Constellation Energy CorpCEG
Constellation Energy Corp Commitments Disclosure
Commitments and Contingencies
Commercial Commitments. Commercial commitments as of December 31, 2025, representing commitments potentially triggered by future events, were as follows:
| Expiration within | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 and beyond | Total | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Letters of credit | $ | 1,784 | $ | 190 | $ | 122 | $ | — | $ | 1 | $ | 3 | $ | 2,100 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Surety bonds(a) | 603 | — | 214 | — | — | — | 817 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Total commercial commitments | $ | 2,387 | $ | 190 | $ | 336 | $ | — | $ | 1 | $ | 3 | $ | 2,917 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
__________
(a)Surety bonds — Guarantees issued related to contract and commercial agreements, excluding bid bonds.
Nuclear Insurance
We are subject to liability, property damage and other risks associated with major incidents at any of our nuclear stations. Our financial exposure to these risks is mitigated through insurance and other industry risk-sharing provisions.
The Price-Anderson Act was enacted to ensure the availability of funds for public liability claims arising from an incident at any of the U.S. licensed nuclear facilities and to limit the liability of nuclear reactor owners for such claims from any single incident. As of December 31, 2025, the current liability limit per incident is $16.3 billion and is subject to change to account for the effects of inflation and changes in the number of licensed reactors at least once every five years with the last adjustment effective January 1, 2024. In accordance with the Price-Anderson Act, we maintain financial protection at levels equal to the amount of liability insurance available from private sources through the purchase of private nuclear energy liability insurance for public liability claims that could arise in the event of an incident. Effective January 1, 2024, the required amount of nuclear energy liability insurance purchased is $500 million for each operating site. Claims exceeding that amount are covered through mandatory participation in a financial protection pool, as required by the Price Anderson-Act, which could provide up to approximately an additional $15.8 billion per incident at any U.S. nuclear power reactor in funds available for public liability claims. Participation in this secondary financial protection pool requires the operator of each reactor to fund its proportionate share of costs for any single incident at any U.S. nuclear power reactor that exceeds the primary layer of financial protection. Our share of this secondary layer would be approximately $3.5 billion, based on our ownership interest in the insured nuclear reactors, however, any amounts payable under this secondary layer would be capped at $520 million per incident within one calendar year.
In addition, the U.S. Congress could impose revenue-raising measures on the nuclear industry to pay public liability claims exceeding the $16.3 billion limit for a single incident.
We are required by the NRC to maintain minimal levels of property insurance that demonstrates to the satisfaction of the NRC that we possess an equivalent amount of protection covering the licensee's obligation, in the event of an accident at the licensee's reactor, to stabilize and decontaminate the reactor and the reactor station site at which the reactor experiencing the accident is located. The insurance maintained for each facility is currently provided through insurance policies purchased from NEIL, an industry mutual insurance company of which we are a member. Currently, the NRC requires that we maintain a minimum coverage limit for each reactor site of $1.06 billion, and we currently have coverage of $1.5 billion for each site.
NEIL may declare distributions to its members as a result of favorable operating experience. In recent years, NEIL has made distributions to its members. Our portion of the annual distribution declared by NEIL is estimated to be $114 million for 2025, and was $44 million and $59 million for 2024 and 2023, respectively. The distributions were recorded as a reduction to Operating and maintenance expense in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income.
Premiums paid to NEIL by its members are also subject to a potential assessment for adverse loss experience in the form of a retrospective premium obligation. NEIL has never assessed this retrospective premium since its formation in 1973, and we cannot predict the level of future assessments, if any. The current maximum aggregate annual retrospective premium obligation for our interests is approximately $297 million. NEIL requires its
members to maintain an investment grade credit rating or to ensure collectability of their annual retrospective premium obligation by providing a financial guarantee, letter of credit, deposit premium, or some other means of assurance.
NEIL provides “all risk” property damage, decontamination, and premature decommissioning insurance for each station for losses resulting from damage to its nuclear plants, either due to accidents or acts of terrorism. If the decision is made to decommission the facility, a portion of the insurance proceeds will be allocated to a fund, which we are required by the NRC to maintain, to provide for decommissioning the facility. In the event of an insured loss, we are unable to predict the timing of the availability of insurance proceeds to us and the amount of such proceeds that would be available. In the event that one or more acts of terrorism cause accidental property damage within a twelve-month period from the first accidental property damage under one or more policies for all insured plants, the maximum recovery by us will be an aggregate of $3.2 billion plus such additional amounts as the insurer may recover for all such losses from reinsurance, indemnity and any other source, applicable to such losses.
For our insured losses, we are self-insured to the extent that losses are within the policy deductible or exceed the amount of insurance maintained. Uninsured losses and other expenses, to the extent not recoverable from insurers or the nuclear industry, could also be borne by us. Any such losses could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements.
Spent Nuclear Fuel Obligation
Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), the DOE is responsible for the development of a geologic repository for and the disposal of SNF and high-level radioactive waste. As required by the NWPA, we are a party to contracts with the DOE (Standard Contracts) to provide for disposal of SNF from our nuclear generating stations. In accordance with the NWPA and the Standard Contracts, we had previously paid the DOE one mill ($0.001) per kWh of net nuclear generation for the cost of SNF disposal. The DOE reduced the SNF disposal fee to zero in May 2014. Until a new fee structure is in effect, we will not accrue any further costs related to SNF disposal fees. This fee may be adjusted prospectively to ensure full cost recovery.
We currently assume the DOE will begin accepting SNF in 2040 and use that date for purposes of estimating the nuclear decommissioning AROs. The SNF acceptance date assumption is based on management’s estimate of the amount of time required for DOE to select a site location and develop the necessary infrastructure for long-term SNF storage.
The NWPA and the Standard Contracts required the DOE to begin taking possession of SNF generated by nuclear generating units no later than January 31, 1998. The DOE, however, failed to meet that deadline and its performance has been, and is expected to remain, delayed. In August 2004, we and the DOJ, in close consultation with the DOE, reached a settlement under which the government agreed to reimburse us, subject to certain damage limitations based on the extent of the government’s breach, for costs associated with storage of SNF at our nuclear stations pending the DOE’s fulfillment of its obligations. That settlement agreement does not expire until all SNF has been collected from the sites that it covers. Calvert Cliffs, Ginna, NMP, Fitzpatrick, and STP each have separate settlement agreements in place with the DOE which were extended during 2023 to provide for the reimbursement of SNF storage costs through December 31, 2025, and we are currently seeking a further extension. We and the DOE have the option to extend those settlements every three years upon mutual consent.
Under the settlement agreements, we received total cumulative cash reimbursements of $2,238 million through December 31, 2025 for costs incurred. After considering the amounts due to co-owners of certain nuclear stations and to the current owner of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, we received net cumulative cash reimbursements of $1,955 million. As of December 31, 2025 and 2024, the amount of SNF storage costs for
which reimbursement has been or will be requested from the DOE under the DOE settlement agreements is as follows:
| December 31, 2025 | December 31, 2024 | ||||||||||
DOE receivable - current(a) | $ | 117 | $ | 124 | |||||||
DOE receivable - noncurrent(b) | 28 | 42 | |||||||||
Amounts owed to co-owners(c) | (20) | (40) | |||||||||
__________
(a)Recorded in Accounts receivable, net.
(b)Recorded in Other deferred debits and other assets.
(c)Recorded primarily in Accounts payable and accrued expenses and Accounts receivable, net. Represents amounts owed to the co-owners of Peach Bottom, Quad Cities, and NMP Unit 2 generating facilities.
The Standard Contracts with the DOE also required the payment to the DOE of a one-time fee applicable to nuclear plants that generated SNF prior to April 7, 1983. The below table outlines the SNF liability, which is recorded within Other deferred credits and other liabilities, as of December 31, 2025 and 2024:
| December 31, 2025 | December 31, 2024 | ||||||||||
Former ComEd units(a) | $ | 1,271 | $ | 1,219 | |||||||
Fitzpatrick(b) | 155 | 147 | |||||||||
| Total SNF Obligation | $ | 1,426 | $ | 1,366 | |||||||
__________
(a)ComEd previously elected to defer payment of the one-time fee of $277 million for its units that began operations before April 7, 1983, with interest to the date of payment, until just prior to the first delivery of SNF to the DOE. The unfunded liabilities for SNF disposal costs, including the one-time fee, were transferred to us as part of Exelon’s 2001 corporate restructuring. See Note 10 — Asset Retirement Obligations for additional detail on Zion Station’s SNF obligation which is included in the table above.
(b)A prior owner of FitzPatrick elected to defer payment of the one-time fee of $34 million, with interest to the date of payment, for the FitzPatrick unit. As part of the FitzPatrick acquisition on March 31, 2017, we assumed a SNF liability for the DOE one-time fee obligation with interest related to FitzPatrick along with an offsetting asset, included in Other deferred debits and other assets, for the contractual right to reimbursement from NYPA, a prior owner of FitzPatrick, for amounts paid for the FitzPatrick DOE one-time fee obligation.
Interest for our SNF liabilities accrues at the 13-week Treasury Rate. The 13-week Treasury Rate in effect for calculation of the interest accrual at December 31, 2025 and 2024 was 3.906% and 4.553%, respectively for the deferred amount transferred from ComEd, and 3.953% and 4.615%, respectively, for the deferred FitzPatrick amount.
The following table summarizes sites for which we do not have an outstanding SNF Obligation:
| Description | Sites | ||||
| Fees have been paid or began operations after April 7, 1983 | Former PECO units, Braidwood, Byron, Calvert Cliffs, Clinton, LaSalle Unit 2, NMP Unit 2, and STP | ||||
| Outstanding SNF Obligation remains with former owners | NMP Unit 1, Ginna, and Crane | ||||
Environmental Remediation Matters
General. Our operations have in the past, and may in the future, require substantial expenditures to comply with environmental laws. Additionally, under Federal and state environmental laws, we are generally liable for the costs of remediating environmental contamination of property now or formerly owned by us and of property contaminated by hazardous substances generated by us. We own or lease several real estate parcels, including parcels on which our operations or the operations of others may have resulted in contamination by substances that are considered hazardous under environmental laws. In addition, we are currently involved in proceedings relating to sites where hazardous substances have been deposited and may be subject to additional proceedings in the future. Unless otherwise disclosed, we cannot reasonably estimate whether we will incur significant liabilities for additional investigation and remediation costs at these or additional sites identified by us,
environmental agencies or others. Additional costs could have a material, unfavorable impact on our consolidated financial statements.
As of December 31, 2025 and 2024, we had accrued undiscounted amounts for environmental liabilities of $9 million and $60 million, respectively, in Accounts payable and accrued expenses and $169 million for both periods in Other deferred credits and other liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Cotter Corporation. The EPA has advised Cotter Corporation (N.S.L.) (Cotter), a former ComEd subsidiary, that it is potentially liable in connection with radiological contamination at two sites in Missouri. In 2000, ComEd sold Cotter to an unaffiliated third-party. As part of the sale, ComEd agreed to indemnify Cotter for any liability arising from these two Missouri superfund sites, West Lake Landfill and Latty Avenue. In connection with Exelon’s 2001 corporate restructuring, this responsibility to indemnify Cotter was transferred to us, and ultimately retained by us per the terms of our separation from Exelon. Refer to Note 1 — Basis of Presentation for additional information on the separation.
West Lake Landfill. Including Cotter, there are three PRPs currently participating in the West Lake Landfill remediation proceeding.
West Lake Landfill; Operable Unit 1 (OU1); Landfill Remediation. In September 2018, the EPA issued its Record of Decision Amendment (RODA) for the selection of a final remedy that requires partial excavation of the radiological materials and capping the landfill. The EPA and the PRPs have entered into a Consent Agreement to perform the Remedial Design, which is now expected to be completed in 2026. In March 2019, the PRPs received Special Notice Letters from the EPA to perform the Remedial Action work. The total estimated cost of the design, remedy, and operation and maintenance, considering the current EPA technical requirements, is approximately $560 million, including cost escalation on an undiscounted basis.
West Lake Landfill; Operable Unit 3 (OU3); Groundwater Study. In September 2018, the three identified PRPs, including Cotter, signed an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for the performance by the PRPs of the groundwater Remedial Investigation Feasibility Study (RI/FS). The purpose of this RI/FS is to define the nature and extent of any groundwater contamination from the West Lake Landfill site and evaluate remedial alternatives. We estimate the undiscounted cost for the groundwater RI/FS to be approximately $60 million. At this time we cannot predict the likelihood, or the extent to which remediation activities, if any, may be required and therefore cannot estimate a reasonably possible range of loss for response costs beyond those associated with the RI/FS component.
We determined a loss associated with the EPA's partial excavation and landfill cover remedy and the groundwater RI/FS is probable and have recorded a liability for each, both of which are included in the total amount as discussed above, that reflects management’s best estimate of Cotter’s allocable share of the cost among the PRPs. Given the joint and several nature of these two liabilities, the amount of our ultimate liability will depend on the actual costs incurred to implement the required remedy at OU1 and the required study at OU3, as well as on the nature and terms of any cost-sharing arrangements with the final group of PRPs. It is reasonably possible that the ultimate cost and Cotter's associated allocable share could differ significantly once these uncertainties are resolved, which could have a material impact on our results of operations and financial condition.
Latty Avenue and Vicinity Properties. In August 2011, Cotter was notified by the DOJ that Cotter is considered a PRP with respect to the government’s clean-up costs for contamination attributable to low-level radioactive residues at a former storage and reprocessing facility named Latty Avenue near St. Louis, Missouri.
Latty Avenue was investigated and remediated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to funding under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program. The PRPs reached a settlement of this matter and the government filed a motion for entry of a Consent Decree, which was entered by the Court on January 24, 2025. Payment of $50 million plus statutory interest was made on January 30, 2025. The consent decree settles past and future responses costs incurred by the United States Army Corp of Engineers and DOE for their response actions conducted in connection with the release or threatened release of hazardous substances, including radioactive substances at Latty Avenue and certain additional adjacent properties.
Litigation
We are involved in various litigation matters that are being defended and handled in the ordinary course of business. The assessment of whether a loss is probable or reasonably possible, and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, often involves a series of complex judgments about future events. We maintain accruals for such losses that are probable of being incurred and subject to reasonable estimation. Management is sometimes unable to estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible loss, particularly where (1) the damages sought are indeterminate, (2) the proceedings are in the early stages, or (3) the matters involve novel or unsettled legal theories. In such cases, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the timing or ultimate resolution of such matters, including a possible eventual loss.
Impacts of the February 2021 Extreme Cold Weather Event and Texas-based Generating Assets Outages. Beginning on February 15, 2021, our Texas-based generating assets within the ERCOT market, specifically Colorado Bend II, Wolf Hollow II, and Handley, experienced outages as a result of extreme cold weather conditions.
Various lawsuits have been filed against us since the February 2021 event and outages. In March 2021, we, along with more than 150 power generators and transmission and distribution companies, were sued by approximately 160 individually named plaintiffs, purportedly on behalf of all Texans who allegedly suffered loss of life or sustained personal injury, property damage, or other losses as a result of the weather events. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to properly prepare for the cold weather and failed to properly conduct their operations, seeking compensatory as well as punitive damages. Thereafter, numerous other plaintiffs filed multiple lawsuits against more than 300 defendants, including us, involving similar allegations of liability and claims of personal injury and property damage all arising out of the February weather events. These additional lawsuits allege wrongful death, property damage, or other losses. Co-defendants in these lawsuits include ERCOT, transmission and distribution utilities and other generators.
In December 2021, approximately 130 insurance companies which insured Texas homeowners and businesses filed a subrogation lawsuit against multiple defendants alleging that defendants were at fault for the energy failure that resulted from the winter storm, causing significant property damage to the insureds. Subsequently, several hundred other insurance companies filed similar claims. All of these cases were combined in a Multi-District-Litigation (MDL) pending in Texas state court, which established a bellwether process to consider initial motions to dismiss by the different industry groups of defendants. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints in five bellwether cases in July 2022. In February 2023, the court granted the motions to dismiss pertaining to us in part and denied them in part, leaving the plaintiffs' negligence and nuisance claims to proceed. Since the motions to dismiss were partially denied, thousands of new claimants, many in multiple mass tort actions, filed lawsuits in various Texas state courts naming us, among hundreds of other defendants. The majority of these cases were transferred to the MDL. The MDL involves over 200 cases brought by approximately 30,000 plaintiffs, including more than 1,300 insurance companies, and we are defendants in the majority of them. We had also been named in an alleged class action that sought to assert claims on behalf of over 4.1 million Texans within ERCOT who lost power during Winter Storm Uri. The court subsequently denied certification of the class, and plaintiffs have not presently pursued on appeal.
In December 2023, the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas granted the power generator defendants' Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in the five bellwether cases and ordered the MDL court to dismiss the remaining claims against the power generator defendants, including our entities. The motions to dismiss in the five bellwether cases are expected to be applied to all the claims against the power generator defendants in the MDL. In January 2024, plaintiffs filed motions for en banc reconsideration of the order with the full court of appeals in all five bellwether cases. In November 2024, the court denied plaintiffs' motions. In January 2025, plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for mandamus review, requesting that the court reinstate the MDL court's denial of the generator defendants' motions to dismiss and thereby permit plaintiffs' claims to proceed. In June 2025, the court requested consolidated briefing on the merits in each of the five bellwether cases. The briefing concluded in February 2026, and the parties now await a decision from the court.
In addition to the cases pending in the MDL in Texas state court, in January 2025, the Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma filed a lawsuit in state court against us, along with 10 other defendants, alleging antitrust and consumer protection act violations as well as unjust enrichment in connection with the sale, transport and marketing of natural gas to state agencies, municipalities and the people of the state of Oklahoma during the extreme cold weather event. The Attorney General seeks compensatory and punitive damages. In March 2025,
defendants filed multiple motions to dismiss the lawsuit, which were denied by the court in August 2025. The parties are now engaged in discovery with trial likely to be scheduled in 2027.
We dispute liability and deny that we are responsible for any of plaintiffs’ alleged claims and are vigorously contesting them. No loss contingencies have been reflected in the consolidated financial statements with respect to these matters, nor can we currently estimate a range of loss. It is reasonably possible, however, that resolution of these matters could have a material, unfavorable impact on our consolidated financial statements.
Asbestos Personal Injury Claims. We maintain a reserve for claims associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions at certain facilities that are currently owned by us or were previously owned by ComEd, PECO, or BGE. The estimated liabilities are recorded on an undiscounted basis and exclude the estimated legal costs associated with handling these matters, which could be material.
At December 31, 2025 and 2024, we recorded estimated liabilities of approximately $120 million and $125 million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. These amounts are primarily included in Other deferred credits and other liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Current amounts included in Accounts payable and accrued expenses are not material in either of the periods presented. As of December 31, 2025, approximately $17 million of this amount related to 251 open claims presented to us, while the remaining $103 million is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2055, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, we monitor actual experience against the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim payments and evaluate whether adjustments to the estimated liabilities are necessary.
Free Sentinel
Track for freeWant the next Constellation Energy Corp commitments disclosure the moment it drops?
Set a Sentinel and we'll alert you the moment Constellation Energy Corp's next filing hits EDGAR. No credit card, your email never gets sold.
Historical Timeline
| Fiscal Year | Filed | |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Feb 24, 2026 | Showing above |
| 2024 | Feb 18, 2025 | |
| 2023 | Feb 27, 2024 | |
| 2022 | Feb 16, 2023 | |
| 2021 | Feb 25, 2022 | |
About Commitments Disclosures
Commitments and contingencies disclosures catalog a company's off-balance-sheet obligations and legal exposures — purchase commitments, guarantee arrangements, pending litigation, and regulatory proceedings. These items represent potential future cash outflows that may not appear as liabilities on the balance sheet until they become probable and estimable.
Key signals: litigation reserves and disclosed loss ranges quantify management's estimate of legal exposure, but unquantified "reasonably possible" losses often represent the larger risk. Watch for changes in language around pending cases — shifts from "remote" to "reasonably possible" or increases in estimated loss ranges signal deteriorating outcomes. Unconditional purchase obligations and take-or-pay contracts create fixed cost structures that reduce operational flexibility. Guarantee arrangements for subsidiaries or joint ventures can create cascading obligations. Compare the total commitment schedule against projected free cash flow to assess whether the company can meet its obligations without additional financing.