COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Guarantees

We have entered into contracts that contain guarantees to unaffiliated parties that could require performance or payment under certain conditions. Material guarantees are discussed below.

See Note 5 for discussion of guarantees and security for certain of our debt and EFCH guarantees of certain EFH Corp. debt.

Letters of Credit

At September 30, 2013, TCEH had outstanding letters of credit under its credit facilities totaling $776 million as follows:


•	$353 million to support risk management and trading margin requirements in the normal course of business, including over-the-counter hedging transactions and collateral postings with ERCOT;


•	$208 million to support floating rate pollution control revenue bond debt with an aggregate principal amount of $204 million (the letters of credit are available to fund the payment of such debt obligations and expire in 2014);


•	$65 million to support TCEH's REP financial requirements with the PUCT, and


•	$150 million for miscellaneous credit support requirements.

Litigation

Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd. and ACP Master, Ltd. (Aurelius) filed a lawsuit in March 2013, amended in May 2013, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division) against EFCH as a nominal defendant and each of the current directors and a former director of EFCH. In the lawsuit, Aurelius, as a creditor under the TCEH Senior Secured Facilities and certain TCEH secured bonds, both of which are guaranteed by EFCH, filed a derivative claim against EFCH and its directors. Aurelius alleges that the directors of EFCH breached their fiduciary duties to EFCH and its creditors, including Aurelius, by permitting TCEH to make certain loans "without collecting fair and reasonably equivalent value." The lawsuit seeks recovery for the benefit of EFCH. EFCH and the directors have filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit, which has been fully briefed and is pending before the district court. We cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding, including the financial effects, if any.

Litigation Related to Generation Facilities — In November 2010, an administrative appeal challenging the decision of the TCEQ to renew and amend Oak Grove Management Company LLC's (Oak Grove) (a wholly owned subsidiary of TCEH) Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) permit related to water discharges was filed by Robertson County: Our Land, Our Lives and Roy Henrichson in the Travis County, Texas District Court. Plaintiffs sought a reversal of the TCEQ's order and a remand back to the TCEQ for further proceedings. The district court affirmed the TCEQ's issuance of the TPDES permit to Oak Grove. In December 2012, plaintiffs appealed the district court's decision to the Third Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas. The case has been fully briefed, but the Court has not issued a decision and no date for oral argument has been scheduled. While we cannot predict the timing or outcome of this proceeding, we believe the renewal and amendment of the Oak Grove TPDES permit are protective of the environment and were in accordance with applicable law.

In September 2010, the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Texarkana Division) against EFH Corp. and Luminant Generation Company LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of TCEH) for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA) at Luminant's Martin Lake generation facility. In May 2012, the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas (Waco Division) against EFH Corp. and Luminant Generation Company LLC for alleged violations of the CAA at Luminant's Big Brown generation facility. The Big Brown case is currently scheduled for trial in February 2014. The Martin Lake case does not have a trial date. While we are unable to estimate any possible loss or predict the outcome, we believe that the Sierra Club's claims are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits. In addition, in December 2010 and again in October 2011, the Sierra Club informed Luminant that it may sue Luminant for allegedly violating CAA provisions in connection with Luminant's Monticello generation facility. In May 2012, the Sierra Club informed us that it may sue us for allegedly violating CAA provisions in connection with Luminant's Sandow 4 generation facility. While we cannot predict whether the Sierra Club will actually file suit regarding Monticello or Sandow 4 or the outcome of any resulting proceedings, we believe we have complied with the requirements of the CAA at all of our generation facilities.

Litigation Related to EPA Reviews — In June 2008, the EPA issued an initial request for information to TCEH under the EPA's authority under Section 114 of the CAA. The stated purpose of the request is to obtain information necessary to determine compliance with the CAA, including New Source Review Standards and air permits issued by the TCEQ for the Big Brown, Monticello and Martin Lake generation facilities. In April 2013, we received an additional information request from the EPA under Section 114 related to the Big Brown, Martin Lake and Monticello facilities as well as an initial information request related to the Sandow 4 generation facility. Historically, as the EPA has pursued its New Source Review enforcement initiative, companies that have received a large and broad request under Section 114, such as the request received by TCEH, have in many instances subsequently received a notice of violation from the EPA, which has in some cases progressed to litigation or settlement.

In July 2012, the EPA sent us a notice of violation alleging noncompliance with the CAA's New Source Review Standards and the air permits at our Martin Lake and Big Brown generation facilities. In September 2012, we filed a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit Court) seeking judicial review of the EPA's notice of violation. Given recent legal precedent subjecting agency orders like the notice of violation to judicial review, we filed the petition for review to preserve our ability to challenge the EPA's issuance of the notice and its defects. In October 2012, the EPA filed a motion to dismiss our petition. In December 2012, the Fifth Circuit Court issued an order that will delay a ruling on the EPA's motion to dismiss until after the case has been fully briefed and oral argument, if any, is held.

In July 2013, the EPA sent us a second notice of violation alleging noncompliance with the CAA's New Source Review Standards at our Martin Lake and Big Brown generation facilities. In July 2013, we filed a petition for review in the Fifth Circuit Court seeking judicial review of the EPA's July 2013 notice of violation. In September 2013, the Fifth Circuit Court consolidated the petitions for review of the July 2012 and July 2013 notices of violation and established a briefing schedule for the consolidated cases.

In August 2013, the United States Department of Justice, acting as the attorneys for the EPA, filed a civil enforcement lawsuit against Luminant Generation Company LLC and Big Brown Power Company LLC in federal district court in Dallas, alleging violations of the CAA at our Big Brown and Martin Lake generation facilities. In September 2013, we filed a motion to stay this lawsuit pending the outcome of the Fifth Circuit Court's review of the July 2012 and July 2013 notices of violation. We believe that we have complied with all requirements of the CAA and intend to vigorously defend these allegations. We cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings, including the financial effects, if any.

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)

In July 2011, the EPA issued the CSAPR, compliance with which would have required significant additional reductions of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) and nitrogen oxides (NO_x) emissions from our fossil-fueled generation units. In September 2011, we filed a petition for review in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) challenging the CSAPR as it applies to Texas. If the CSAPR had taken effect, it would have caused us to, among other actions, idle two lignite/coal-fueled generation units and cease certain lignite mining operations by the end of 2011.

In February 2012, the EPA released a final rule (Final Revisions) and a proposed rule revising certain aspects of the CSAPR, including increases in the emissions budgets for Texas and our generation assets as compared to the July 2011 version of the rule. In April 2012, we filed in the D.C. Circuit Court a petition for review of the Final Revisions on the ground, among others, that the rules do not include all of the budget corrections we requested from the EPA. The parties to the case agreed that the case should be held in abeyance pending the conclusion of the CSAPR rehearing proceeding discussed below. In June 2012, the EPA finalized the proposed rule (Second Revised Rule). As compared to the proposed revisions to the CSAPR issued by the EPA in October 2011, the Final Revisions and the Second Revised Rule finalize emissions budgets for our generation assets that are approximately 6% lower for SO₂, 3% higher for annual NO_x and 2% higher for seasonal NO_x.

In August 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated the CSAPR, remanding it to the EPA for further proceedings. As a result, the CSAPR, the Final Revisions and the Second Revised Rule do not impose any immediate requirements on us, the State of Texas, or other affected parties. The D.C. Circuit Court's order stated that the EPA was expected to continue administering the CAIR (the predecessor rule to the CSAPR) pending the EPA's further consideration of the rule. In October 2012, the EPA and certain other parties that supported the CSAPR filed petitions with the D.C. Circuit Court seeking review by the full court of the panel's decision to vacate and remand the CSAPR. In January 2013, the D.C. Circuit Court denied these requests for rehearing, concluding the CSAPR rehearing proceeding. In March 2013, the EPA and certain other parties that supported the CSAPR submitted petitions to the US Supreme Court seeking its review of the D.C. Circuit Court decision. In June 2013, the US Supreme Court granted review of the D.C. Circuit Court's decision. The court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case in December 2013. We cannot predict the outcome of the review by the US Supreme Court.

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

In September 2010, the EPA disapproved a portion of the SIP pursuant to which the TCEQ implements its program to achieve the requirements of the CAA. The EPA disapproved the Texas standard permit for pollution control projects (PCP). We hold several permits issued pursuant to the TCEQ standard permit conditions for pollution control projects. We challenged the EPA's disapproval by filing a lawsuit in the Fifth Circuit Court arguing that the TCEQ's adoption of the standard permit conditions for pollution control projects was consistent with the CAA. In March 2012, the Fifth Circuit Court vacated the EPA's disapproval of the Texas standard permit for pollution control projects and remanded the matter to the EPA for expedited reconsideration. In September 2013, the State of Texas filed a motion with the Fifth Circuit Court requesting that the Court amend and enforce its judgment in this case by requiring the EPA to satisfy the Court's judgment by taking action on the pending SIP revision regarding Texas' PCP standard permit no later than December 31, 2013. We cannot predict the timing or outcome of the EPA's reconsideration, including the financial effects, if any.

In November 2010, the EPA disapproved a different portion of the SIP under which the TCEQ had been phasing out a long-standing exemption for certain emissions that unavoidably occur during startup, shutdown and maintenance activities and replacing that exemption with a more limited affirmative defense that will itself be phased out and replaced by TCEQ-issued generation facility-specific permit conditions. We, like many other electricity generation facility operators in Texas, have asserted applicability of the exemption or affirmative defense, and the TCEQ has not objected to that assertion. We have also applied for and received the generation facility-specific permit amendments. We challenged the EPA's disapproval of Texas' affirmative defense for planned maintenance, startup and shutdown by filing a lawsuit in the Fifth Circuit Court arguing that the TCEQ's adoption of the affirmative defense and phase-out of that affirmative defense as permits are issued is consistent with the CAA. In July 2012, the Fifth Circuit Court denied our challenge and ruled that the EPA's actions were in accordance with the CAA. In October 2012, the Fifth Circuit Court panel withdrew its opinion and issued a second, expanded opinion that again upheld the EPA's disapproval. In November 2012, we filed a petition with the Fifth Circuit Court asking for review by the full Fifth Circuit Court of the panel's second opinion. Other parties to the proceedings also filed a petition with the Fifth Circuit Court asking the panel to reconsider its decision. In March 2013, the Fifth Circuit Court panel withdrew its second opinion and issued a third opinion that again upheld the EPA's actions. In April 2013, the Fifth Circuit Court also denied our November 2012 petition for rehearing of the panel's second opinion and denied the request by other parties for the panel to reconsider its second decision. Following the issuance of the mandate, we filed a motion to recall the mandate, which was denied in a single-judge order. In June 2013, we submitted a petition to the US Supreme Court seeking its review of the Fifth Circuit Court's decision to uphold EPA's disapproval of Texas' affirmative defense for planned maintenance, startup and shutdown. In October 2013, the US Supreme Court denied our petition for review of that portion of the Fifth Circuit Court's decision. The decision is not anticipated to have a material effect on our results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.

Other Matters

We are involved in various legal and administrative proceedings 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.