The Company disclosed its commitments in Note 22, Commitments and Contingencies, to the Company’s 2025 Form 10-K. As of June 30, 2026, the Company has entered into additional long-term contractual arrangements related to purchased energy commitments, including power purchases, gas transportation and storage, and fuel and transportation services. These contracts are not included in the consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2026.

NRG has granted first liens to certain counterparties on a substantial portion of property and assets owned by NRG and the guarantors of its senior debt. NRG uses the first lien structure to reduce the amount of cash collateral and letters of credit that it would otherwise be required to post from time to time to support its obligations under out-of-the-money hedges. To the extent that the underlying hedge positions for a counterparty are out-of-the-money to NRG, the counterparty would have a claim under the first lien program. As of June 30, 2026, counterparties’ net exposure to NRG of approximately $255 million on out-of-the-money hedges was secured by the first lien structure.

The Company’s material legal proceedings are described below. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to these legal proceedings and intends to defend them vigorously. NRG records accruals for estimated losses from contingencies 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, the Company believes it has established an adequate accrual for the applicable legal matters, including regulatory and environmental matters as further discussed in Note 15, Regulatory Matters, and Note 16, Environmental Matters. In addition, legal costs are expensed as incurred. Management has assessed each of the following 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, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these legal proceedings or reasonably estimate the scope or amount of any associated costs and potential liabilities. As additional information becomes available, management adjusts its assessment and estimates of such contingencies accordingly. Because litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable rulings or developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of the Company’s liabilities and contingencies could be at amounts that are different from its currently recorded accruals and that such difference could be material.

In addition to the legal proceedings noted below, NRG and its subsidiaries are party to other litigation or legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. In management’s opinion, the disposition of these ordinary course matters will not materially adversely affect NRG’s consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Sierra club et al. v. Midwest Generation LLC — In 2012, several environmental groups filed a complaint against Midwest Generation with the Illinois Pollution Control Board (“IPCB”) alleging violations of environmental law resulting in groundwater contamination. In June 2019, the IPCB found in an interim order that Midwest Generation violated the law because it had improperly handled coal ash at four facilities in Illinois and caused or allowed coal ash constituents to impact groundwater. On September 9, 2019, Midwest Generation filed a Motion to Reconsider numerous issues, which the court granted in part and denied in part on February 6, 2020. In 2023, the IPCB held hearings regarding the appropriate relief. Midwest Generation has been working with the Illinois EPA to address the groundwater issues since 2010.

Mirkin v. XOOM Energy (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 2019) — XOOM Energy is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in New York, alleging that XOOM Energy breached its contractual duty to set customer variable rates based on actual and estimated supply costs. The Court denied XOOM’s motion for summary judgment and granted class certification. The Second Circuit denied XOOM’s request to appeal the class certification grants. XOOM prevailed in its challenge to Mirkin’s expert reports. The Court granted XOOM’s motion to exclude both reports on damages. As a result, Mirkin has no method to establish damages for its class. The Court is considering whether class certification is still appropriate. Recently, this matter was moved to a new judge for further handling. A trial setting has not yet been scheduled. This matter was known and accrued for at the time of the XOOM acquisition.

Matthew Dickson v. Direct Energy (N.D. Ohio Jan. 2018) — The Company is currently defending a putative class action involving consumers alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended, by receiving calls, texts or voicemails without consent in violation of the federal Telemarketing Sales Rule, and/or state counterpart legislation. The Company denies the allegations asserted by plaintiffs and intends to vigorously defend this matter. This matter was known and accrued for at the time of the Direct Energy acquisition. This case was stayed pending the outcome of an appeal to the Sixth Circuit based on the unconstitutionality of the TCPA during the period from 2015-2020. The Sixth Circuit found the TCPA was in effect during that period and remanded the case back to the trial court. Direct Energy refiled its motions along with supplements. On March 25, 2022, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Direct Energy and dismissed the case. Dickson appealed and the case was sent back to the trial court. The parties conducted fact and expert discovery and Direct Energy submitted its motion for summary judgment in August 2024. On December 16, 2025, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Direct Energy. The Court subsequently entered default judgments against the remaining two defendants. Dickson timely filed their appeal.

The Company has been named in certain property damage and wrongful death claims that have been filed in connection with Winter Storm Uri in its capacity as a generator and a retail electric provider. Most of the lawsuits related to Winter Storm Uri are consolidated into a single multi-district litigation matter in Harris County District Court. NRG’s retail electric providers have since been dismissed from the multi-district litigation. As a power generator, the Company is named in various cases with claims ranging from: wrongful death; personal injury only; property damage and personal injury; property damage only; and subrogation. The First Court of Appeals conditionally granted the generators’ mandamus relief, ordering the trial court to grant the generator defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The plaintiffs challenged the ruling to the Texas Supreme Court. On March 27, 2026, the Texas Supreme Court denied review of the plaintiffs’ appeal. NRG awaits the trial court’s application of the dismissal across all of the cases filed against the generators. The Company will continue to vigorously defend these matters.