TCEH CORP. INITIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2016

Part A: General Company Information

Item 1: Exact name of the issuer and its predecessor (if any)

TCEH Corp. (the “Company”)

Predecessor Name: TEX Energy LLC

Date of Name Change: October 3, 2016

Item 2: Address of the issuer’s principal executive offices

Principal Executive Offices: 1601 Bryan Street Dallas, Texas 75201-3411 Telephone: (214) 812-4600 Facsimile: (214) 812-5453 Website: www.energyfutureholdings.com

Investor Relations Officer: Chris Burls, Investor Relations Officer TCEH Corp. 1601 Bryan Street Dallas, Texas 75201-3411 Telephone: (214) 812-4600 Email: christopher.burls@energyfutureholdings.com

Item 3: Jurisdiction(s) and date of the issuer’s incorporation or organization

Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization: Delaware

Date of incorporation or organization: TEX Energy LLC (“TEX Energy LLC”) was formed on March 10, 2016, and was converted from a Delaware limited liability company to a Delaware corporation on October 3, 2016 (the “Conversion”).

Part B: Share Structure

Item 4: Exact title and class of securities outstanding

Title: TCEH Corp.

Class: Common

CUSIP: 87226T 101

2

Trading Symbol: THHH

Item 5: Par or stated value and description of the security

A. Par or Stated Value

Common: $0.01 per share

B. Common or Preferred Stock

1. Common stock dividend, voting and preemptive rights:

Dividend Rights

Holders of the Company’s common stock are entitled to receive ratable dividends or other distributions when and if declared by the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”). The ability of the Board to declare dividends, however, is subject to the rights of any holders of outstanding shares of the Company’s preferred stock and the availability of sufficient funds under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “DGCL”) to pay dividends.

Voting Rights

All shares of the Company’s common stock have identical rights and privileges. The holders of shares of the Company’s common stock are entitled to vote on all matters submitted to a vote of the Company’s stockholders, including the election of directors. On all matters to be voted on by holders of shares of the Company’s common stock, the holders are entitled to one vote for each share of common stock held of record, and have no cumulative voting rights.

Preemptive Rights

Holders of the Company’s common stock do not have preemptive rights.

2. Preferred stock dividend, voting, conversion and liquidation rights as well as redemption or sinking fund provisions

Not applicable (no preferred shares outstanding).

3. Other material rights of common or preferred stock holders:

Liquidation Preference

In the event of a liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the Company, after the payment in full of all amounts owed to its creditors and holders of any outstanding shares of its preferred stock, its remaining assets will be distributed ratably to the holders of shares of the Company’s common stock. The rights, preferences and privileges of holders of shares of the Company’s common stock are subject to, and may be adversely affected

3

by, the rights of the holders of shares of any series of preferred stock which the Company may designate and issue in the future without stockholder approval.

Other Rights

Holders of the Company’s common stock do not have subscription, redemption or conversion rights.

4. Any provision in the issuer’s charter or by-laws that would delay, defer or prevent a change in control of the issuer:

The Company’s certificate of incorporation and bylaws provide for the following, which, in each case, may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control of the Company:

Provisions with Respect to Nomination and Election of Directors

The Company’s certificate of incorporation provides for three classes of directors, each of which is to be elected on a staggered basis for a term of three years. The Company’s bylaws provide that the Board consists of such number of directors as is determined from time to time by the vote of a majority of the total number of directors then authorized.

No Written Consent of Stockholders

Any action to be taken by the Company’s stockholders must be effected at a duly called annual or special meeting and may not be effected by written consent.

Special Meetings of Stockholders

Special meetings of the Company’s stockholders may be called only by the Board pursuant to a resolution approved by a majority of the Board or by the chairman of the Board or the secretary upon written request of one or more stockholders of record holding at least a majority of the voting power of the then-outstanding shares of its common stock, entitled to vote on the matter or matters to be brought before the special meeting and complying with the notice procedures set forth in the Company’s bylaws, except as required by the DGCL.

Advance Notice Requirement

Stockholders must provide timely notice within the deadlines described in the Company’s bylaws when seeking to:

bring business before an annual meeting of stockholders;

bring business before a special meeting of stockholders (if contemplated and permitted by the notice of a special meeting); or

4

nominate candidates for election at an annual meeting of stockholders.

The Company’s certificate of incorporation and bylaws also specify requirements as to the form and content of the stockholder’s notice.

Issuance of Blank Check Preferred Stock

The Board is authorized to issue, without further action by the stockholders, up to 100,000,000 shares of preferred stock with rights and preferences designated from time to time by the Board.

Amendment of Bylaws and Certificate of Incorporation

The approval of a 66 2/3% super-majority of the voting power of the then-outstanding shares of capital stock entitled to vote is required to amend certain provisions of the Company’s bylaws, or to amend certain of the provisions of the Company’s certificate of incorporation, including provisions relating to indemnification and exculpation of directors and officers and provisions relating to amendment of the Company’s bylaws and certificate of incorporation.

The foregoing description of the Company’s certificate of incorporate and bylaws is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of these documents, which are attached as Exhibits 19(A) and 19(B), respectively.

Item 6: Number of shares or total amount of the securities outstanding for each class of securities authorized:

The following table sets forth information concerning each class of authorized securities of the Company as of October 3, 2016:

COMMON STOCK AND PREFERRED STOCK AUTHORIZED AND OUTSTANDING

Period End Date (1)

Number of Shares

Authorized

Number of Shares

Outstanding

Freely Tradable

Shares (Public Float)

Satisfaction of Beneficial

Shareholder Requirement

(2)

Total Number

of Share-holders

of Record

Oct. 3, 2016 1,800,000,000 common; 100,000,000 preferred

427,500,000 common; zero preferred

258,256,106 Affirmed. 561 (est.)

5

(1) Shares of the Company’s common stock were issued on October 3, 2016 pursuant to the Plan (as defined below). Prior to such date, the Company’s sole member was Former TCEH (as defined below).

(2) The “beneficial shareholder requirement” referenced in the header of this table refers to the OTCQX U.S. requirement that the Company have at least fifty beneficial shareholders who each own at least one hundred shares.

Item 7: Name and address of the transfer agent

American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC 548 Briana Lane Hudson, Wisconsin 54016 Telephone: (800) 937-5449 Website: http://www.amtstock.com

American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC is currently registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and is an authorized transfer agent subject to regulation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”).

Part C: Business Information

Item 8: Nature of the issuer’s business

A. Business Development

1. Form of Organization: Corporation (Delaware).

2. Year that the issuer (or any predecessor) was organized: 2016.

3. Fiscal year end date: December 31.

4. Whether the issuer (or any predecessor) has been in bankruptcy, receivership or any similar proceeding:

On April 29, 2014, Energy Future Holdings Corp. (“EFH Corp.”) and the substantial majority of its direct and indirect subsidiaries, including Energy Future Intermediate Holding Company LLC (“EFIH”), Energy Future Competitive Holdings Company (“EFCH”) and Texas Competitive Electric Holdings Company LLC (“Former TCEH”), but excluding Oncor Electric Delivery Holdings Company LLC and its direct and indirect subsidiaries, filed voluntary petitions for relief (the “Bankruptcy Filing”) under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”). The cases pending in the Bankruptcy Court concerning the Bankruptcy Filing are referred to herein as the “Chapter 11 Cases.” During the pendency of the Chapter 11 Cases, EFH Corp. and its direct and indirect subsidiaries included in the Bankruptcy Filing (collectively, the “Debtors”) have operated their businesses as debtors-in-possession

6

under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

On August 29, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order (the “Confirmation Order”) confirming the Debtors’ Third Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Plan”), solely as it pertains to EFCH, Former TCEH and the subsidiaries of Former TCEH that are Debtors (the “Former TCEH Debtors”) and the EFH Shared Services Debtors (as defined in the Plan) (the Former TCEH Debtors together with the EFH Shared Services Debtors, the “T-Side Debtors”). Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Item 8(A)(4) have the meanings set forth in the Plan.

The Plan provides that the confirmation and effective date of the Plan with respect to the T-Side Debtors is to occur separate from, and independent of, the confirmation and effective date of the plan of reorganization with respect to EFH Corp., EFIH and their subsidiaries that are Debtors, excluding the T-Side Debtors (the “EFH Debtors”). The EFH Debtors will emerge from the Chapter 11 Cases if and when a plan of reorganization with respect to the EFH Debtors receives the requisite approval from holders of claims against, or interests in, the EFH Debtors, the Bankruptcy Court enters an order confirming such plan of reorganization, and the conditions to the effectiveness of such plan of reorganization, as stated therein, are satisfied.

On October 3, 2016 (the “Effective Date”), the Plan with respect to the T-Side Debtors became effective and the T-Side Debtors effectuated their reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code and emerged from the Chapter 11 Cases.

On the Effective Date, and pursuant to the Plan, the T-Side Debtors consummated the following transactions as part of a tax-free spin-off from EFH Corp.:

pursuant to the Plan and the Separation Agreement (the “Separation Agreement”), (a) Former TCEH contributed all of its interests in its subsidiaries, (b) each of Former TCEH, EFH Corp. and EFCH contributed certain assets and liabilities related to the TCEH Debtors’ operations, and (c) EFH Corp. transferred sponsorship of certain employee benefit plans (including relates assets), programs and policies, to TEX Energy LLC, a recently formed limited liability company (“TEX Energy LLC”) and assigned certain employment agreements to TEX Operations Company, LLC (“OpCo”), a wholly owned direct subsidiary of TEX Intermediate Company LLC (“IntermediateCo”), a wholly owned direct subsidiary of TEX Energy LLC, which agreements were terminated (such transactions collectively, the “Contribution”), in exchange for which TCEH received 100% of the TEX Energy LLC membership interests;

immediately following the completion of the Contribution, TEX Energy LLC contributed certain of the TCEH Assets to IntermediateCo, which in turn contributed certain of the TCEH Assets to OpCo, which in turn contributed certain of the TCEH Assets to TEX Asset Company LLC (“AssetCo”), a wholly owned direct subsidiary of OpCo (the “AssetCo Contribution”);

7

immediately following the AssetCo Contribution, TEX Preferred LLC (“PrefCo”), a wholly owned direct subsidiary of AssetCo, converted from a Delaware limited liability company into a Delaware corporation (the “PrefCo Conversion”);

immediately following the PrefCo Conversion, AssetCo contributed certain of the TCEH Assets as specified in the Plan to PrefCo (the “PrefCo Contribution”) in exchange for all of PrefCo’s authorized (i) preferred stock, consisting of 70,000 shares, par value $0.01 per share (the “PrefCo Preferred Stock”), and (ii) common stock, consisting of 10,000,000 shares, par value $0.01 per share, and immediately thereafter, and pursuant to the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of September 26, 2016 (the “PrefCo Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement”), by and among AssetCo and the investors listed therein (the “Purchasers”), AssetCo sold all of the PrefCo Preferred Shares to the Purchasers in exchange for cash and distributed the cash proceeds from such sale to TCEH to fund recoveries under the Plan (the “PrefCo Preferred Stock Sale”);

immediately following the PrefCo Preferred Stock Sale, TEX Energy LLC converted from a Delaware limited liability company into a Delaware corporation and changed its name to “TCEH Corp.”; and

immediately following the Conversion, Former TCEH (i) distributed (A) (1) all shares of the common stock of the Company, and (2) approximately $370,000,000 of cash, which includes the net cash proceeds from the PrefCo Preferred Stock Sale, in each case to the first lien creditors of Former TCEH in exchange for the cancellation of their Allowed claims against Former TCEH, and (B) the right to receive recoveries under the unsecured intercompany claim of Former TCEH against EFH Corp. Allowed in the amount of $700 million (the “Former TCEH Settlement Claim”), provided that following the Effective Date, the Company will nominally hold the right to receive recoveries under the Former TCEH Settlement Claim but the first lien creditors of Former TCEH will hold all legal and equitable entitlement to receive recoveries under the Former TCEH Settlement Claim, and (ii) deposited the TRA Rights (as defined below) into an escrow account for subsequent distribution to eligible first lien creditors of Former TCEH (the foregoing transactions collectively, the “Distribution,” and collectively with the Contribution, the Conversion and the PrefCo Preferred Stock Sale, the “Spin-Off”).

5. Any material reclassification, merger, consolidation or purchase or sale of a significant amount of assets:

In April 2016, Luminant (as defined below) purchased all of the membership interests in La Frontera Holdings, LLC (“La Frontera”), the indirect owner of two combined-cycle gas turbine natural gas fueled generation facilities representing nearly 3,000 MW of capacity located in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. (“ERCOT”) from La Frontera Ventures, LLC, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy, Inc. The facility in Forney, Texas has a capacity of 1,912 MW and the facility in Paris, Texas has a capacity of 1,076 MW. The aggregate purchase price was approximately $1.313 billion, which included the repayment of approximately $950 million of existing project

8

financing indebtedness of La Frontera at closing, plus approximately $240 million for cash and net working capital subject to final settlement. The purchase price was funded by cash-on-hand and additional borrowings under Former TCEH’s debtor-in-possession credit facility totaling $1.1 billion. After completing the acquisition, Luminant repaid approximately $230 million of borrowings under Former TCEH’s debtor-in-possession credit facility primarily utilizing cash acquired in the transaction.

Please also see Item 8(A)(4).

For purposes of this Initial Disclosure Statement, “Luminant” shall mean subsidiaries of the Company (and former subsidiaries of Former TCEH) engaged in competitive market activities consisting of electricity generation and wholesale energy sales as well as commodity risk management and trading activities, all largely in Texas.

6. Any default of the terms of any note, loan, lease or other indebtedness or financing arrangement requiring the issuer to make payments: Please see Item 8(A)(4).

7. Any change of control: Please see Item 8(A)(4).

8. Any increase of 10% or more of the same class of outstanding equity securities: Please see Item 17.

9. Any past, pending or anticipated stock split, stock dividend, recapitalization, merger, acquisition, spin-off or reorganization: Please see Item 8(A)(4).

10. Any delisting of the issuer’s securities by any securities exchange or deletion from the OTC Bulletin Board: None.

11. Any current, past, pending or threatened legal proceedings or administrative actions either by or against the issuer that could have a material effect on the issuer’s business, financial condition or operations and any current, past or pending trading suspensions by a securities regulator:

Litigation Related to EPA Reviews

In June 2008, the US Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) issued an initial request for information to Luminant Generation Company LLC (“Luminant Generation”) under the EPA’s authority under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). The stated purpose of the request was to obtain information necessary to determine compliance with the CAA, including New Source Review Standards and air permits issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (the “TCEQ”) for the Big Brown, Monticello and Martin Lake generation facilities. In April 2013, Luminant Generation and Big Brown Power Company (“Big Brown Power”) 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.

9

In July 2012, the EPA sent Luminant Generation and EFH Corp. a notice of violation alleging noncompliance with the CAA’s New Source Review Standards and the air permits at the Martin Lake and Big Brown generation facilities. In July 2013, the EPA sent Luminant Generation and Big Brown Power a revised notice of violation alleging noncompliance with the CAA’s New Source Review Standards at the 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 and Big Brown Power in federal district court in Dallas, alleging violations of the CAA at the Big Brown and Martin Lake generation facilities. In August 2015, the district court issued its ruling on the motion to dismiss and granted the motion as to seven of the nine claims asserted by the EPA in the lawsuit. In August 2016, EPA filed an amended complaint, eliminating one of the two remaining claims and withdrawing a request for civil penalties in the other remaining claim. EPA also filed a motion for entry of final judgment. In September 2016, we filed a motion opposing EPA’s motion for entry of final judgment. Presently, the part of the one remaining claim remains before the district court, and is currently scheduled for trial in October 2017. Luminant Generation and Big Brown Power believe that they 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. The Company cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings, including the financial effects, if any.

Other Matters

The Company is 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 the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.

B. Business of Issuer

The Company is a holding company for subsidiaries engaged in competitive electricity market activities largely in Texas, including electricity generation, wholesale energy sales and purchases, commodity risk management activities and retail electricity operations. Collectively with its operating subsidiaries, the Company is the largest generator and retailer of electricity in Texas. Key management activities, including commodity risk management and electricity sourcing for the Company’s retail and wholesale customers, are performed on an integrated basis.

The Company’s Market

10

The Company operates primarily within the ERCOT electricity market. This market represents approximately 90% of the electricity consumption in Texas. ERCOT is the regional reliability coordinating organization for member electricity systems in Texas and the Independent System Operator of the interconnected transmission grid for those systems. ERCOT’s membership consists of approximately 300 corporate and associate members, including electric cooperatives, municipal power agencies, independent generators, independent power marketers, investor-owned utilities, Renewable Energy Professionals (“REPs”) and consumers.

The ERCOT market operates under reliability standards set by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (the “NERC”). The Public Utility Commission of Texas (the “PUCT”) has primary jurisdiction over the ERCOT market to ensure adequacy and reliability of power supply across Texas’ main interconnected transmission grid. ERCOT is responsible for scheduling power on the grid and maintaining reliable operations of the electricity supply system. Its responsibilities include centralized dispatch of the power pool and ensuring that electricity production and delivery are accurately accounted for among the generation resources and wholesale buyers and sellers. ERCOT also serves as agent for procuring ancillary services for those members who elect not to provide their own ancillary services.

The Company’s Business Focus

The Company’s business focuses operations on key safety, reliability, economic and environmental drivers such as optimizing and developing its generation fleet to safely provide a reliable electricity supply in a cost-effective manner and in consideration of environmental impacts, hedging its commodity price and volume exposure and providing high quality service and innovative energy products to retail and wholesale customers.

Seasonality

The Company’s revenues and results of operation are subject to seasonality, weather conditions and other electricity usage drivers, with revenues being highest in the summer.

The Company’s Business Organization

Key Company activities, including risk management related to commodity price and availability, as well as electricity sourcing for the Company’s retail and wholesale customers, are performed on an integrated basis. This integration strategy is a key consideration in the Company’s operating segment determination. The Company’s ability to balance the electricity demand requirements of its retail and wholesale customers along with the supply from its generation sources is a critical activity that has significant impacts on the Company’s profitability. For purposes of market identity and operational accountability, the Company’s operations are grouped and identified as Luminant, which is engaged in electricity generation and wholesale market activities, and TXU Energy, which is engaged in retail electricity activities. These activities are conducted through separate legal entities.

11

Luminant

Luminant’s existing fleet consists of 50 electricity generation units in Texas, all of which are owned. Luminant’s generation units are located primarily on owned land. Nuclear and lignite/coal fueled units are generally scheduled to run at capacity except for periods of scheduled maintenance activities; however, Luminant reduces production from certain lignite/coal fueled generation units, referred to as economic backdown, during periods when wholesale electricity prices are less than the unit’s variable production costs. In addition, Luminant implemented seasonal suspensions of operations of certain lignite/coal fueled generation units because of the low wholesale electricity price environment. The natural gas fueled generation units supplement the nuclear and lignite/coal fueled generation capacity in meeting consumption in peak demand periods as production from certain of these units, particularly combustion-turbine units, can be more readily ramped up or down as demand warrants.

Luminant has contracts in place for the majority of its nuclear fuel requirements for 2016. Luminant has contracts in place for substantially all of its nuclear fuel fabrication and enrichment services through 2018. Pursuant to the Plan, Luminant terminated or renegotiated certain nuclear fuel contracts to provide for better economic or operational terms and conditions. Luminant does not anticipate any significant difficulties in acquiring uranium and contracting for associated conversion, enrichment and fabrication services in the foreseeable future.

Luminant meets all of its fuel requirements at its Oak Grove and Sandow generation facilities with lignite that it mines. Luminant meets its fuel requirements for its Big Brown, Monticello and Martin Lake generation units by blending lignite it mines with coal purchased from multiple suppliers under contracts of various lengths and transported from the Powder River Basin to Luminant’s generation plants by railcar.

As a result of projected mining development costs, current economic forecasts and regulatory uncertainty, in 2014, Luminant decided to transition the fuel plans at its Big Brown and Monticello generation facilities to be fully fueled with coal from the Powder River Basin. As a result, it plans to discontinue lignite mining operations at these sites once mining and reclamation of current mine sites is complete. Lignite mining and the majority of reclamation activities at these facilities is expected to be completed by the end of 2020 unless economic forecasts and increased regulatory certainty justify additional mine development.

To manage its financial exposure related to commodity price fluctuations, Luminant routinely enters into contracts to hedge portions of purchase and sale commitments, fuel requirements and inventories of natural gas and other commodities within established risk management guidelines. As part of this strategy, Luminant routinely utilizes fixed-price forward physical purchase and sale contracts, futures, financial swaps and option contracts traded in over-the-counter markets or on exchanges.

TXU Energy

12

TXU Energy serves residential and commercial retail electricity customers in Texas. Texas is one of the fastest growing states in the nation with a diverse economy and, as a result, has attracted a number of competitors into the retail electricity market; consequently, competition is robust. TXU Energy, as an active participant in this competitive market, provides retail electric service to all areas of the ERCOT market now open to competition, including the Dallas/Fort Worth area, Houston, Corpus Christi and certain other parts of south Texas. TXU Energy competitively markets its services to add new customers and retain its existing customer base, as well as opportunistically acquire customers from other REPs. There are more than 100 REPs certified to compete within the ERCOT region.

TXU Energy’s strategy focuses on providing its customers with high quality customer service and creating new products and services to meet customer needs; accordingly, customer care enhancements are implemented on an ongoing basis to continually improve customer satisfaction. TXU Energy offers a wide range of innovative residential products to meet varying customer needs.

1. The issuer’s primary and secondary SIC codes: 4911.

2. If the issuer has never conducted operations, is in the development stage or is currently conducting operations: The Company is currently conducting operations.

3. Whether the issuer has at any time been a “shell company”: The Company has not at any time been nor is currently a shell company.

4. Names of any parent, subsidiary or affiliate of the issuer, and its business purpose, its method of operation, its ownership and whether it is included in the financial statements attached to this disclosure statement:

The Company conducts its business through the following subsidiaries, each of which is wholly-owned (although certain subsidiaries may have preferred stockholders which are not affiliates). All of the operating results of these subsidiaries are included in the Company’s financial statements. See below for a list of the Company’s subsidiaries:

4Change Energy Company LLC

Big Brown Power Company LLC

Brighten Energy LLC

Comanche Peak Power Company LLC

Dallas Power & Light Company Inc.

EFH Corporate Services Company

EFH Properties Company

13

Forney Pipeline, LLC

Generation SVC Company

La Frontera Holdings, LLC

Lone Star Energy Company, Inc.

Lone Star Pipeline Company, Inc.

Luminant Energy Company LLC

Luminant Energy Trading California Company

Luminant ET Services Company LLC

Luminant Generation Company LLC

Luminant Mining Company LLC

NCA Resources Development Company LLC

Oak Grove Management Company LLC

Sandow Power Company LLC

Southwestern Electric Service Company, Inc.

TEX Asset Company LLC

TEX Finance Corp.

TEX Intermediate Company LLC

TEX Operations Company LLC

TEX Preferred Corp.

Texas Electric Service Company, Inc.

Texas Energy Industries Company, Inc.

Texas Power and Light Company, Inc.

Texas Utilities Company, Inc.

Texas Utilities Electric Company, Inc.

14

TXU Electric Company, Inc.

TXU Energy Retail Company LLC

TXU Retail Services Company

5. Effect of existing or probable governmental regulations on the business:

General

The Company’s businesses operate in changing market environments influenced by various state and federal legislative and regulatory initiatives regarding the restructuring of the energy industry, including competition in the generation and sale of electricity. The Company will need to continually adapt to these changes.

The Company’s businesses are subject to changes in state and federal laws (including the Public Utility Regulatory Act (“PURA”), the Federal Power Act, the Atomic Energy Act, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, the Clean Air Act, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Financial Reform Act”)), changing governmental policy and regulatory actions (including those of the PUCT, the NERC, the Texas Reliability Entity, Inc., the Railroad Commission of Texas (the “RCT”), the TCEQ, the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, the EPA the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”)) and the rules, guidelines and protocols of ERCOT with respect to matters including, but not limited to, market structure and design, operation of nuclear generation facilities, construction and operation of other generation facilities, development, operation and reclamation of lignite mines, recovery of costs and investments, decommissioning costs, market behavior rules, present or prospective wholesale and retail competition and environmental matters. The Company, along with other market participants, is subject to electricity pricing constraints and market behavior and other competition-related rules and regulations under PURA that are administered by the PUCT and ERCOT. Changes in, revisions to or reinterpretations of existing laws and regulations may have a material effect on the Company’s businesses.

The Texas Legislature meets every two years. The next regular legislative session is scheduled to begin in January 2017; however, at any time the governor of Texas may convene a special session of the legislature. During any regular or special session, bills may be introduced that, if adopted, could materially affect the Company’s businesses, including its results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.

There is a concern nationally and internationally about global climate change and how greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, such as carbon dioxide, contribute to global climate change. Over the last few years, proposals have been debated in the US Congress or discussed by the Obama Administration that were intended to address climate change using different approaches, including a cap on carbon emissions with emitters allowed to trade unused emission allowances (cap-and-trade), a tax on carbon or GHG emissions,

15

incentives for the development of low-carbon technology and federal renewable portfolio standards. In addition, a number of federal court cases have been filed in recent years asserting damage claims related to GHG emissions, and the results in those proceedings could establish adverse precedent that might apply to companies (including the Company) that produce GHG emissions. The Company’s results of operations, liquidity and financial condition may be materially affected if new federal and/or state legislation or regulations are adopted to address global climate change, or if the Company is subject to lawsuits for alleged damage to persons or property resulting from GHG emissions.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

In August 2015, the EPA finalized rules to address greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions from new, modified and reconstructed units, and existing electricity generation plants. The rule for existing facilities would establish state-specific emissions rate goals to reduce nationwide carbon dioxide emissions related to affected electricity generation units by over 30% from 2012 emission levels by 2030. A number of parties, including Luminant, filed petitions for review in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit Court”) for the rule for new, modified and reconstructed plants. In addition, a number of petitions for review of the rule for existing plants were filed in the D.C. Circuit Court by various parties and groups, including challenges from twenty-seven 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 January 2016, a coalition of states, industry (including Luminant) and other parties filed applications with the US Supreme Court asking that the court stay the rule while the court reviews the legality of the rule for existing plants. In February 2016, the US Supreme Court stayed the rule pending the conclusion of legal challenges on the rule before the D.C. Circuit Court and until the US Supreme Court disposes of any subsequent petition for review. Oral argument on the merits of the legal challenges to the rule is scheduled for September 2016 before the entire D.C. Circuit Court.

In August 2015, the EPA proposed model rules and federal plan requirements for states to consider as they develop state plans to comply with the rules for GHG emissions. A federal plan would then be finalized for a state if a state fails to submit a state plan by the deadlines established in the CAA for existing plants or if the EPA disapproves a submitted state plan. We filed comments on the federal plan proposal in January 2016.

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 (“NOx”) 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”).

16

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. While we planned to participate in the EPA’s reconsideration process to develop increased budgets that do not over-control Texas, the EPA instead responded to the remand by updating the NOx ozone season budget for the 2008 ozone standard with a new rulemaking without explicitly addressing the issues of over-control of the 1997 standard. Comments on the EPA’s proposal were submitted by Luminant in February 2016. In June 2016, the EPA issued a memorandum describing the EPA’s proposed approach for responding to the D.C. Circuit Court’s remand for reconsideration of the CSAPR SO2 emission budgets for Texas and three other states that had been remanded to the EPA by the D.C. Circuit Court. In the memorandum, the EPA stated that those four states could either voluntarily participate in the CSAPR by submitting a SIP revision adopting the SO2 budgets that had been previously held invalid by the D.C. Circuit Court and the current annual NOx budgets or, if the state chooses not to participate in the CSAPR, the EPA could withdraw the CSAPR FIPs by the fall of 2016 for those states and address any interstate transport and regional haze obligations on a state-by-state basis.

Regional Haze

The Regional Haze Program of the CAA establishes “as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I federal areas, like national parks, which impairment results from man-made pollution.” There are two components to the Regional Haze Program. First, states must establish goals for reasonable progress for Class I federal areas within the state and establish long-term strategies to reach those goals and to assist Class I federal areas in neighboring states to achieve reasonable progress set by those states towards a goal of natural visibility by 2064. Second, electricity generation units built between 1962 and 1977 are subject to best available retrofit technology (“BART”) standards designed to improve visibility. BART reductions of SO2 and NOX are required either on a unit-by-unit basis or are deemed satisfied by state participation in an EPA-approved regional trading program such as the CSAPR. In February 2009, the TCEQ submitted a State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) concerning regional haze (“Regional Haze SIP”) to the EPA. In December 2011, the EPA proposed a limited disapproval of the Regional Haze SIP due to its reliance on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (“CAIR”) instead of the EPA’s replacement CSAPR program. In August 2012, we filed a petition for review in the Fifth Circuit Court challenging the EPA’s limited disapproval of the Regional Haze SIP on the grounds that the CAIR continued in effect pending the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision in the CSAPR litigation. In September 2012, we filed a petition to intervene in a case filed by industry groups and other states and private parties in the D.C. Circuit Court challenging the EPA’s limited disapproval and issuance of a Federal Implementation Plan (“FIP”) regarding the regional haze BART program. The Fifth Circuit Court case has since been transferred to the D.C. Circuit Court and consolidated with other pending BART program regional haze appeals. Briefing in the D.C. Circuit Court is scheduled to be completed by March 2017.

17

In response to a lawsuit by environmental groups, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a consent decree in March 2012 that required the EPA to propose a decision on the Regional Haze SIP by May 2012 and finalize that decision by November 2012. The consent decree requires a FIP for any provisions that the EPA disapproves. The D.C. Circuit Court has amended the consent decree several times to extend the dates for the EPA to propose and finalize a decision on the Regional Haze SIP. The consent decree was modified in December 2015 to extend the deadline for the EPA to finalize action on the determination and adoption of requirements for BART for electricity generation. Under the amended consent decree the EPA has until December 2016 to finalize a FIP for BART for Texas electricity generation sources, if the EPA determines that BART requirements have not been met.

In June 2014, the EPA issued requests for information under Section 114 of the CAA to Luminant and other generators in Texas. After releasing a proposed rule in November 2014 and receiving comments from a number of parties, including Luminant and the State of Texas in April 2015, the EPA released a final rule in January 2016 approving in part and disapproving in part Texas’ SIP for Regional Haze and issuing a FIP for Regional Haze. In the rule, the EPA asserts that the Texas SIP does not show reasonable progress in improving visibility for two areas in Texas and that its long-term strategy fails to make emission reductions needed to achieve reasonable progress in improving visibility in the Wichita Mountains of Oklahoma. Unlike the proposed rule and inconsistent with how the EPA has applied Regional Haze rules to other states, the EPA’s final rule does not treat Texas’s compliance with the CSAPR as satisfying its obligations under the BART portion of the Regional Haze Program. The EPA concluded that it would not be appropriate to finalize that determination at this time given the remand of the CSAPR budgets. In our view, the EPA’s proposed FIP for Texas goes beyond the requirements of the CAA and sets emission limits on a unit-by-unit basis for 15 electricity generation units in Texas. The EPA’s proposed emission limits assume additional control equipment for specific coal fueled generation units across Texas, including new flue gas desulfurization systems (scrubbers) at seven generation units and upgrades to existing scrubbers at seven generation units. Specifically for Luminant, the EPA’s emission limitations are based on new scrubbers at Big Brown Units 1 and 2 and Monticello Units 1 and 2 and scrubber upgrades at Martin Lake Units 1, 2 and 3, Monticello Unit 3 and Sandow Unit 4. Luminant is continuing to evaluate the requirements and potential financial and operational impacts of the rule, but new scrubbers at the Big Brown and Monticello units necessary to achieve the emission limits required by the FIP (if those limits are possible to attain), along with the existence of low wholesale power prices in ERCOT, would likely challenge the long-term economic viability of those units. Under the terms of the rule, the scrubber upgrades will be required by February 2019, and the new scrubbers will be required by February 2021. In March 2016, Luminant and a number of other parties, including the State of Texas, filed petitions for review in the US Fifth Circuit Court challenging the FIP on Texas. Luminant and other parties also filed motions to stay the FIP while the court reviews the legality of the EPA’s action. In July 2016, the Fifth Circuit Court denied the EPA’s motion to dismiss our challenge to the FIP and denied the EPA’s motion to transfer the challenges Luminant, the other industry petitioners and the State of Texas filed to the D.C. Circuit Court. In addition, the Fifth Circuit Court granted the motions to stay filed by Luminant,

18

the other industry petitioners and the State of Texas pending final review of the petitions for review. The case is currently abated until the end of November 2016 in order to allow the parties to pursue settlement discussions.

State Implementation Plan (SIP) Emissions Rules

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’s PCP standard permit. In February 2014, the Fifth Circuit Court ordered the EPA to issue a final rule on the standard permit for pollution control projects by May 2014. In May 2014, the EPA filed a notice in the Fifth Circuit Court that they complied with the Court’s mandate and issued the final approval of Texas’ PCP standard permit.

In November 2010, the EPA partially approved and partially disapproved a portion of the SIP under which the TCEQ had been phasing out a long-standing exemption for certain emissions that unavoidably occur during upsets and startup, shutdown and maintenance activities and replacing that exemption with a more limited affirmative defense that was 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 concurred with that assertion. We have also applied for and received the generation facility-specific permit amendments. The EPA’s partial approval and partial disapproval were challenged in the Fifth Circuit Court. We challenged the EPA’s disapproval of Texas’ affirmative defense for planned maintenance, startup and shutdown. The Fifth Circuit Court denied the challenge and ruled that the EPA’s actions were in accordance with the Clean Air Act, including affirming the EPA’s approval of Texas’ SIP affirmative defense against civil penalties in the EPA enforcement actions and citizen suits for upsets and unplanned startup, shutdown and maintenance events.

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

19

or replace its EPA-approved affirmative defense provisions for excess emissions during startup, shutdown and maintenance events. 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. Briefing in the D.C. Circuit Court on the challenges is scheduled to be completed by the end of October 2016.

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 Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (“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. In March 2016, the EPA finalized the MATS technical corrections, including the removal of affirmative defense for malfunctions.

Permit Applications and Renewals (Generally)

The Company is involved in the ordinary course of business in permit applications and renewals, and it is exposed to the risk that certain of its operating permit applications may not be granted or that certain of its operating permits may not be renewed on satisfactory terms. Failure to obtain and maintain the necessary permits to conduct its businesses could have a material effect on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity and financial condition.

Comanche Peak Nuclear Generation Facility

The NRC may modify, suspend or revoke licenses and impose civil penalties for failure to comply with the Atomic Energy Act, the regulations under it or the terms of the licenses of nuclear generation facilities. Unless extended, the NRC operating licenses for Comanche Peak Unit 1 and Unit 2 will expire in 2030 and 2033, respectively. In addition, as a result of the bankruptcy filing of the Debtors, the NRC may initiate additional reviews of the Company’s operations at Comanche Peak, including with respect to the Company’s ability to fund its operations in compliance with its operating license. Changes in regulations by the NRC, including potential regulation as a result of the NRC’s ongoing analysis and response to the effects of the natural disaster on nuclear generation facilities in Japan in 2010, could require a substantial increase in capital expenditures or result in increased operating or decommissioning costs.

Luminant’s Mining Permits

20

The RCT reviews on an ongoing basis whether Luminant is compliant with RCT rules and regulations and whether it has met all of the requirements of its mining permits. Any revocation of a mining permit would mean that Luminant would no longer be allowed to mine lignite at the applicable mine to serve its generation facilities. Such event would have a material effect on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity and financial condition.

REP Certification

The PUCT may at any time initiate an investigation into whether the Company’s retail operation complies with certain PUCT rules and whether it has met all of the requirements for REP certification, including financial requirements. Any removal or revocation of a REP certification would mean that the Company would no longer be allowed to provide electricity service to retail customers. Such decertification could have a material effect on the Company’s results of operations, liquidity and financial condition.

Hedging Arrangements

In July 2010, the US Congress enacted the Financial Reform Act. While the legislation is broad and detailed, a few key rulemaking decisions remain to be made by federal governmental agencies to fully implement the Financial Reform Act.

In November 2015 and January 2016, the prudential regulators and the CFTC, respectively, published final rules and interim final rules on margin requirements. The margin rules do not directly apply to non-financial end users. However, transaction costs may increase and liquidity may decrease as operating costs for registered entities increases under the margin rules. The rule has a phased in approach starting in September 2016. In addition, in December 2013, the CFTC published its new proposed Position Limit Rule (“PLR”). The PLR provides for specific position limits related to futures and swap contracts that the Company utilizes in its hedging activities. The proposed PLR will require that the Company comply with the portion of the PLR applicable to these contracts, which will result in increased monitoring and reporting requirements and can also impact the types of contracts that the Company utilizes as hedging instruments in its operations.

U.S. Real Property Holding Company Status

The Company believes that neither the Company nor PrefCo is currently a “U.S. real property holding company” (“USRPHC”) (as defined in Section 897(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”)) or has been a USRPHC during the applicable period specified in Section 897(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Code and does not anticipate that the Company or PrefCo will become a USRPHC in the future. Generally, a corporation is a USRPHC only if the fair market value of its U.S. real property interests equals or exceeds 50% of the sum of the fair market value of its worldwide real property interests plus its other assets used or held for use in a trade or business. There can be no assurance regarding the USRPHC status of the Company or PrefCo for the current year or

21

future years, however, because USRPHC status is based on the composition of the applicable entity’s assets from time to time and on certain rules whose application is uncertain.

6. Estimate of the amount spent during each of the last two fiscal years on research and development activities, and, if applicable, the extent to which the cost of such activities are borne directly by customers: The amount spent during each of the last two fiscal years on research and development activities is immaterial to the Company as a whole and the cost of such activities are not borne directly by customers.

7. Costs and effects of compliance with environmental laws (federal, state and local): Please see Item 8(B)(5).

8. Number of total employees and number of full-time employees:

Total Full-Time

Employees as of Emergence 4,918 4,905

Item 9: Nature of products or services offered: Please see Items 8(A) and 8(B). Reference is also hereby made to the EFCH Annual Report on 10-K filed with the SEC on March 1, 2016 and Quarterly Report on 10-Q filed with the SEC on August 2, 2016.

Item 10: Nature and extent of the issuer’s facilities: The Company’s principal office is located at 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. The office is leased, in good physical condition and satisfactory for its current use. For additional assets, properties and facilities of the issuer, reference is hereby made to the EFCH Annual Report on 10-K filed with the SEC on March 1, 2016 and Quarterly Report on 10-Q filed with the SEC on August 2, 2016.

Part D: Management Structure and Financial Information

Item 11: Name of the chief executive officer, members of the board of directors, as well as control persons

A. Officers and Directors

Directors

The directors of the Company, as well as certain information about them, are as follows:

Name Position with Company

Board memberships and other affiliations

Number and class of the Company’s securities

22

beneficially owned

Gavin R. Baiera Director Angelo, Gordon & Co.

not yet determined

Jennifer Box Director Oaktree Capital Management

49,919,306 shares of common stock of the Company (1)

Jeff D. Hunter Director Waterloo Capital Management

not yet determined

Michael Liebelson Director Monolith Materials not yet determined

Curtis A. Morgan President, CEO and Director

N/A not yet determined

Cyrus Madon Director Brookfield Business Partners

66,367,953 shares of common stock of the Company (2)

Geoffrey Strong Director Apollo Management Holdings

52,956,635 shares of common stock of the Company (3)

(1) Consists of 49,919,306 shares of common stock of the Company owned by the Oaktree Affiliates. See Item 14 (Beneficial Owners).

(2) Consists of 66,367,953 shares of common stock of the Company owned by the Brookfield Affiliates. See Item 14 (Beneficial Owners).

(3) Consists of 49,919,306 shares of common stock of the Company owned by the Apollo Affiliates. See Item 14 (Beneficial Owners).

All correspondence to the Company’s employee directors may be mailed to such employee director at the Company’s corporate headquarters at 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. For privacy reasons, the business addresses of the Company’s non-employee directors have been excluded from the above table. All correspondence to the Company’s non-employee directors may be mailed to the Company’s corporate

23

headquarters at 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, Texas 75201 and a member of management will see that it is delivered to the director.

The following information is provided regarding the Company’s directors:

Gavin Baiera has served as a director since the Effective Date. Mr. Baiera is a managing director at Angelo, Gordon & Co. where he is the global head of the firm’s corporate credit activities and portfolio manager for its distressed funds. Mr. Baiera is also a managing director and member of the firm’s executive committee. Prior to joining Angelo, Gordon in 2008, Mr. Baiera was the co-head of the strategic finance group at Morgan Stanley, which was responsible for all origination, underwriting, and distribution of restructuring transactions. Prior to that, Mr. Baiera worked at General Electric Capital Corporation concentrating on underwriting and investing in restructuring transactions. Mr. Baiera began his career at GE Capital in its financial management program. Mr. Baiera has served on numerous boards of directors including, most recently, MACH Gen, Orbitz Worldwide, and Travelport Worldwide. He received a bachelor’s degree from Fairfield University and a master’s of business administration from the University of Southern California.

Jennifer Box has served as a director since the Effective Date. Ms. Box is a managing director at Oaktree Capital Management where she is focused on investments in the shipping, power, energy, media and technology sectors. Prior to joining Oaktree in 2009, Ms. Box spent three and a half years as an investment analyst in the distressed debt group at The Blackstone Group. Prior to Blackstone, she was an associate consultant at the Boston Consulting Group. Ms. Box graduated summa cum laude with a bachelor’s degree in economics and a minor in mathematics from Duke University, where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. She is a CFA charterholder. She serves on the board of Star Bulk Carriers.

Jeff Hunter has served as a director since the Effective Date. Mr. Hunter is a managing member of Waterloo Capital Management. Prior to joining Waterloo, Mr. Hunter was the co-founder, managing partner and chief financial officer for Power Capital Advisors, LLC, where he managed the corporate development, due diligence and project financing functions. Previously Mr. Hunter was a co-founder, executive vice president and chief financial officer of US Power Generating Company, a privately held merchant power company that acquired, financed, and operated a portfolio of five conventional power stations located in New York, New York and Boston, Massachusetts. Prior to USPowerGen, Mr. Hunter was a partner at PA Consulting Group and principally responsible for managing the Global Energy Strategy & Risk Management practice. Mr. Hunter currently serves on the board of directors of US Power Generating Company and Texas Transmission Holdings

Michael Liebelson has served as a director since the Effective Date. Mr. Liebelson is the senior advisor at Monolith Materials where he leads the effort to site and develop company’s first commercial scale carbon black facility, and also collaborates closely with management to drive corporate growth strategy. Mr. Liebelson has more than 25 years of experience in energy project development and financing, including the

24

commercial development of chemical, refinery and process technologies. Most recently, Mr. Liebelson held executive vice president and chief development officer positions at Foster Wheeler AG and NRG Energy, where he launched and was president of NRG Solar, and provided executive sponsorship for the carbon capture project at one of NRG's coal-fired power stations. He is a co-founder of LS Power Corporation and co-managed the company during its early growth period that saw the successful development and financing of several natural gas-fired combined cycle cogeneration and power plant projects. Early in his career, Mr. Liebelson held engineering, finance and management positions with Exxon and Air Products & Chemicals. Mr. Liebelson received his bachelor’s degree in Chemical Engineering from UC Berkeley, and a master’s of business administration in Finance from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Curtis “Curt” Morgan has served as the President, Chief Executive Officer and a director of the Company since the Effective Date. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Morgan served as the Chief Executive Officer and President of EquiPower Resources Corp. since March 2010. Prior to joining EquiPower Resources Corp., he served as an Operating Partner of Energy Capital Partners from May 2009 to May 2010. Prior to joining Energy Capital Partners, he served as President and Chief Executive Officer of FirstLight Power Enterprises from November 2006 to April 2009. Mr. Morgan has also held various leadership roles at NRG Energy, Mirant Corporation and Reliant Energy. Mr. Morgan is a director of Summit Midstream GP, LLC, the general partner of Summit Midstream Partners, LP.

Cyrus Madon has served as a director of the Company since the Effective Date. Mr. Madon is a senior managing partner and head of Brookfield’s private equity group and chief executive officer of Brookfield Business Partners. Mr. Madon joined Brookfield in 1998 as chief financial officer of Brookfield's real estate brokerage business. During his tenure he has held a number of senior roles across the organization, including head of Brookfield’s corporate lending business. Mr. Madon began his career at PricewaterhouseCoopers where he worked in corporate finance and recovery, both in Canada and the United Kingdom. Mr. Madon is on the board of the Junior Achievement of Canada Foundation.

Geoffrey Strong has served as a director of the Company since the Effective Date. Mr. Strong has been with Apollo Management Holdings since 2012, where he is a partner. Prior to that time, Mr. Strong was a principal in the private equity group at Blackstone, where he focused primarily on investments in the energy sector. Before joining Blackstone, Mr. Strong was a vice president of Morgan Stanley Capital Partners, the private equity business within Morgan Stanley. Mr. Strong serves of the boards of directors of Caelus Energy, Apex Energy and Double Eagle Energy. Mr. Strong graduated summa cum laude with a bachelor’s degree from Western Oregon University, graduated cum laude with a J.D. from Lewis & Clark College, and received a master’s of business administration from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.

Executive Officers

25

The executive officers of the Company, as well as certain information about them, are as follows:

Name Position with Company

Board memberships and other affiliations

Number and class of the Company’s securities beneficially owned

Curtis A. Morgan President and Chief Executive Officer

N/A not yet determined

James A. Burke Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer

Marucci Sports not yet determined

Chris Burls Investor Relations Officer

N/A not yet determined

Stephanie Zapata Moore

Executive Vice President and General Counsel

N/A not yet determined

Terry L. Nutt Senior Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer

N/A not yet determined

The following information is provided regarding the Company’s executive officers not already described herein:

James A. Burke has served as the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company since the Effective Date. Prior to joining the Company, he served as Executive Vice President of EFH Corp. since February 2013 and President and Chief Executive of TXU Energy, a subsidiary of the Company, since August 2005. Previously, Mr. Burke was Senior Vice President Consumer Markets of TXU Energy.

Chris Burls has served as Investor Relations Officer of the Company since the Effective Date. Prior to joining the Company, he served as Director of Investor Relations of EFH Corp. since July 2014. Prior to that, he held multiple positions in corporate strategy at TXU Corp. and EFH Corp., with duties such as evaluating mergers and acquisitions transactions and key strategic issues impacting company operations, including national cap and trade legislation, pending EPA regulation for criteria pollutants, national renewable energy standards and more.

26

Stephanie Zapata Moore has served as the Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the Company since the Effective Date. Prior to joining the Company, she served as Vice President and General Counsel of Luminant, a subsidiary of the Company, since April 2012. Previously, Ms. Moore was Senior Counsel of Luminant from March 2007 to April 2012 and Counsel of a predecessor to Luminant from November 2005 to March 2007. Prior to joining Luminant, she was an attorney at Gardere Wynne Sewell where she engaged in a corporate practice.

Terry L. Nutt has served as the Senior Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company since the Effective Date. Prior to joining the Company, he served as Senior Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of EFH Corp. since February 2007.

Compensation of Directors and Executive Officers

The Company did not pay any compensation to its directors or executive officers prior to October 3, 2016.

B. Legal/Disciplinary History

None of the foregoing officers or directors have, in the last five years, been the subject of any of the following: (1) a conviction in a criminal proceeding or named as a defendant in a pending criminal proceeding (excluding traffic violations and other minor offenses); (2) the entry of an order, judgment or decree, not subsequently reversed, suspended or vacated, by a court of competent jurisdiction that permanently or temporarily enjoined, barred, suspended or otherwise limited such person’s involvement in any type of business, securities, commodities or banking activities; (3) a finding or judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction (in a civil action), the SEC, the CFTC or a state securities regulator of a violation of federal or state securities or commodities law, which finding or judgment has not been reversed, suspended or vacated; or (4) the entry of an order by a self-regulatory organization that permanently or temporarily barred, suspended or otherwise limited such person’s involvement in any type of business or securities activities.

C. Disclosure of Family Relationships

There are no family relationships (defined as any relationship by blood, marriage or adoption, not more remote than first cousin) among and between the Company’s directors, officers, persons nominated or chosen by the Company to become directors or officers, or beneficial owners of more than five percent (5%) of any class of the Company’s equity securities.

D. Disclosure of Related Party Transactions

In connection with the Emergence, the Company entered into agreements with certain of its affiliates and with parties who received shares of common stock of the Company and rights to receive payments under a tax receivable agreement (as described

27

below) in exchange for their claims against Former TCEH in connection with the Emergence.

Separation Agreement

On the Effective Date and prior to the Contribution, Conversion and Distribution, EFH Corp., TEX Energy LLC and OpCo entered into the Separation Agreement. Pursuant to the Plan and the Separation Agreement, among other things, the Contribution occurred in exchange for which Former TCEH received 100% of the TEX Energy LLC membership interests.

The foregoing description of the Separation Agreement is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the Separation Agreement, which is attached as Exhibit 18(B).

Tax Receivable Agreement

On the Effective Date immediately following the PrefCo Preferred Stock Sale and prior to the Conversion and Distribution, TEX Energy LLC and American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC (“AST”), as transfer agent, entered into a tax receivable agreement (the “Tax Receivable Agreement”). Pursuant to the Tax Receivable Agreement, among other things, the Company has agreed to pay to holders of beneficial interests in the rights to receive payments under (and otherwise share in the benefits of) the Tax Receivable Agreement (the “TRA Rights”) of 85% of the amount of cash savings, if any, in U.S. federal, state and local income tax that the Company realizes in periods following the Effective Date as a result of (i) certain transactions consummated pursuant to the Plan (including any step-up in tax basis in the Company’s assets resulting from the PrefCo Preferred Stock Sale), (ii) the tax basis of all assets acquired by Luminant Holding Company LLC, a former wholly owned direct subsidiary of TCEH (“Luminant Holding”), in connection with the Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated as of November 25, 2015, by and between La Frontera Ventures, LLC and Luminant Holding and (iii) tax benefits related to imputed interest deemed to be paid by the Company as a result of payments under the Tax Receivable Agreement, plus interest accruing from the due date of the applicable tax return.

The foregoing description of the Tax Receivable Agreement is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the Tax Receivable Agreement, which is attached as Exhibit 18(C).

Tax Matters Agreement

On the Effective Date and prior to the Conversion, TEX Energy LLC, EFH Corp., EFIH, EFIH Finance Inc. and EFH Merger Co. LLC entered into a Tax Matters Agreement (the “Tax Matters Agreement”) whereby the parties agreed to take certain actions and refrain from taking certain actions to preserve the intended tax treatment of the Spin-Off. Pursuant to the Tax Matters Agreement, among other things:

28

responsibility for taxes for periods prior to the Spin-Off is allocated between EFH Corp. and the Company. For periods prior to the Spin-Off, (i) the Company is generally required to reimburse EFH Corp. with respect to any taxes paid by EFH Corp. that are attributable to the Company and (ii) EFH Corp. is generally required to reimburse the Company with respect to any taxes paid by the Company that are attributable to EFH Corp.;

the Company is required to indemnify EFH Corp. against taxes, under certain circumstances, if the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) or another taxing authority successfully challenges the amount of gain relating to the PrefCo Preferred Stock Sale; and

subject to certain exceptions, the Company and EFH Corp. are prohibited from taking actions that could reasonably be expected to undermine the intended tax treatment of the Spin-Off or to jeopardize the conclusions of the private letter ruling obtained from the IRS or opinions of counsel received by the Company or EFH Corp., in each case in connection with the Spin-Off. These restrictions apply for two years after the Spin-Off.

The foregoing description of the Tax Matters Agreement is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the Tax Matters Agreement, which is attached as Exhibit 18(D).

Split Participant Agreement

On the Effective Date pursuant to the Plan and following the effectiveness of the Separation Agreement, OpCo and Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC (“Oncor”) entered into an Amended and Restated Split Participant Agreement (the “Split Participant Agreement”). Pursuant to the Split Participant Agreement, among other things, Oncor agrees to provide certain post-retirement welfare and life insurance benefits and OpCo agrees to provide certain pension benefits (as identified on Schedules I, II and III, respectively, to the Split Participant Agreement) to certain current and future retirees of EFH Corp., OpCo and Oncor (or one of their direct or indirect subsidiaries) whose employment included service that has been allocated to both (i) Oncor (or one of its predecessor regulated electric transmission and distribution utility businesses) and (ii) EFH Corp. or one of its direct or indirect subsidiaries that is not a regulated electric transmission and distribution utility.

The foregoing description of the Split Participant Agreement is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the Split Participant Agreement, which is attached as Exhibit 18(E).

Transition Services Agreement

On the Effective Date and pursuant to the Plan, EFH Corp. and OpCo entered into a Transition Services Agreement (the “Transition Services Agreement”). Pursuant to the Transition Services Agreement, among other things:

29

OpCo will provide certain services to the EFH Debtors, including business services administration, corporate controller, corporate secretary, tax, human resources, information technology, internal audit and SOX compliance, physical facilities and corporate security, treasury and legal services (collectively, “Transition Services”); and

EFH Corp. will pay to OpCo all reasonable and documented fees, costs and expenses (including employee-related overhead and general and administrative expenses) incurred by OpCo related directly to the Transition Agreement.

OpCo will provide the Transition Services until the earlier of (i) December 31, 2017 or (ii) the closing date of the sale, merger or other similar transaction by which the EFH Debtors effectuate their reorganization and emergence from the Chapter 11 Cases.

The foregoing description of the Transition Services Agreement is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the Transition Services Agreement, which is attached as Exhibit 18(F).

Registration Rights Agreement

On the Effective Date and pursuant to the Plan, following the Conversion, the Company entered into a Registration Rights Agreement (the “Registration Rights Agreement”) with the initial holders listed therein (the “Holders”) providing for registration of the resale of the Holders’ common stock of the Company and TRA Rights. Pursuant to the Registration Rights Agreement, among other things:

immediately following the earlier of (x) a Form 10 or other registration statement under the Exchange Act registering the common stock of the Company having been declared effective by the Commission or (y) April 30, 2017, the Company will be required to file with the SEC a shelf registration statement (the “Shelf Registration Statement”) for the resale of Registrable Shares (as defined in the Registration Rights Agreement) under Rule 415 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and use its reasonable best efforts to cause the Shelf Registration Statement to be declared effective by the SEC as promptly as reasonably practicable thereafter and in no event later than one hundred twenty (120) days after the initial filing of the Shelf Registration Statement;

concurrently with the registration under the Securities Act, the Company will be required to seek (i) registration of the common stock of the Company under the Exchange Act (to the extent not already obtained) and (ii) approval to list the common stock of the Company on the New York Stock Exchange or The NASDAQ Stock Market;

if the Company proposes to file certain types of registration statements under the Securities Act with respect to an offering of securities, it will be required to use its reasonable best efforts to offer the other parties to the Registration Rights Agreement

30

the opportunity to register all or part of their shares on the terms and conditions set forth in the Registration Rights Agreement;

the Holders received the right, subject to certain conditions and exceptions, to request that the Company file registration statements (subject to certain limitations on the number of registration statements and the minimum aggregate offering price of shares covered thereby) with the SEC for an underwritten offering of all or part of their respective shares of the common stock of the Company or TRA Rights (a “Demand Registration”), and the Company is required to cause such Demand Registration to be filed with the SEC within (i) forty-five (45) days for a registration statement on Form S-1 or (ii) thirty (30) days for a registration statement on Form S-3 and thereafter, in either case, use its reasonable best efforts to cause such registration statement to become effective as promptly as reasonably practicable and no later than one hundred twenty (120) days after the initial filing of such registration statement; and

all expenses of registration under the Registration Rights Agreement, including the legal fees of one counsel retained by or on behalf of selling Holders, will be paid by the Company.

The registration rights granted in the Registration Rights Agreement are subject to customary restrictions such as minimums, blackout periods and, if a registration is underwritten, any limitations on the number of shares and TRA Rights to be included in the underwritten offering imposed by the managing underwriter. The Registration Rights Agreement also contains customary indemnification and contribution provisions, and certain representations and warranties made by the Company to the Holders.

The foregoing description of the Registration Rights Agreement is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the Registration Rights Agreement, which is attached as Exhibit 18(G).

Stockholders Agreements

On the Effective Date and pursuant to the Plan, the Company entered into separate stockholder’s agreements with affiliates of each of Apollo Management Holdings L.P., Brookfield Asset Management Private Institutional Capital Adviser (Canada), L.P. and Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. (the “Stockholders’ Agreements”). Pursuant to the Stockholders’ Agreements, among other things:

subject to the proper exercise of fiduciary duties of the Board, the applicable stockholder will, until the occurrence of a Termination Event (as defined below), be entitled to designate one person for nomination for election to the Board at (i) any meeting of the stockholders of the Company at which directors of a designated class are elected or (ii) if the Company’s certificate of incorporation no longer provides for the division of directors into three classes, any meeting of stockholders of the Company at which directors are to be elected;

31

prior to the occurrence of a Termination Event, if a vacancy occurs because of the death, disability, disqualification, resignation or removal of the director nominee of an applicable stockholder, subject to the proper exercise of the fiduciary duties of the Board, the applicable stockholder will be entitled to designate such person’s successor; and

the rights of each stockholder under its applicable agreement will terminate automatically upon such stockholder ceasing to beneficially own, in the aggregate, at least 22,500,000 shares of the common stock of the Company that were owned by such stockholder on the date of the applicable stockholder’s agreement (a “Termination Event”).

The foregoing description of the Stockholders’ Agreements is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the form of Stockholder’s Agreement, which is attached as Exhibit 18(H).

E. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interests

None.

Item 12: Financial information for the issuer’s most recent fiscal period

Reference is hereby made to the financial statements included in the EFCH Annual Report on 10-K filed with the SEC on March 1, 2016 and Quarterly Report on 10-Q filed with the SEC on August 2, 2016. The Company has also provided a balance sheet of the Company as of June 30, 2016, which includes certain pro forma adjustments described therein to give effect to the Emergence.

Item 13: Similar financial information for such part of the two preceding fiscal years as the issuer or its predecessor has been in existence

Not applicable.

Item 14: Beneficial owners

The following table sets forth information as of October 3, 2016, concerning the equity ownership of all persons or groups known by the Company to be the beneficial owners of 5% or more of its outstanding Common Stock:

PRINCIPAL BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF SHARES

Name Address Amount and Nature of Beneficial Ownership

Apollo Affiliates (1) 91 Manhattanville Rd., #201, Purchase, NY 10577

52,956,635 shares of common stock

32

Brookfield Affiliates (2) 250 Vesey Street, 15th Floor New York, NY 10281

66,367,953 shares of common stock

Oaktree Affiliates (3) 333 S. Grand Ave., 28th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071

49,919,306 shares of common stock

HBK Affiliates (4) 2101 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75201

28,550,272 shares of common stock

(1) Apollo Management Holdings L.P. is the general partner or manager of Apollo investment managers that directly or indirectly manage various funds that hold shares of our equity securities. Apollo Principal Holdings II, L.P. and certain affiliates are the general partners or managers of Apollo investment advisors that serve as the general partners of various funds that hold shares of our equity securities. The general partner of Apollo Management Holdings, L.P. is Apollo Management Holdings GP, LLC, and the general partner of Apollo Principal Holdings II, L.P. is Apollo Principal Holdings II GP, LLC. Leon Black, Joshua Harris and Marc Rowan are the managers, as well as executive officers, of Apollo Management Holdings GP, LLC and Apollo Principal Holdings II GP, LLC, as well as the directors or managers and executive officers of the affiliates of Apollo Principal Holdings II GP, LLC, and as such may be deemed to have voting and dispositive control of shares of our equity securities that are held by the funds. The address for Apollo Principal Holdings II, L.P. and Apollo Principal Holdings II GP, LLC is One Manhattanville Road, Suite 201, Purchase, New York 10577. The address for Apollo Management Holdings, L.P. and Apollo Management Holdings GP, LLC, and Messrs. Black, Harris and Rowan, is 9 W. 57th Street, 43rd Floor, New York, New York 10019.

(2) Brookfield Asset Management Private Institutional Capital Adviser (Canada), L.P. (“Brookfield”) is the investment manager for certain affiliated and unaffiliated funds or entities that are expected to beneficially own in the aggregate an approximate 14.94% interest in the Company. Brookfield is indirectly controlled by Brookfield Asset Management (“BAM”). BAM also indirectly controls Brookfield-CREZ SPV LLC, which owns a fifty percent interest in WETT Holdings LLC, the parent of Wind Energy Transmission Texas, LLC, a corporate member of ERCOT in the Investor-Owned Utility segment.

(3) Shares are beneficially owned by Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. as investment manager and indirect director on behalf of certain of its managed funds and accounts. The general partner of Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. is Oaktree Holdings, Inc. The sole shareholder of Oaktree Holdings, Inc. is Oaktree Capital Group, LLC. The duly elected manager of Oaktree Capital Group, LLC is Oaktree Capital Group Holdings GP, LLC. Oaktree Capital Group Holdings GP, LLC has seven individuals as members. The address for all of the entities and individuals identified above is 333 S. Grand Avenue, 28th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071.

(4) HBK Master Fund L.P., HBK Master SOF II L.P., and HBK Loan I LLC are subject to the investment discretion of HBK Investments L.P. (and its affiliated subadvisors, including HBK Services LLC, to which it has delegated discretion to vote and dispose of investments), all of whose address is 2101 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75201. The registered

33

address for each of HBK Master Fund L.P. and HBK Master SOF II L.P. is c/o CO Services Cayman Limited, P.O. Box 10008, Willow House, Cricket Square, Grand Cayman, KY1-1001, Cayman Islands. The registered address for HBK Loan I LLC is c/o National Corporate Research, Ltd., 850 New Burton Road, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19904. Such three entities beneficially own, directly or indirectly, more than five (5%) percent of any class of equity securities of the Company. HBK Investments L.P. controlled or directed, directly or indirectly, the purchase of such securities for such entities.

Item 15: Name, address, telephone number, and email address of certain outside providers that advise the issuer on matters relating to operations, business development and disclosure

A. Investment Banker

None

B. Promoters

None

C. Counsel

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher