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 Notes 8 and 9 for discussion of guarantees and security for certain of our post-petition and pre-petition debt.

Letters of Credit

At September 30, 2015, TCEH had outstanding letters of credit under credit facilities totaling $364 million as follows:


•	$203 million to support commodity risk management and trading margin requirements in the normal course of business, including over-the-counter hedging transactions and collateral postings with ERCOT;


•	$74 million to support executory contracts and insurance agreements;


•	$55 million to support TCEH's REP financial requirements with the PUCT, and


•	$32 million for other credit support requirements.

The automatic stay under the Bankruptcy Code does not apply to letters of credit issued under the pre-petition credit facility and third parties may draw if the terms of a particular letter of credit so provide. See Note 9 for discussion of letter of credit draws in 2014 and 2015.

Litigation

Aurelius Derivative Claim — Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd. and ACP Master, Ltd. (Aurelius) filed a lawsuit in March 2013, amended in May 2013, in the US 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 alleged 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 sought recovery for the benefit of EFCH. In January 2014, the district court granted EFCH's and the directors' motion to dismiss and in February 2014 dismissed the lawsuit. Aurelius has appealed the district court's judgment to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit Court). The appeal was automatically stayed as a result of the Bankruptcy Filing. We cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding, including the financial effects, if any.

Potential Inter/Intra Debtor Claims — In August 2014, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order in the Chapter 11 Cases establishing discovery procedures governing, among other things, certain prepetition transactions among the various Debtors' estates. In February 2015, the ad hoc group of TCEH unsecured creditors; the official committee representing unsecured interests at EFCH and its direct subsidiary, TCEH; and the official committee representing unsecured interests at EFH and EFIH filed motions with the Bankruptcy Court seeking standing to prosecute derivative claims on behalf of TCEH relating to certain of these prepetition transactions. The claims asserted by the ad hoc group of TCEH unsecured creditors and the official committee representing unsecured interests at EFCH and its direct subsidiary, TCEH, are subject to the Settlement Agreement and the Plan Support Agreement, to which both groups are party. The Bankruptcy Court entered an order in September 2015 (a) adjourning the motions filed by the ad hoc group of TCEH unsecured creditors and the official committee representing unsecured interests at EFCH and its direct subsidiary, TCEH, pending further order of the Bankruptcy Court and subject to the terms of the Plan Support Agreement and (b) adjourning the motion filed by the official committee representing unsecured interests at EFH and EFIH (who is not party to the Settlement Agreement or the Plan Support Agreement) to January 2016.

The Settlement Agreement is anticipated to be heard in connection with the hearing to consider confirmation of the Plan of Reorganization. We cannot predict the timing or outcome of future proceedings, if any, related to these transactions. The outcome of any of these claims could be material and could affect the results of operations, liquidity or financial condition of a particular Debtor.

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 Clean Air Act (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.

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 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, which the EPA said "superseded" its July 2012 notice. In August 2013, the US 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 August 2015, the district court issued its ruling on our motion to dismiss and granted the motion as to seven of the nine claims asserted by the EPA in the lawsuit. Two claims remain before the district court, and those are currently scheduled for trial in October 2017. We believe that we have complied with all requirements of the CAA and intend to vigorously defend against the remaining allegations. The lawsuit requests the maximum civil penalties available under the CAA to the government of up to $32,500 to $37,500 per day for each alleged violation, depending on the date of the alleged violation, and injunctive relief, including an order requiring the installation of best available control technology at the affected units. An adverse outcome could require substantial capital expenditures that cannot be determined at this time and could possibly require the payment of substantial penalties. We cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings, including the financial effects, if any.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions — The EPA has finalized two rules to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new, modified and reconstructed units, and existing electricity generation plants. In January 2014, the EPA proposed standards to regulate CO₂ emissions from new electricity generation plants. Luminant filed comments on the proposed standards for new sources in May 2014. In June 2014, the EPA proposed two additional rules: 1) guidelines for states to develop standards that address CO₂ emissions from existing electricity generation plants, and 2) proposed standards for modified and reconstructed electricity generation plants. The final rule for new and modified or reconstructed units were combined into one regulation in August 2015. The final rule for existing plants, also released in August 2015, would establish state-specific emission rate goals to reduce nationwide CO₂ emissions related to affected electricity generation units by over 30% from 2012 emission levels by 2030. In October 2015, the final rules, including the rule for existing plants, were published in the Federal Register. Immediately following publication of the rule for existing plants, a number of petitions for review were filed in the D.C. Circuit Court by various parties and groups challenging the rule, including challenges from twenty-six different states opposed to the rule as well as those from, among others, certain power generating companies, various business groups and some labor unions. Luminant also filed its own petition for review. In addition, several parties have filed motions to stay the implementation of the rule while the court reviews the legality of the rule for existing units. Along with several other companies, Luminant supported a motion to stay the rule filed by the Utility Air Regulatory Group by submitting a declaration in support of the stay. In August 2015, the EPA also proposed federal plan requirements and model rules for states to consider as they develop state plans to comply with the rules for GHG emissions. A federal plan would be deemed final for a state if a state fails to submit a state plan or if the EPA disapproves a submitted state plan. Comments on the federal plan proposal are due in January 2016. The EPA is expected to finalize the rule that establishes federal plan requirements by the summer of 2016. While we cannot predict the outcome of this rulemaking and legal proceedings on our results of operations, liquidity or financial condition, the impacts could be material.

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 oxide (NO_x) emissions from our fossil fueled generation units. 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 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.

The CSAPR became effective January 1, 2015. In July 2015, following a remand of the case from the US Supreme Court to consider further legal challenges, the D.C. Circuit Court unanimously ruled in favor of us and other petitioners, holding that the CSAPR emissions budgets over-controlled Texas and other states. The D.C. Circuit Court remanded those states' budgets to the EPA for prompt reconsideration. We plan to participate in the EPA's reconsideration process to develop increased budgets that do not over-control Texas. While we cannot predict the outcome of future proceedings related to the CSAPR, including the EPA's reconsideration of the CSAPR emissions budgets for affected states, based upon our current operating plans we do not believe that the CSAPR will cause any material operational, financial or compliance issues.

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

In February 2013, in response to a petition for rulemaking filed by the Sierra Club, the EPA proposed a rule requiring certain states to replace SIP exemptions for excess emissions during malfunctions with an affirmative defense. Texas was not included in that original proposal since it already had an EPA-approved affirmative defense provision in its SIP. In 2014, as a result of a D.C. Circuit Court decision striking down an affirmative defense in another EPA rule, the EPA revised its 2013 proposal to extend the EPA's proposed findings of inadequacy to states that have affirmative defense provisions, including Texas. The EPA's revised proposal would require Texas to remove or replace its EPA-approved affirmative defense provisions for excess emissions during startup, shutdown and maintenance events. We filed comments on the EPA proposal in November 2014. In May 2015, the EPA finalized the proposal. In June 2015, we filed a petition for review in the Fifth Circuit Court challenging certain aspects of the EPA's final rule as they apply to the Texas SIP. The State of Texas and other parties have also filed similar petitions in the Fifth Circuit Court. In August 2015, the Fifth Circuit Court transferred the petitions that Luminant and other parties filed to the D.C. Circuit Court, and in October 2015 the petitions were consolidated with the pending petitions challenging the EPA's action in the D.C. Circuit Court.

In June 2014, the Sierra Club filed a petition in the D.C. Circuit Court seeking review of several EPA regulations containing affirmative defenses for malfunctions, including the MATS rule for power plants. In the petition, the Sierra Club contends this affirmative defense is no longer permissible in light of a D.C. Circuit Court decision regarding similar defenses applicable to the cement industry. Luminant filed a motion to intervene in this case. In July 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court ordered the case stayed pending the EPA's consideration of a petition for administrative reconsideration of the regulations at issue. In December 2014, the EPA signed a proposal to make technical corrections to the MATS rule. We filed comments on this proposal in April 2015. Except as set forth above, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of future proceedings related to this petition, the petition for administrative reconsideration that is pending before the EPA or the financial effects of these proceedings, if any.

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.