Vistra Corp.VST
Vistra Corp. Commitments Disclosure
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Contractual Commitments
As of December 31, 2025, we had minimum contractual commitments under long-term service and maintenance contracts, energy-related contracts and other agreements as follows:
| Long-Term Service and Maintenance Contracts (a) | Coal transportation agreements | Pipeline transportation and storage reservation fees | Water Contracts | ||||||||||||||||||||
| (in millions) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2026 | $ | 182 | $ | 63 | $ | 227 | $ | 2 | |||||||||||||||
| 2027 | 257 | 27 | 245 | 10 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2028 | 294 | — | 279 | 10 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2029 | 243 | — | 284 | 10 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2030 | 276 | — | 286 | 10 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Thereafter | 1,823 | — | 497 | 35 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total | $ | 3,075 | $ | 90 | $ | 1,818 | $ | 77 | |||||||||||||||
____________
(a)Long-term service and maintenance contracts reflect expected expenditures as these contracts do not include minimum spending requirements, but can only be terminated based on events outside the control of the Company.
In addition to the commitments detailed above, we have nuclear fuel contracts with early termination penalties. As of December 31, 2025, termination costs of $94 million would be incurred if we terminated those contracts.
Expenditures under our coal purchase and coal transportation agreements totaled $733 million, $744 million, and $936 million for the years ended December 31, 2025, 2024 and 2023, respectively.
Letters of Credit, Surety Bonds, and Collateral Support Obligation
Letters of Credit — As of December 31, 2025, we had outstanding letters of credit totaling $3.004 billion as follows:
•$2.489 billion to support commodity risk management and collateral requirements in the normal course of business, including over-the-counter and exchange-traded transactions and $679 million of collateral postings with ISOs/RTOs;
•$279 million to support battery and solar development projects;
•$110 million to support ASAOC requirements with the EPA (see Note 8 for additional information);
•$86 million to support our REP financial requirements with the PUCT;
•$25 million to support executory contracts and insurance agreements; and
•$15 million for other credit support requirements.
Surety Bonds — Surety bonds provide financial performance assurance to third parties on behalf of certain Company subsidiaries for obligations under various contracts and legal obligations in the normal course of business. In the event of nonperformance by the applicable subsidiary, the beneficiary would make a claim to the surety, and the Company would be required to reimburse any payment by the surety. Our liability with respect to any particular surety bond is released once the obligations secured by the surety bond are performed. As of December 31, 2025, we had outstanding surety bonds totaling $987 million, including $81 million with ISOs/RTOs.
Collateral Support Obligation — The RCT has rules in place to assure that parties can meet their mining reclamation obligations. In September 2016, the RCT agreed to a collateral bond of up to $975 million to support Luminant's reclamation obligations. The collateral bond is effectively a first lien on all of Vistra Operations' assets (which ranks pari passu with the Vistra Operations Credit Facilities) that contractually enables the RCT to be paid (up to $975 million) before the other first-lien lenders in the event of a liquidation of our assets. Collateral support relates to land mined or being mined and not yet reclaimed as well as land for which permits have been obtained but mining activities have not yet begun and land already reclaimed but not released from regulatory obligations by the RCT, and includes cost contingency amounts.
Litigation and Regulatory Proceedings
Our material legal proceedings and regulatory proceedings affecting our business are described below. We believe that we have valid defenses to the legal proceedings described below and intend to defend them vigorously. We also intend to participate in the regulatory processes described below. We record reserves for estimated losses related to these matters when information available indicates that a loss is probable and the amount of the loss, or range of loss, can be reasonably estimated. As applicable, we have established an adequate reserve for the matters discussed below. In addition, legal costs are expensed as incurred. Management has assessed each of the following legal matters based on current information and made a judgment concerning its potential outcome, considering the nature of the claim, the amount and nature of damages sought, and the probability of success. Unless specified below, we are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or reasonably estimate the scope or amount of any associated costs and potential liabilities, but they could have a material impact on our results of operations, liquidity, or financial condition. As additional information becomes available, we adjust our assessment and estimates of such contingencies accordingly. Because litigation and rulemaking proceedings are subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable rulings or developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters could be at amounts that are different from our currently recorded reserves and that such differences could be material.
Litigation
Illinois Attorney General Complaint Against Illinois Gas & Electric (IG&E) — In May 2022, the Illinois Attorney General filed a complaint against IG&E, a subsidiary we acquired when we purchased Crius Energy Trust in July 2019. The complaint filed in Illinois state court alleges, among other things, that IG&E engaged in improper marketing conduct and overcharged customers. The vast majority of the conduct in question occurred prior to our acquisition of IG&E. In July 2022, we moved to dismiss the complaint, and in October 2022, the district court granted in part our motion to dismiss, barring all claims asserted by the Illinois Attorney General that were outside of the -year statute of limitations period, which now limits the period during which claims may be made to start in May 2017 rather than extending back to 2013 as the Illinois Attorney General had alleged in its complaint.
Ohio House Bill 6 ("HB6") — In July 2019, Ohio adopted a law referred to as HB6, which, among other things, provided subsidies for two nuclear power plants which we acquired in March 2024 upon the closing of our merger with Energy Harbor. We had opposed enactment of that subsidy legislation at the time, and the nuclear subsidies were repealed in 2021 prior to any subsidies being distributed. The U.S. Attorney's Office conducted an investigation into the activities related to the passage of HB6, and Energy Harbor received a grand jury subpoena in July 2020 requiring production of certain information related to that investigation. Energy Harbor completed its responses to that subpoena by December 2021. In August 2020, the Ohio Attorney General filed a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) complaint against FirstEnergy Corp. and various Energy Harbor companies related to passage of HB6 (State of Ohio ex rel. Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General v. FirstEnergy Corp., et al., Franklin County, Ohio Common Pleas Court Case No. 20CV006281 and State of Ohio ex rel. Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General v. Energy Harbor Corp., et al., Franklin County, Ohio Common Pleas Court Case No. 20CV007386). Motions to dismiss those cases remain pending and the case is currently stayed.
Dorrell Antitrust Litigation — In July 2025, an antitrust lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against Human Resources Consultants, LLC, Accelerant Technologies, Constellation Energy Corporation and 25 other companies, including Vistra Corp. and Luminant Generation Company, LLC. Plaintiffs allege that since at least May 2003, the defendants exchanged confidential compensation information and conspired to fix and suppress compensation of all persons employed in nuclear power generation in violation of federal antitrust law. In October 2025, motions to dismiss these claims were filed and the Plaintiffs amended their lawsuit. In December 2025, motions to dismiss these amended claims were filed. We believe we have strong defenses to this lawsuit and intend to defend against this case vigorously.
Winter Storm Uri Legal Proceedings
Regulatory Investigations and Other Litigation Matters — Following the events of Winter Storm Uri, various regulatory bodies, including ERCOT, the ERCOT Independent Market Monitor, and the Texas Attorney General initiated investigations or issued requests for information of various parties related to the significant load shed event that occurred during the event as well as operational challenges for generators arising from the event, including performance and fuel and supply issues. We responded to all those investigatory requests. In addition, a large number of personal injury, wrongful death, and insurance lawsuits related to Winter Storm Uri have been filed in various Texas state courts against us and numerous generators, transmission and distribution utilities, retail and electric providers, as well as ERCOT. These cases were transferred to a single multi-district litigation (MDL) pretrial judge for all pretrial proceedings. In January 2023, the MDL court ruled on the various motions to dismiss and denied the motions to dismiss of the generator defendants and the transmission distribution utilities defendants, but granted the motions of some of the other defendant groups, including the retail electric providers and ERCOT. In December 2023, the First Court of Appeals in a unanimous decision granted our mandamus petition and instructed the MDL court to grant the motions to dismiss in full filed by the generator defendants. The plaintiffs have petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to review that decision and filed their opening brief in September 2025. We believe we have strong defenses to these lawsuits and intend to defend against these cases vigorously if they continue.
Moss Landing 300 Battery Fire
On January 16, 2025, we detected a fire at our Moss Landing 300 MW energy storage facility at the Moss Landing Power Plant site. We are working closely with all local, state, and federal regulatory authorities on the response, and we are investigating the cause of the fire. We are also responding to various regulatory bodies, including the CPUC, the EPA, and others investigating the incident. Several lawsuits have been filed in California federal and state courts against Vistra, LG Energy Solution (LG), and others, as a result of this incident.
The EPA is providing control and oversight of clean up and remediation efforts on the site. In July 2025, we entered into an ASAOC with the EPA that requires us to perform certain activities, which primarily include battery removal and disposal, building demolition, and air and water monitoring at the Moss Landing 300 site. By entering into this ASAOC, we will conduct these activities under the EPA's oversight. See Note 8 for additional information including costs incurred through December 31, 2025 and estimated future costs to be incurred related to these activities.
Unleashing American Energy Executive Order
In January 2025, President Trump issued a series of executive orders, including an order titled Unleashing American Energy (the Order) that ordered that all federal agencies are to review all existing regulations, orders, and other actions for consistency with the administration's policy goals, and develop an action plan within 30 days to resolve any policy inconsistencies. The Order requires the EPA to review the GHG, CSAPR, Legacy CCR, and ELG rules discussed below. Additionally, the Order states the U.S. Attorney General may request a stay of the litigation involving these rules while the EPA conducts its reviews. In addition to that Order, in April 2025, President Trump issued a series of additional executive orders on energy and deregulation priorities for his administration. We will monitor implementation and any agency actions related to those and other executive orders.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG)
In May 2023, the EPA released a proposal regulating power plant GHG emissions, while also proposing to repeal the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule that had been finalized by the EPA in July 2019. In May 2024, the EPA published a final GHG rule that repealed the ACE rule and sets limits for (a) new natural gas-fired combustion turbines and (b) existing coal-, oil- and natural gas-fired steam generation units. The standards are based on technologies such as carbon capture and sequestration/storage (CCS) and natural gas co-firing. Units permanently retiring by January 1, 2032 are exempt from the rule. Given our previously announced coal unit retirement commitments, our Martin Lake and Oak Grove plants are the only coal units that are subject to this rule. Our Graham, Lake Hubbard, Stryker Creek and Trinidad oil/natural gas facilities are also regulated under this rule. None of our existing large or small combustion turbines are subject to this rule. Following finalization of the rule in May 2024, 17 petitions for review from various states, industry groups, and companies were filed in the D.C. Circuit Court along with multiple motions to stay the rule. We are participating in an industry coalition challenging the rule. Oral argument on the merits of the legal challenges to the rule was held in December 2024 before the D.C. Circuit Court. The D.C. Circuit Court has granted the EPA's motion for an abeyance of the case and status reports are due at 90-day intervals. In June 2025, the EPA published a proposed repeal of GHG emission standards for fossil fuel-fired electric generation units, which could moot this case if the proposal is finalized and would result in no further federal regulation of GHGs at electric generating units. Additionally, in February 2026, the EPA issued a rule that repeals the agency's prior 2009 endangerment finding for all GHG emission standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles. The rescission of the endangerment finding does not impact power plants, however, the EPA has also stated that, for other rules that have relied on the endangerment finding, it intends to initiate other rulemakings to address any overlapping issues. Several environmental groups have filed a challenge to the EPA's repeal of the endangerment finding in the D.C. Circuit Court.
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and Good Neighbor Plan
In October 2015, the EPA revised the primary and secondary ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to lower the eight-hour standard for ozone emissions during ozone season (May to September), and, in October 2018, the State of Texas submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to the EPA, which was then disapproved by the EPA in February 2023. The State of Texas, Luminant, certain trade groups, and others challenged that disapproval in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit Court). In March 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court denied those petitions for review, but we and the State of Texas have filed petitions for rehearing of that decision. We do not expect any near-term impact to Texas sources from this decision. Based on policy recent pronouncements from the Trump administration, the new EPA is reevaluating its approach to these Good Neighbor SIPs in general.
In April 2022, prior to the EPA's disapproval of Texas' SIP, the EPA proposed a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the 2015 ozone NAAQS. In March 2023, the EPA administrator signed its final FIP, called the Good Neighbor Plan (GNP). The FIP applied to 22 states beginning with the 2023 ozone seasons. States where Vistra operates generation units that would be subject to this rule are Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.
In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of the GNP FIP pending a review of the merits by the D.C. Circuit Court and any further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. As a result, the GNP FIP is now stayed for all covered states until the courts resolve the legality of the FIP. In April 2025, the D.C. Circuit Court granted an abeyance of the case challenging the GNP FIP addressing interstate transport for all covered states while the EPA reviews the GNP FIP. In January 2026, the EPA proposed removing eight states (although none that we operate in) from the GNP FIP, and we expect the EPA will take additional action to reconsider other aspects of the GNP FIP in 2026. At this time, we do not know how these proposed changes could impact the overall trading program for any states that remain in the GNP FIP.
Regional Haze — Reasonable Progress and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for Texas
In October 2017, the EPA issued a final rule addressing BART for Texas electricity generation units, with the rule serving as a partial approval of Texas' 2009 SIP and a partial FIP. For SO2, 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. 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 May 2023, a proposed BART rule was published in the Federal Register that would withdraw the trading program provisions of the prior rule and would establish SO2 limits on six facilities in Texas, including Martin Lake and Coleto Creek. However, that proposal was never finalized during the Biden administration. In December 2025, the EPA issued a final rule for reasonable progress requirements that (a) approves portions of Texas' first planning period regional haze SIP and (b) approves Texas' second planning period regional haze SIP. Under the EPA's rule, no new controls are required.
SO2 Designations for Texas
In November 2016, the EPA finalized nonattainment designations for SO2 for counties surrounding our Martin Lake generation plant and our now retired Big Brown and Monticello plants. The final designations required Texas to develop nonattainment plans for these areas. In September 2021, the TCEQ considered a proposal for its nonattainment SIP revision for the Martin Lake area and an agreed order to reduce SO2 emissions from the plant. The proposed agreed order associated with the SIP proposal reduced emission limits as of January 2022. Emission reductions required are those necessary to demonstrate attainment with the NAAQS. In February 2022, we and the TCEQ entered into an agreed order to reduce SO2 emissions at the Martin Lake plant, and the TCEQ submitted the agreed order to the EPA as a SIP revision to address the nonattainment designation. We and the State of Texas had previously filed legal challenges in 2017 to the EPA's nonattainment designations in the Fifth Circuit Court. In May 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court held that the EPA's designations were unlawful, granted the petitions for review, and remanded the designation back to the EPA. In September 2025, the EPA issued a final rule withdrawing its Finding of Failure to Submit and Finding of Failure to Attain in light of the Fifth Circuit Court's May 2025 decision.
Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs)
In October 2020, the EPA published a final rule that extends the compliance date for both flue gas desulfurization (FGD) and bottom ash transport water to no later than December 2025, as negotiated with the state permitting agency. Additionally, the rule allows for a retirement exemption that exempts facilities certifying that units will retire by December 2028 provided certain effluent limitations are met. In November 2020, environmental groups petitioned for review of the new ELG revisions, and Vistra subsidiaries filed a motion to intervene in support of the EPA in December 2020. Notifications were made to Texas, Illinois, and Ohio state agencies on the retirement exemption for applicable coal plants by the regulatory deadline of October 13, 2021. In May 2024, the EPA published the final ELG rule revisions, which contain new requirements for legacy wastewater and combustion residual leachate. The final rule also leaves in place the subcategory for facilities that permanently cease coal combustion by 2028. A number of parties have since challenged the rule and that case is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. We are not a party to that litigation. In February 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted the EPA's unopposed motion seeking to hold the litigation in abeyance while the new leadership at the EPA evaluates the rule and determines how it wishes to proceed.
In December 2025, the EPA finalized additional revisions to the ELG rule, including extending certain compliance deadlines under the 2024 ELG rule. Those deadlines would generally apply to facilities that had not already utilized the retirement provisions in the 2020 ELG rule, which our company had utilized. In addition, the rule authorizes a process for states to extend the 2028 retirement deadline that was finalized as part of the 2020 ELG rule in the event market conditions would not support retirement of a facility. We are currently evaluating this rule and the impact, if any, it might have on our announced plans to retire our remaining coal generation facilities in Illinois and Ohio by 2028 given that those facilities are under separate existing regulatory requirements to close by then. Several environmental groups have recently challenged that rule.
Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Rule Revisions and Extension Applications
In August 2018, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a decision that vacates and remands certain provisions of the 2015 CCR rule, including an applicability exemption for legacy impoundments. In August 2020, the EPA issued a final rule establishing a deadline of April 11, 2021 to cease receipt of waste and initiate closure at unlined CCR impoundments. The 2020 final rule allows a generation plant to seek the EPA's approval to extend this deadline if no alternative disposal capacity is available and either a conversion to comply with the CCR rule is underway or retirement will occur by either 2023 or 2028 (depending on the size of the impoundment at issue).
Prior to the November 2020 deadline to seek extensions, we submitted applications to the EPA requesting compliance extensions under both conversion and retirement scenarios. In January 2022, the EPA determined that our conversion and retirement applications for our CCR facilities were complete but has not yet proposed action on any of those applications.
Legacy CCR Rulemaking
In May 2024, the EPA published a final rule that expands coverage of groundwater monitoring and closure requirements to the following two new categories of units: (a) legacy CCR surface impoundments which are CCR surface impoundments that no longer receive CCR but contained both CCR and liquids on or after October 19, 2015 and (b) "CCR management units" (CCRMUs) which generally could encompass noncontainerized ash deposits greater than one ton and impoundments and landfills that closed prior to October 19, 2015. As part of the rule, the EPA identified numerous CCR management units across the country, including ten of our potential units. The Vermilion ash ponds discussed below are the only unit which we believe qualify as a legacy CCR surface impoundment and given our closure plan for that site we do not believe the rule will have any impact on that site. CCRMUs with 1,000 or more tons of CCR must comply with the CCR's groundwater monitoring, corrective action, closure and post-closure requirements. For CCRMUs, complete facility evaluation reports are due within 33 months after publication of the rule, initial groundwater reports are due January 31, 2029, and the deadline to initiate closure, if needed, will start in 2029. Closure of the CCRMUs may also be deferred beyond those dates depending on certain factors, including where the CCRMU is located beneath critical infrastructure. In addition, certain closures may not be required when closure was previously approved under a state program. Because facility evaluation reports will determine our unit-specific compliance obligations, we cannot determine them at this time. In August 2024, we, along with USWAG, several other generating companies, and 17 states, including Texas, filed a challenge to the rule in the D.C. Circuit Court. In February 2025, the D.C. Circuit Court granted an unopposed motion filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of the EPA, holding the litigation in abeyance while the new leadership at the EPA evaluates the rule and determines how it wishes to proceed. In February 2026, the EPA issued a final rule for the CCRMU provisions of the rule extending the deadlines for the Facility Evaluation Reports (FER) to 2028, groundwater monitoring to 2031, and closure requirements to 2030. The EPA has requested to keep the challenge to the rule addressing CCRMUs and legacy impoundments in abeyance.
MISO — In 2012, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) issued violation notices alleging violations of groundwater standards onsite at our Baldwin and Vermilion facilities' CCR surface impoundments. These violation notices remain unresolved; however, in 2016, the IEPA approved our closure and post-closure care plans for the Baldwin old east, east, and west fly ash CCR surface impoundments. We have completed closure activities at those ponds at our Baldwin facility.
At our retired Vermilion facility, in June 2021, we entered into an agreed interim consent order with the Illinois Attorney General and the Vermilion County State Attorney in which DMG is required to evaluate the closure alternatives under the requirements of the Illinois Coal Ash regulation (discussed below) and close the site by removal. In addition, the interim consent order requires that during the impoundment closure process, impacted groundwater will be collected before it leaves the site or enters the nearby Vermilion river and, if necessary, DMG will be required to install temporary riverbank protection if the river migrates within a certain distance of the impoundments. The interim order was modified in December 2022 to require certain amendments to the Safety Emergency Response Plan. In June 2023, the Illinois state court approved and entered the final consent order, which included the terms above and a requirement that when IEPA issues a final closure permit for the site, DMG will demolish the power station and submit for approval to construct an on-site landfill within the footprint of the former plant to store and manage the coal ash. These proposed closure costs are reflected in the ARO in the consolidated balance sheets (see Note 15 for additional information).
In 2012, the IEPA issued violation notices alleging violations of groundwater standards at the Newton and Coffeen facilities' CCR surface impoundments. We are addressing these CCR surface impoundments in accordance with the federal CCR rule.
In July 2019, coal ash disposal and storage legislation in Illinois was enacted. The legislation addresses state requirements for the proper closure of coal ash ponds in the state of Illinois. The law tasks the IEPA and the IPCB to set up a series of guidelines, rules, and permit requirements for closure of ash ponds. Under the final rule, which was finalized and became effective in April 2021, coal ash impoundment owners would be required to submit a closure alternative analysis to the IEPA for the selection of the best method for coal ash remediation at a particular site. The rule does not mandate closure by removal at any site. In October 2021, we filed operating permit applications for 18 impoundments as required by the Illinois coal ash rule, and filed construction permit applications for three of our sites in January 2022 and five of our sites in July 2022. One additional closure construction application was filed for our Baldwin facility in August 2023. In 2025, we filed construction permit applications (or supplemented prior operating permit applications) to cover corrective action activities at 11 impoundments across our Illinois fleet.
For all of the above CCR matters, if certain corrective action measures, including groundwater treatment or removal of ash, are required at any of our coal-fueled facilities, we may incur significant costs that could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. The Illinois coal ash rule was finalized in April 2021 and does not require removal. However, the rule required us to undertake further site-specific evaluations required by each program. We will not know the full range of decommissioning costs, including groundwater remediation, if any, that ultimately may be required under the Illinois rule until permit applications have been approved by the IEPA and as such, an estimate of such costs cannot be made. The CCR surface impoundment and landfill closure costs currently reflected in our existing ARO liabilities reflect the costs of closure methods that our operations and environmental services teams determined were appropriate based on the existing closure requirements at the time we recorded those ARO liabilities, and it is reasonably possible for those to increase once the IEPA determines final closure requirements. Once the IEPA acts on our permit applications, we will reassess the decommissioning costs and adjust our ARO liabilities accordingly.
Other Matters
We are involved in various legal and administrative proceedings and other disputes in the normal course of business, the ultimate resolutions of which, in the opinion of management, are not anticipated to have a material effect on our results of operations, liquidity, or financial condition.
Nuclear Insurance
Nuclear insurance includes nuclear liability coverage, property damage, nuclear accident decontamination, and accidental premature decommissioning coverage, and accidental outage and/or extra expense coverage. We maintain nuclear insurance that meets or exceeds requirements promulgated by Section 170 (Price-Anderson) of the Atomic Energy Act (the Act) and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. We intend to maintain insurance against nuclear risks as long as such insurance is available. We are self-insured to the extent that losses (i) are within the policy deductibles, (ii) are not covered per policy exclusions, terms and limitations, (iii) exceed the amount of insurance maintained, or (iv) are not covered due to lack of insurance availability. Any such self-insured losses could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity, or financial condition.
With regard to nuclear liability coverage, the Act provides for financial protection for the public in the event of a significant nuclear generation plant incident. The Act sets the statutory limit of public liability for a single nuclear incident at $16.2 billion and requires nuclear generation plant operators to provide financial protection for this amount. However, the U.S. Congress could impose revenue-raising measures on the nuclear industry to pay claims that exceed the $16.2 billion limit for a single incident. As required, we insure against a possible nuclear incident at our nuclear facilities resulting in public nuclear-related bodily injury and property damage through a combination of private insurance and an industry-wide retrospective payment plan known as Secondary Financial Protection (SFP).
Under the SFP, in the event of any single nuclear liability loss in excess of $500 million at any nuclear generation facility in the U.S., each operating licensed reactor in the U.S. is subject to an assessment of up to $165.9 million. This approximately $165.9 million maximum assessment is subject to increases for inflation every five years, with the next expected adjustment scheduled to occur by November 2028. Assessments are currently limited to $24.7 million per operating licensed reactor per year per incident. As of December 31, 2025, our maximum potential assessment under the industry retrospective plan would be approximately $995.4 million per incident but no more than $148.2 million in any one year for each incident. The potential assessment is triggered by a nuclear liability loss in excess of $500 million per accident at any nuclear facility.
The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires that nuclear generation plant license holders maintain at least $1.06 billion of nuclear accident decontamination and reactor damage stabilization insurance, and requires that the proceeds thereof be used to place a plant in a safe and stable condition, to decontaminate a plant pursuant to a plan submitted to, and approved by, the NRC prior to using the proceeds for plant repair or restoration, or to provide for premature decommissioning. We maintain nuclear accident decontamination and reactor damage stabilization insurance for our facilities in the amount of $2.25 billion and non-nuclear accident related property damage in the amount of $1.0 billion. Coverage is subject to a $10 million deductible per accident including natural hazards except for the Davis-Besse facility which is subject to a $20 million deductible. Losses excluded or above such limits are self-insured.
We also maintain Accidental Outage insurance to help cover the additional costs of obtaining replacement electricity from another source if the units are out of service for more than twelve weeks as a result of covered direct physical damage. Coverage at the Comanche Peak, Beaver Valley, and Perry facilities provide for weekly payments per unit up to $4.5 million for the first 52 weeks and up to $2.7 million for a remaining 21 weeks for non-nuclear accident property damage and up to $3.6 million for a remaining 71 weeks for nuclear accident property damage outages. The total maximum coverage is $291 million for non-nuclear accident property damage and $490 million for nuclear accident property damage outages. Coverage at the Davis-Besse facility provides for weekly payments per unit up to $2.5 million for the first 52 weeks and up to $1.5 million for a remaining 52 weeks for non-nuclear accident property damage and up to $2 million for a remaining 110 weeks for nuclear accident property damage outages. The total maximum coverage is $208 million for non-nuclear accident property damage and $350 million for nuclear accident property damage outages. There are two units at Comanche Peak and Beaver Valley, and coverage amounts applicable to each unit will reduce to 80% if both units are out of service at the same time as a result of the same accident.
Historical Timeline
| Fiscal Year | Filed | |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Feb 27, 2026 | Showing above |
| 2024 | Feb 28, 2025 | |
| 2023 | Feb 29, 2024 | |
| 2022 | Mar 1, 2023 | |
| 2021 | Feb 25, 2022 | |
| 2020 | Feb 26, 2021 | |
| 2019 | Feb 28, 2020 | |
| 2018 | Feb 28, 2019 | |
| 2017 | Feb 26, 2018 | |
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.