, municipal, commercial and industrial customers substantially through our Homefield Energy, Dynegy Energy Services, Public Power, U.S. Gas & Electric and Ambit Energy retail businesses, through which we provide retail electricity, natural gas and related services to approximately 2.1 million customers in 18 states and the District of Columbia. Texas Segment Our Texas segment is comprised of 18 power generation facilities totaling 17,623 MW of generation capacity in ERCOT. We also operate a 10 MW battery energy storage system (ESS) at our Upton 2 solar facility. In September 2020, we announced the planned development of 668 MW of solar photovoltaic power generation facilities and 260 MW of battery ESS in Texas with estimated commercial operation dates between the summer of 2021 and the fall of 2022. See Note 3 to the Financial Statements for a summary of our solar and battery energy storage projects. ISO/RTO Technology Primary Fuel Number of Facilities Net Capacity (MW) ERCOT CCGT Natural Gas 7 7,838 ERCOT ST Coal 2 3,850 ERCOT CT or ST Natural Gas 7 3,455 ERCOT Nuclear Nuclear 1 2,300 ERCOT Solar/Battery Renewable 1 180 Total Texas Segment 18 17,623 ERCOT — ERCOT is an ISO that manages the flow of electricity from approximately 86,000 MW of installed generation capacity to approximately 26 million Texas customers, representing approximately 90% of the state's electric load. 5 Table of Contents As an energy-only market, ERCOT's market design is distinct from other competitive electricity markets in the U.S. Other markets maintain a minimum planning reserve margin through regulated planning, resource adequacy requirements and/or capacity markets. In contrast, ERCOT's resource adequacy is predominately dependent on energy-market price signals. In 2014, ERCOT implemented the Operating Reserve Demand Curve (ORDC), pursuant to which wholesale electricity prices in the real-time electricity market increase automatically as available operating reserves decrease below defined threshold levels, creating a price adder. When operating reserves drop to 2,000 MW or less, the ORDC automatically adjusts power prices to the established value of lost load (VOLL), which is set at $9,000/MWh which is equal to the system-wide offer cap. In both March 2019 and March 2020, ERCOT implemented 0.25 standard deviation shifts in the loss of load probability calculation using a single blended ORDC curve; these changes resulted in a more rapid escalation in power prices as operating reserves fall below defined thresholds. ERCOT calculates the "peaker net margin" based on revenues a hypothetical unhedged peaking unit would collect in the market. If the peaker net margin exceeds a certain threshold, the system-wide offer cap is reduced for the remainder of the calendar year. Historically, high demand due to elevated temperatures in the summer months, combined with underperformance of wind generation, has created the conditions during which the ORDC contributes meaningfully to power prices. Extreme weather conditions can also lead to scarcity conditions regardless of season. Other than during periods of "scarcity pricing," the price of power is typically set by natural gas-fueled generation facilities; as a result, historically low natural gas prices have had a corresponding impact on wholesale prices (see Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Key Operational Risks and Challenges ). Transactions in ERCOT take place in two key markets: the day-ahead market and the real-time market. The day-ahead market is a voluntary, financial electricity market conducted the day before each operating day in which generators and purchasers of electricity may bid for one or more hours of electricity supply or consumption. The real-time market is a physical market in which electricity is dispatched and priced in five-minute intervals. The day-ahead market provides market participants with visibility into where prices are expected to clear, and the prices are not impacted by subsequent events. Conversely, the real-time market exposes purchasers to the risk of transient operational events and price spikes. These two markets allow market participants to manage their risk profile by adjusting their participation in each market. In addition, ERCOT uses ancillary services to maintain system reliability, including regulation service, responsive reserve service and non-spinning reserve service. Ancillary services are provided by generators to help maintain the stable voltage and frequency requirements of the transmission system. Because ERCOT has one of the highest concentrations of wind capacity generation among U.S. markets, the ERCOT market is more susceptible to fluctuations in wholesale electricity supply due to intermittent wind production, making ERCOT more vulnerable to periods of generation scarcity. East Segment Our East segment is comprised of 21 power generation facilities in 10 states totaling 12,093 MW of generating capacity in PJM, ISO-NE and NYISO. ISO/RTO Technology Primary Fuel Number of Facilities Net Capacity (MW) PJM CCGT Natural Gas 8 6,081 PJM CT Natural Gas 4 1,346 PJM CT Fuel Oil 2 93 ISO-NE CCGT Natural Gas 6 3,361 NYISO CCGT Natural Gas 1 1,212 Total East Segment 21 12,093 PJM — PJM is an RTO that manages the flow of electricity from approximately 180,000 MW of installed generation capacity to approximately 65 million customers in all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. 6 Table of Contents Like ERCOT, PJM administers markets for wholesale electricity and provides transmission planning for the region, utilizing a locational marginal pricing (LMP) methodology which calculates a price for every generator and load point within PJM. PJM operates day-ahead and real-time markets into which generators can bid to provide energy and ancillary services. PJM also administers a forward capacity auction, the Reliability Pricing Model (RPM), which establishes a long-term market for capacity. We have participated in RPM auctions for years up to and including PJM's planning year 2021-2022, which ends May 31, 2022. Due to a change in auction rules, PJM's next RPM auction, for planning year 2022-2023, was delayed until May 2021. We also enter into bilateral capacity transactions. PJM's Capacity Performance (CP) rules were designed to improve system reliability and include penalties for under-performing units and reward for over-performing units during shortage events. Full transition of the capacity market to CP rules occurred in planning year 2020-2021. An independent market monitor continually monitors PJM markets to ensure a robust, competitive market and to identify improper behavior by any entity. ISO-NE — ISO-NE is an ISO that manages the flow of electricity from approximately 31,000 MW of installed generation capacity to approximately 15 million customers in the states of Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Maine. ISO-NE dispatches power plants to meet system energy and reliability needs and settles physical power deliveries at LMPs. Its energy markets allow market participants to buy and sell energy and ancillary services at prices established through real-time and day-ahead auctions. Energy prices vary among the participating states in ISO-NE and are largely influenced by transmission constraints and fuel supply. ISO-NE offers a forward capacity market where capacity prices are determined through auctions. Performance incentive rules have the potential to increase capacity payments for those resources that are providing excess energy or reserves during a shortage event, while penalizing those that produce less than the required level. NYISO — NYISO is an ISO that manages the flow of electricity from approximately 40,000 MW of installed generation capacity to approximately 20 million New York customers. NYISO dispatches power plants to meet system energy and reliability needs and settles physical power deliveries at LMPs. Its energy markets allow market participants to buy and sell energy and ancillary services at prices established through real-time and day-ahead auctions. Energy prices vary among the regional zones in the NYISO and are largely influenced by transmission constraints and fuel supply. NYISO offers a forward capacity market where capacity prices are determined through auctions. Strip auctions occur one to two months prior to the commencement of a six-month seasonal planning period. Subsequent auctions provide an opportunity to sell excess capacity for the balance of the seasonal planning period or the upcoming month. Due to the short-term nature of the NYISO-operated capacity auctions and a relatively liquid bilateral market for NYISO capacity products, our Independence facility sells a significant portion of its capacity through bilateral transactions. The balance is cleared through the seasonal and monthly capacity auctions. West Segment Our West segment is comprised of two power generation facilities totaling 1,185 MW of generation capacity and one battery ESS totaling 300 MW in CAISO, all of which are located in California. ISO/RTO Technology Primary Fuel Number of Facilities Net Capacity (MW) CAISO CCGT Natural Gas 1 1,020 CAISO Battery Renewable 1 300 CAISO CT Fuel Oil 1 165 Total West Segment 3 1,485 In addition, we are developing approximately 136 MW of battery energy storage systems at our Moss Landing and Oakland facilities that are expected to enter commercial operations in 2021-2022 (see Note 3 to the Financial Statements). CAISO — CAISO is an ISO that manages the flow of electricity to approximately 32 million customers primarily in California, representing approximately 80% percent of the state's electric load. 7 Table of Contents Energy is priced in CAISO utilizing an LMP methodology. The capacity market is comprised of Generic, Flexible and Local Resource Adequacy (RA) Capacity and is administered by the California Public Utilities Commission. Unlike other centrally cleared capacity markets, the resource adequacy market in California is a bilaterally traded market. In November 2016, CAISO implemented a voluntary capacity auction for annual, monthly, and intra-month procurement to cover for deficiencies in the market. The voluntary Competitive Solicitation Process, which FERC approved in October 2015, is a modification to the Capacity Procurement Mechanism (CPM) and provides another avenue to sell RA capacity. Sunset Segment Our Sunset segment is comprised of 10 power generation facilities totaling 7,486 MW of generating capacity in MISO, PJM and ERCOT. The Sunset segment represents plants with announced retirement plans between 2022 and 2027 that were previously reported in the ERCOT, PJM and MISO segments No separate segment previously existed to differentiate operating plants with defined retirement plans from operating plants without defined retirement plans. See Note 4 to the Financial Statements for more information related to these planned generation retirements. ISO/RTO Technology Primary Fuel Number of Facilities Net Capacity (MW) ERCOT ST Coal 1 650 MISO ST Coal 4 3,187 MISO CT Natural Gas 2 221 PJM ST Coal 3 3,428 Total Sunset Segment 10 7,486 See Texas Segment above for a discussion of the ERCOT ISO and East Segment above for a discussion of the PJM RTO. MISO — MISO is an RTO that manages the flow of electricity from approximately 198,000 MW of installed generation capacity to approximately 42 million customers in all or parts of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana, Montana, South Dakota and Manitoba, Canada. MISO dispatches power plants to meet system energy and reliability needs and settles physical power deliveries at LMPs. Its energy markets allow market participants to buy and sell energy and ancillary services at prices established through real-time and day-ahead auctions. Energy prices vary among the regional zones in MISO and are largely influenced by transmission constraints and fuel supply. An independent market monitor is responsible for evaluating the performance of the markets and identifying conduct by market participants or MISO that may compromise the efficiency or distort the outcome of the markets. MISO administers a one-year Planning Resource Auction for the next planning year from June 1st of the current year to May 31st of the following year. We participate in these auctions with open capacity that has not been committed through bilateral or retail transactions. We also participate in the MISO annual and monthly financial transmission rights auctions to manage the cost of our transmission congestion, as measured by the congestion component of the LMP price differential between two points on the transmission grid across the market area. Joppa, which is partially interconnected to MISO and partially within the Electric Energy, Inc. (EEI) control area, is interconnected to the Tennessee Valley Authority and Louisville Gas and Electric Company. Joppa primarily sells its capacity and energy to MISO. 8 Table of Contents Wholesale Operations Our wholesale commodity risk management group is responsible for dispatching our generation fleet in response to market needs after implementing portfolio optimization strategies, thus linking and integrating the generation fleet production with our retail customer and wholesale sales opportunities. Market demand, also known as load, faced by electric power systems, such as those we operate in, varies from moment to moment as a result of changes in business and residential demand, which is often driven by weather. Unlike most other commodities, the production and consumption of electricity must remain balanced on an instantaneous basis. There is a certain baseline demand for electricity across an electric power system that occurs throughout the day, which is typically satisfied by baseload generating units with low variable operating costs. Baseload generating units can also increase output to satisfy certain incremental demand and reduce output when demand is unusually low. Intermediate/load-following generating units, which can more efficiently change their output to satisfy increases in demand, typically satisfy a large proportion of changes in intraday load as they respond to daily increases in demand or unexpected changes in supply created by reduced generation from renewable resources or other generator outages. Peak daily loads may be satisfied by peaking units. Peaking units are typically the most expensive to operate, but they can quickly start up and shut down to meet brief peaks in demand. In general, baseload units, intermediate/load following units and peaking units are dispatched into the ISO/RTO grid in order from lowest to highest variable cost. Price formation is typically based on the highest variable cost unit that clears the market to satisfy system demand at a given point in time. Our commodity risk management group also enters into electricity, gas and other commodity derivative contracts to reduce exposure to changes in prices primarily to hedge future revenues and fuel costs for our generation facilities and purchased power costs for our Retail segment. Seasonality The demand for and market prices of electricity and natural gas are affected by weather. As a result, our operating results are impacted by extreme or sustained weather conditions and may fluctuate on a seasonal basis. Typically, demand for and the price of electricity is higher in the summer and winter seasons, when the temperatures are more extreme, and the demand for and price of natural gas is also generally higher in the winter. More severe weather conditions such as heat waves or extreme winter weather have made, and may make such fluctuations more pronounced. The pattern of this fluctuation may change depending on, among other things, the retail load served and the terms of contracts to purchase or sell electricity. Competition Competition in the markets in which we operate is impacted by electricity and fuel prices, congestion along the power grid, subsidies provided by state and federal governments for new and existing generation facilities, new market entrants, construction of new generating assets, technological advances in power generation, the actions of environmental and other regulatory authorities, and other factors. We primarily compete with other electricity generators and retailers based on our ability to generate electric supply, market and sell electricity at competitive prices and to efficiently utilize transportation from third-party pipelines and transmission from electric utilities to deliver electricity to end-users. Competitors in the generation and retail power markets in which we participate include numerous regulated utilities, industrial companies, non-utility generators, competitive subsidiaries of regulated utilities, independent power producers, REPs and other energy marketers. See Item 1A. Risk Factors for additional information concerning the risks faced with respect to the markets in which we operate. Brand Value Our TXU Energy brand, which has been used to sell electricity to customers in the competitive retail electricity market in Texas for approximately 19 years, is registered and protected by trademark law and is the only material intellectual property asset that we own. We have also acquired the trade names for Ambit Energy, Dynegy Energy Services, Homefield Energy, TriEagle Energy, Public Power and U.S. Gas & Electric through the Ambit Transaction, Crius Transaction and the Merger, as the case may be. As of December 31, 2020, we have reflected intangible assets on our balance sheet for our trade names of approximately $1.374 billion (see Note 6 to the Financial Statements). 9 Table of Contents Human Capital Resources As a key component of our core principle that we work as a team , Vistra believes our most valuable asset is our talented, dedicated and diverse group of employees who work together to achieve our objectives, and our top priority is ensuring their safety. One of Vistra's core principles is that we care about our key stakeholders , including our employees. We invest in our people through numerous development and training opportunities, engaging employee programs and generous benefit and wellness offerings. As of December 31, 2020, we had approximately 5,365 full-time employees, including approximately 1,640 employees under collective bargaining agreements. Safety Vistra's mindset around safety is exemplified by our motto: Best Defense. Everyone wins. No one gets hurt. Our safety culture revolves around people and human performance. We place a high importance on continuous improvement, along with a keen focus on numerous learning and error-prevention tools. To facilitate a learning environment, our various operating plants share their investigations and learnings of all safety events with all operations employees on weekly calls. The information is presented by front-line employees and supported by management. The lessons from each event are shared across the fleet to prevent similar incidents at other locations. All personnel at Vistra locations are encouraged to be actively involved in the safety process. Managers are required to participate in safety engagements with staff to enable constant communication and sustained interaction. In 2020, the generation fleet conducted more than 57,000 leadership safety engagements across the fleet continuing our employee driven safety program focused on engagement of all employees. Our focus on reducing the severity of injuries for both our employees and contractors who work with us has shown positive results. In 2020, we did not have any serious injuries or fatalities to our Vistra employees. Although we do not focus on recordable incidents, our Total Recordable Incident rate (TRIR) for the company was 0.61, better than the first quartile as compared to the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) 2019 Total Company Injury data. We encourage near-miss reporting and review of events to promote a learning environment. In 2020, safety learning calls were held every week where near miss and safety events were reviewed by our operating teams to promote learning across the fleet. All Vistra employees are covered by our safety program. Office employees are required to complete periodic training on safety topics through our online learning management system. Power plant employees are required to complete trainings based on job function, which is also tracked through our central learning management system. In addition, the Company engages an independent third-party conformity assessment and certification vendor to manage adherence to our safety standards for all vendors and contractors who work at our plants. In addition, we work closely with our suppliers and contractors to ensure our safety practices are upheld. Our generation fleet has a total of 12 plants that have been awarded the Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) Star designation by the OSHA for superior demonstration of effective safety and health management systems and for maintaining injury and illness rates below the national averages for our industry. Two additional plants submitted applications in 2020 and are awaiting review by the OSHA. VPP Star status is the highest designation of OSHA's Voluntary Protection Programs. The achievement recognizes employers and workers who have implemented effective safety and health management systems and maintain injury and illness rates below national Bureau of Labor Statistics averages for their respective industries. These sites are self-sufficient in their ability to control workplace hazards and are reevaluated every three to five years. Additionally, 23 of our power plants and mine locations have adopted a proactive Behavior Based Safety approach to safety which focuses on identifying and providing feedback on at-risk behaviors observed. In 2020, our Kosse mine site was recognized for the Sentinels of Safety Award by the National Mining Association, the highest distinction for mine safety. This is the second time Kosse has been awarded in the last three years showing the commitment to safety at our mining operations. 10 Table of Contents Diversity, Equity and Inclusion We recognize the value of having a diverse and inclusive workforce. Our diversity includes all the ways we differ, such as age, gender, ethnicity and physical appearance, as well as underlying differences such as thoughts, styles, religions, nationality, education and numerous other traits. Creating and maintaining an environment where differences are valued and respected enhances our ability to recruit and retain the best talent in the marketplace. As we continue to promote and maintain an environment that fosters creativity, productivity and mutual respect, Vistra becomes the employer of choice by recognizing and using the value that each individual brings to the workplace. Vistra's diversity is evolving and management is leading by example. Overall, 28% of the Company's workforce is ethnically diverse. Women currently hold 26% of the Company's senior management positions, and ethnically diverse employees represent 23% of senior management. In 2020, the Board of Directors increased diversity as well. Currently three of the ten board members are women, and two of the ten board members are ethnically diverse. During 2020, we launched multiple initiatives to unlock the full potential of our people - and our company - through our diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. We formalized a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Advisory Council and expanded our Employee Resource Groups (ERG) to promote the appreciation of and communicate awareness of diverse employee groups and communities and their contribution to the overall success of the organization, both internally and externally. New ERGs will join existing ERGs such as Vistra's Women's Information Network, Opportunities for Professional Enrichment and Networking, Parents at Work, Veterans and Toastmasters. Further initiatives were launched to support the education, recruitment and retention of current and future employees, with particular emphasis being placed on driving equal access to opportunities throughout the organization. We contracted with Basic Diversity, Inc. to conduct an assessment of Vistra's diversity, equity and inclusion training needs, and as part of our commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion, we named our first Chief Diversity Officer in January 2021. Training and Development We believe the development of employees at all levels is critical to Vistra's current and future success. We have launched key programs to develop leaders at all levels of the organization, including monthly leader meetings for director-level employees focusing on gaining a deeper understanding of Vistra's strategy, developing cross-functional relationships and interacting with senior leadership of the company. Essentials in Leadership provides first time managers with skills to lead organizations in situational leadership, business acumen, identification of communication styles and inclusive communication practices, and exposes them to best practices from across the company. We also revised multiple leadership programs to continue virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic. Vistra also provides many other training and development programs to help grow and develop employees at every level, including online learning platform courses, learning management system courses, recorded webinars and presentations, self-paced development and employee-specific skill training. Thousands of web-based targeted courses are available to all employees, and the company further supports employees in completing thousands of hours of professional training to support continuing education requirements for their respective professional licenses, including accounting, legal and nuclear. We also support a variety of employee-initiated and -led programs based on demographics, interests and purpose, including Women's Information Network, Opportunities for Professional Enrichment and Networking, Parents at Work, TXU Green Team and Toastmasters. Employee Benefits Maintaining attractive benefits and pay are important for recruiting and retaining talent. We are committed to maintaining an equitable compensation structure, including performing annual salary reviews by employee category level within significant locations of operations. Eligible full- and part-time employees are provided access to medical, prescription drug, dental, vision, life insurance, accidental death and dismemberment and long-term disability coverage. Regular full-time employees are eligible for short-term disability benefits, and all employees are eligible for the employee assistance program, parental leave, maternity leave and a 401(k) plan through which the Company matches employee contributions up to 6%. 11 Table of Contents Wellness We believe a healthy workforce leads to greater well-being at work and at home. Our healthcare plans are designed to reward employees for getting annual physicals and cancer screenings. Fitness centers in multiple facilities offer cardio equipment, a selection of free weights and exercise mats. Our employee-led wellness team engages our people to get active and support causes that promote healthy living. With support from the company, the wellness team covers the registration costs for employees to participate in more than a dozen running events each year. Additionally, the team hosts quarterly blood drives and recruits participants for our cycling and soccer teams. Environmental Regulations and Related Considerations 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 recently finalized or proposed several regulatory actions establishing new requirements for control of certain emissions from sources, including electricity generation facilities. See Item 1A. Risk Factors for additional discussion of risks posed to us regarding regulatory requirements. See Note 13 to the Financial Statements for a discussion of litigation related to EPA reviews. In January 2021, the Biden administration issued a series of Executive Orders, including one titled Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis (the Environment Executive Order) which directed agencies, including the EPA, to review various agency actions promulgated during the prior administration and take action where the previous administration's action conflicts with national objectives. Several of the EPA agency actions discussed below are now subject to this review. Climate Change There is increasing attention and interest domestically and internationally about global climate change and how greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, such as carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), contribute to global climate change. GHG emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels, primarily by our coal/lignite-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 103 million short tons of CO 2 in 2020. We have already taken or announced significant steps to transition the fuel-mix and reduce the emissions profile of our generation fleet, including: • Solar Development Projects — In 2018, we began commercial operation of our 180 MW Upton 2 solar facility. In September 2020, we announced the planned development of 668 MW of solar generation facilities in Texas that are expected to begin commercial operations during 2021-2022. • Battery Energy Storage Projects — In 2018, our 10 MW battery energy storage system (ESS) at our Upton 2 solar facility in Texas commenced operations. Between 2018 and 2020, we announced the planned development of approximately 436 MW of various ESSs in California that are expected to enter commercial operations in 2021-2022. In September 2020, we announced the planned development of a 260 MW ESS in Texas that is expected to enter commercial operation in 2022. • Acquisition of CCGTs — In 2016 and 2017, we acquired 4,042 MW of CCGTs in Texas. In 2018, we acquired 15,448 MW of CCGTs across various ISOs/RTOs in connection with the Merger. • Retirements of Coal Generation — In 2018, we retired 4,167 MW of lignite/coal-fueled generation facilities in Texas. In 2019, we retired 2,068 MW of coal-fueled generation facilities in Illinois. We expect to retire an additional 7,486 MW of coal-fueled generation facilities in Illinois, Ohio and Texas no later than year-end 2027. See Note 3 to the Financial Statements for discussion of our solar and battery energy storage projects and Note 4 to the Financial Statements for discussion of our retirement of generation facilities. 12 Table of Contents Greenhouse Gas Emissions In August 2015, the EPA finalized rules to address GHG emissions from electricity generation units, referred to as the Clean Power Plan, including rules for existing facilities that would establish state-specific emissions rate goals to reduce nationwide CO 2 emissions. Various parties filed petitions for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court). In July 2019, petitioners filed a joint motion to dismiss in light of the EPA's new rule that replaces the Clean Power Plan, the Affordable Clean Energy rule, discussed below. In September 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court granted petitioners' motion to dismiss and dismissed all of the petitions challenging the Clean Power Plan as moot. In July 2019, the EPA finalized a rule to repeal the Clean Power Plan, with new regulations addressing GHG emissions from existing coal-fueled electric generation units, referred to as the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule. The ACE rule develops emission guidelines that states must use when developing plans to regulate GHG emissions from existing coal-fueled electric generating units. The ACE rule set a deadline of July 2022 for states to submit their plans for regulating GHG emissions from existing facilities. States where we operate coal plants (Texas, Illinois and Ohio) have begun the development of their state plans to comply with the rule. Environmental groups and certain states filed petitions for review of the ACE rule and the repeal of the Clean Power Plan in the D.C. Circuit Court, and the D.C. Circuit Court heard argument on those issues in October 2020. In January 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated the ACE rule and remanded the rule to the EPA for further action. In its decision, the D.C. Circuit Court concluded that the EPA's basis for repealing the Clean Power Plan and adopting the ACE rule was not supported by the Clean Air Act. Additionally, in December 2018, the EPA issued proposed revisions to the emission standards for new, modified and reconstructed units. Vistra submitted comments on that proposed rulemaking in March 2019. In January 2021, the EPA, just prior to the transition to the Biden administration, issued a final rule setting forth a significant contribution finding for the purpose of regulating GHG emissions from new, modified, or reconstructed electric utility generating units. The final rule exclude sectors from future regulation where GHG emissions make up less than three percent of U.S. GHG emissions. The final rule did not set any specific emission limits for new, modified, or reconstructed electric utility generating units. The ACE rule and the rule on significant contribution are subject to the Environment Executive Order discussed above. 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. Our generating facilities in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York emitted approximately 7 million tons of CO 2 during 2020. The spot market price of RGGI allowances required to operate these facilities as of December 31, 2020 was approximately $8.11 per allowance. The spot market price of RGGI allowances required to operate our affected facilities during 2021 was $8.34 per allowance on February 23, 2021. 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 will be distributed through the auction. Limited banking of unused allowances is allowed. 13 Table of Contents 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 will link Virginia to RGGI beginning in 2021. 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. 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 sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) emissions and in some regions nitrogen oxide (NO X ) 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-NO X burners and/or overfire air systems on all units. Additionally, our MISO coal-fueled facilities mainly use low sulfur coal, which, prior to combustion, goes through a refined coal process to further reduce NO X and mercury emissions. In 2018, we received approval to use refined coal at some of our Texas coal-fueled facilities. 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. BART reductions of SO 2 and NO X are required either on a unit-by-unit basis or are deemed satisfied by state participation in an EPA-approved regional trading program such as the CSAPR or other approved alternative program. 14 Table of Contents In October 2017, the EPA issued a final rule addressing BART for Texas electricity generation units, with the rule serving as a partial approval of Texas' 2009 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and a partial Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). For SO 2 , the rule established an intrastate Texas emission allowance trading program as a "BART alternative" that operates in a similar fashion to a CSAPR trading program. The program includes 39 generating units (including our Martin Lake, Big Brown, Monticello, Sandow 4, Coleto Creek, Stryker 2 and Graham 2 plants). The compliance obligations in the program started on January 1, 2019. The retirements of our Monticello, Big Brown and Sandow 4 plants have enhanced our ability to comply with this BART rule for SO 2 . For NO X , the rule adopted the CSAPR's ozone program as BART and for particulate matter, the rule approved Texas's SIP that determines that no electricity generation units are subject to BART for particulate matter. Various parties filed a petition challenging the rule in the Fifth Circuit Court as well as a petition for reconsideration filed with the EPA. Luminant intervened on behalf of the EPA in the Fifth Circuit Court action. In March 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court abated its proceedings pending conclusion of the EPA's reconsideration process. In August 2020, the EPA issued a final rule affirming the prior BART final rule but also included additional revisions that were proposed in November 2019. In October 2020, environmental groups petitioned for review of this rule in both the D.C. Circuit Court and the Fifth Circuit Court. Briefing is underway on the proper venue for any challenge to the final rule. As finalized, we expect that we will be able to comply with the rule. The BART rule is subject to the Environment Executive Order discussed above. Affirmative Defenses During Malfunctions In May 2015, the EPA finalized a rule requiring 36 states, including Texas, Illinois and Ohio, to remove or replace either EPA-approved exemptions or affirmative defense provisions for excess emissions during upset events and unplanned maintenance and startup and shutdown events, referred to as the SIP Call. Various parties (including Luminant, the State of Texas and the State of Ohio) filed petitions for review of the EPA's final rule, and all of those petitions were consolidated in the D.C. Circuit Court. In April 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court ordered the case to be held in abeyance. In April 2019, the EPA Region 6 proposed a rule to withdraw the SIP Call with respect to the Texas affirmative defense provisions. We submitted comments on that proposed rulemaking in June 2019. In February 2020, the EPA issued the final rule withdrawing the Texas SIP Call. In April 2020, a group of environmental petitioners, including the Sierra Club, filed a petition in the D.C. Circuit Court challenging the EPA's action with respect to Texas. Briefing is currently underway in the challenge to the EPA's action with respect to Texas. In October 2020, the EPA issued new guidance on the inclusion of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) provisions in SIPs, which is intended to supersede the policy in the multi-state SIP Call. The guidance provides that the SIPs may contain provisions for SSM events if certain conditions are met. The EPA SSM guidance is subject to the Environment Executive Order discussed above. Illinois Multi-Pollutant Standards (MPS) In August 2019, changes proposed by the Illinois Pollution Control Board to the MPS rule, which places NO X , SO 2 and mercury emissions limits on our coal plants located in MISO went into effect. Under the revised MPS rule, our allowable SO 2 and NO X emissions from the MISO fleet are 48% and 42% lower, respectively, than prior to the rule changes. The revised MPS rule requires the continuous operation of existing selective catalytic reduction (SCR) control systems during the ozone season, requires SCR-controlled units to meet an ozone season NO X emission rate limit, and set an additional, site-specific annual SO 2 limit for our Joppa Power Station. Additionally, in 2019, the Company retired its Havana, Hennepin, Coffeen and Duck Creek plants in order to comply with the MPS rule's requirement to retire at least 2,000 MW of our generation in MISO. See Note 4 to the Financial Statements for information regarding the retirement of these four plants. 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. 15 Table of Contents SO 2 Designations for Texas In November 2016, the EPA finalized its nonattainment designations for counties surrounding our Big Brown, Monticello and Martin Lake generation plants. The final designations require Texas to develop nonattainment plans for these areas. In February 2017, the State of Texas and Luminant filed challenges to the nonattainment designations in the Fifth Circuit Court. Subsequently, in October 2017, the Fifth Circuit Court granted the EPA's motion to hold the case in abeyance considering the EPA's representation that it intended to revisit the nonattainment rule. In December 2017, the TCEQ submitted a petition for reconsideration to the EPA. In August 2019, the EPA issued a proposed Error Correction Rule for all three areas, which, if finalized, would revise its previous nonattainment designations and each area at issue would be designated unclassifiable. In September 2019, we submitted comments in support of the proposed Error Correction Rule. In April 2020, the Sierra Club filed suit to compel the EPA to issue a Finding of Failure to submit an attainment plan with respect to the three areas in Texas. In August 2020, the EPA issued a Finding of Failure for Texas to submit an attainment plan. In September 2020, the EPA proposed a "Clean Data" determination for the areas surrounding the retired Big Brown and Monticello plants, which, if finalized, would redesignate those areas as attainment based on monitoring data supporting an attainment designation. We expect the TCEQ to develop a SIP for Texas for submittal to the EPA in 2021. Ozone Designations The EPA issued a final rule in October 2015 lowering the ozone NAAQS from 75 to 70 parts per billion. Various parties challenged the 2015 ozone NAAQS; however, in August 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court generally upheld the 2015 ozone NAAQS but remanded the secondary ozone standard to the EPA for reconsideration. In November 2017, the EPA issued an initial round of area designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, designating most areas of the U.S. as attainment/unclassifiable. Several states and other groups have filed lawsuits seeking to compel the EPA to complete designations for all areas of the country. In December 2017, the EPA notified states of expected nonattainment area designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Those areas include areas concerning our Dicks Creek, Miami Fort and Zimmer facilities in Ohio, our Calumet facility in Illinois and our Wise, Ennis and Midlothian facilities in Texas. In June 2018, the EPA finalized these designations as marginal nonattainment areas. In November 2017, the EPA denied a petition from nine northeastern states to add several states, including Illinois and Ohio, to the Ozone Transport Region. Eight of the northeastern states filed a petition for judicial review challenging the EPA's action in the D.C. Circuit Court. In April 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court denied the states' petition for review, upholding the EPA's denial. Additionally, in January 2018, New York and Connecticut filed a lawsuit against the EPA in the Southern District of New York seeking to compel the agency to issue a FIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that addresses sources in five upwind states, including Illinois. The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on the matter in April 2018, and the court granted that motion in June 2018. As a result, the EPA was required to propose an action to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS by June 29, 2018, and promulgate a final action by December 6, 2018. In January 2019, the plaintiffs informed the district court that the EPA had satisfied its deadlines in accordance with the court's order. However, in January 2019, New York, Connecticut, four other states, and the City of New York filed a separate petition for review in the D.C. Circuit Court challenging the final action the EPA took in December 2018 consistent with the Southern District of New York's order. In October 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated the final rule, and in February 2020, New Jersey, Connecticut, three other states and the City of New York filed a lawsuit against the EPA in the Southern District of New York to compel the EPA to promulgate a fully-compliant FIP to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS in light of the D.C. Circuit Court's vacatur. In July 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered the EPA to issue a final rulemaking fully addressing the 2008 ozone NAAQS by March 15, 2021. The EPA proposed its action to address the outstanding 2008 ozone NAAQS obligations in October 2020. Vistra subsidiaries filed comments on that rulemaking in December 2020. These actions are subject to the Environment Executive Order discussed above. In November 2016, the State of Maryland petitioned the EPA to impose additional NO X emission control requirements on 36 electricity generation units in five upwind states, including our Zimmer facility, that the State alleges are contributing to nonattainment with the 2008 ozone NAAQS in Maryland. In the fall of 2017, Maryland and several environmental groups filed lawsuits against the EPA seeking to compel the Agency to act on the State's petition. In October 2018, the EPA took final action denying the Maryland petition, and Maryland filed a petition for review of the EPA's denial in the D.C. Circuit Court. In May 2020, the D.C. Circuit Court largely upheld the EPA's denial of Maryland's petition but granted Maryland's petition with respect to the EPA's treatment of sources with non-catalytic controls and remanded the issue to the EPA. Given that the Zimmer facility utilizes SCR technology to control NO X emissions, we do not believe that the EPA's action on remand could cause a material adverse impact on our future financial results. 16 Table of Contents In March 2018, the State of New York petitioned the EPA to find that emissions from hundreds of sources in nine states, including Illinois, Ohio, Virginia and West Virginia are significantly contributing to New York's nonattainment and interfering with New York's maintenance of the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. On October 18, 2019, the EPA took final action denying New York's petition. On October 29, 2019, New York, New Jersey and the City of New York filed a petition for review of the EPA's denial of the Section 126 petition. In July 2020, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated the EPA's denial and remanded the action to the EPA for further proceedings. 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. At present, CCR is regulated by the states as solid waste. Coal Combustion Residuals 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 rule allows existing CCR surface impoundments to continue to operate for the remainder of their operating life, but generally would require closure (i.e., cessation of placement of CCR material and corrective action necessary to reach the standards provided in the CCR rule and applicable state rules) if groundwater monitoring demonstrates that the CCR surface impoundment is responsible for exceedances of groundwater quality protection standards or the CCR surface impoundment does not meet location restrictions or structural integrity criteria. The deadlines for beginning and completing closure vary depending on several factors. Several petitions for judicial review of the CCR rule were filed. 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 July 2018, the EPA published a final rule, which became effective in August 2018, that amends certain provisions of the CCR rule that the agency issued in 2015. Among other changes, the 2018 revisions extended closure deadlines to October 31, 2020, related to the aquifer location restriction and groundwater monitoring requirements. Also, in August 2018, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a decision that vacates and remands certain provisions of the 2015 CCR rule, including an applicability exemption for legacy impoundments. In December 2019, the EPA issued a proposed rule containing a revised closure deadline for unlined CCR impoundments and new procedures for seeking extensions of that revised closure deadline. We filed comments on the proposal in January 2020. In August 2020, the EPA issued a rule finalizing the December 2019 proposal, establishing a deadline of April 11, 2021 to cease receipt of waste and initiate closure at unlined CCR impoundments. The final rule allows a generation plant to seek the EPA's approval to extend this deadline if no alternative disposal capacity is available and either a conversion to comply with the CCR rule is underway or retirement will occur by either 2023 or 2028 (depending on the size of the impoundment at issue). Prior to the November 2020 deadline, we submitted applications to the EPA requesting compliance extensions under both conversion and retirement scenarios. In November 2020, environmental groups petitioned for review of this rule in the D.C. Circuit Court, and Vistra subsidiaries filed a motion to intervene in support of the EPA in December 2020. Also, in November 2020, the EPA finalized a rule that would allow an alternative liner demonstration for certain qualifying facilities. In November 2020, we submitted an alternate liner demonstration for one CCR unit at Martin Lake. In October 2020, the EPA published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking requesting information to inform the EPA in the development of a rule to address legacy impoundments that existed prior to the 2015 CCR regulation as required by the August 2018 D.C. Circuit Court decision. We filed comments on this proposal in February 2021. The rules on revised closure deadlines and alternative liner demonstrations are subject to the Environment Executive Order discussed above. MISO — In 2012, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) issued violation notices alleging violations of groundwater standards onsite at our Baldwin and Vermilion facilities' CCR surface impoundments. These violation notices remain unresolved; however, in 2016, the IEPA approved our closure and post-closure care plans for the Baldwin old east, east, and west fly ash CCR surface impoundments. We are working towards implementation of those closure plans. 17 Table of Contents At our retired Vermilion facility, which was not subject to the EPA's 2015 CCR rule until the aforementioned D.C. Circuit Court decision in August 2018, we submitted proposed corrective action plans involving closure of two CCR surface impoundments ( i.e. , the old east and the north impoundments) to the IEPA in 2012, and we submitted revised plans in 2014. In May 2017, in response to a request from the IEPA for additional information regarding the closure of these Vermilion surface impoundments, we agreed to perform additional groundwater sampling and closure options and riverbank stabilizing options. In May 2018, Prairie Rivers Network filed a citizen suit in federal court in Illinois against our subsidiary Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC (DMG), alleging violations of the Clean Water Act for alleged unauthorized discharges. In August 2018, we filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In November 2018, the district court granted our motion to dismiss and judgment was entered in our favor. Plaintiffs have appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and argument was heard in November 2020. In April 2019, PRN also filed a complaint against DMG before the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB), alleging that groundwater flows allegedly associated with the ash impoundments at the Vermilion site have resulted in exceedances both of surface water standards and Illinois groundwater standards dating back to 1992. This matter is in the very early stages. In 2012, the IEPA issued violation notices alleging violations of groundwater standards at the Newton and Coffeen facilities' CCR surface impoundments. We are addressing these CCR surface impoundments in accordance with the federal CCR rule. In June 2018, the IEPA issued a violation notice for alleged seep discharges claimed to be coming from the surface impoundments at our retired Vermilion facility and that notice has since been referred to the Illinois Attorney General. In December 2018, the Sierra Club filed a complaint with the IPCB alleging the disposal and storage of coal ash at the Coffeen, Edwards, and Joppa generation facilities are causing exceedances of the applicable groundwater standards. In July 2019, coal ash disposal and storage legislation in Illinois was enacted. The legislation addresses state requirements for the proper closure of coal ash ponds in the state of Illinois. The law tasks the IEPA and the IPCB to set up a series of guidelines, rules and permit requirements for closure of ash ponds. In March 2020, the IEPA issued its proposed rule, and we expect the rulemaking process should be completed by early 2021. Under the proposed rule, coal ash impoundment owners would be required to submit a closure alternative analysis to the IEPA for the selection of the best method for coal ash remediation at a particular site. The proposed rule does not mandate closure by removal at any site. Public hearings for the proposed rule were held in August 2020 and September 2020. We expect that the rule will be finalized by March 2021. For all of the above matters, if certain corrective action measures, including groundwater treatment or removal of ash, are required at any of our coal-fueled facilities, we may incur significant costs that could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. Until the revisions to the Illinois coal ash rulemaking are finalized and we undertake further site-specific evaluations required by each program we will not know the full range of costs of groundwater remediation, if any, that ultimately may be required under those rules. However, the currently anticipated CCR surface impoundment and landfill closure costs, as reflected in our existing ARO balances, reflect the costs of closure methods that our operations and environmental services teams believe are appropriate and protective of the environment for each location. 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. Cooling Water Intake Structures — Clean Water Act Section 316(b) regulations pertaining to existing water intake structures at large generation facilities became effective in 2014. This provision generally requires that the location, design, construction and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. Although the rule does not mandate a certain control technology, it does require site-specific assessments of technology feasibility on a case-by-case basis at the state level. 18 Table of Contents At this time, we estimate the cost of our compliance with the cooling water intake structure rule to be minimal at our Illinois plants due to the planned retirements of those plants by 2027. Our estimate could change materially depending upon a variety of factors, including site-specific determinations made by states in implementing the rule, the results of impingement and entrainment studies required by the rule, the results of site-specific engineering studies and the outcome of litigation concerning the rule and potential plant retirements. Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs) — In November 2015, the EPA revised the ELGs for steam electricity generation facilities, which will impose more stringent standards (as individual permits are renewed) for wastewater streams, such as flue gas desulfurization (FGD), fly ash, bottom ash and flue gas mercury control wastewaters. Various parties filed petitions for review of the ELG rule, and the petitions were consolidated in the Fifth Circuit Court. In April 2017, the EPA granted petitions requesting reconsideration of the ELG rule and administratively stayed the rule's compliance date deadlines. In August 2017, the EPA announced that its reconsideration of the ELG rule would be limited to a review of the effluent limitations applicable to FGD and bottom ash wastewaters and the agency subsequently postponed the earliest compliance dates in the ELG rule for the application of effluent limitations for FGD and bottom ash wastewaters from November 1, 2018 to November 1, 2020. Based on these administrative developments, the Fifth Circuit Court agreed to sever and hold in abeyance challenges to effluent limitations. The remainder of the case proceeded, and in April 2019 the Fifth Circuit Court vacated and remanded portions of the EPA's ELG rule pertaining to effluent limitations for legacy wastewater and leachate. In November 2019, the EPA issued a proposal that would extend the compliance deadline for FGD wastewater to no later than December 31, 2025 and maintains the December 31, 2023 compliance date for bottom ash transport water. The proposal also creates new sub-categories of facilities with more flexible FGD compliance options, including a retirement exemption to 2028 and a low utilization boiler exemption. The proposed rule also modified some of the FGD final effluent limitations. We filed comments on the proposal in January 2020. The EPA published the final rule in October 2020. The final rule extends the compliance date for both FGD and bottom ash transport water to no later than December 2025, as negotiated with the state permitting agency. Additionally, the final rule allows for a retirement exemption that exempts facilities certifying that units will retire by December 2028 provided certain effluent limitations are met. Notification to the state agency on the retirement exemption is due by October 2021. In November 2020, environmental groups petitioned for review of the new ELG revisions, and Vistra subsidiaries filed a motion to intervene in support of the EPA in December 2020. The final rule is subject to the Environment Executive Order discussed above. 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. 19 Table of Contents