VST

Find winning stocks in any market cycle. Join 7 million investors using Simply Wall St's investing ideas for FREE. Vistra has delivered a very large 5 year return, yet on current checks the stock now looks closer to fairly valued than clearly cheap, which puts more focus on whether recent news and changing expectations justify the price you see today. Over the past 5 years, Vistra has returned roughly 8x an initial investment, which means even small changes in expectations can matter a lot for anyone looking at the stock now. Growing power demand from hyperscalers and data centers can support profit expectations, while exposure to regulatory decisions on new data center projects and power markets may limit how much investors are willing to pay for that growth. Vistra scores 3 out of 6 on our valuation checks, which points to a mixed picture rather than a clear bargain or clear overvaluation. The issue now is whether Vistra's current share price already reflects these stronger demand drivers and risks or if there is still room for investors to be paid for taking them on. Find out why Vistra's -24.5% return over the last year is lagging behind its peers. P/E is a useful yardstick for Vistra because earnings remain a key focus for how investors frame regulated and contracted power businesses. Vistra currently trades on a P/E of about 24.5x, which is above both the Renewable Energy industry average of roughly 17.0x and the peer average of about 18.2x. That places the stock at a clear premium to many sector peers. The in house fair P/E multiple for Vistra is around 27.1x, which is slightly higher than where the stock trades today. Despite the strong Q2 2026 adjusted EBITDA update and high profile data center partnerships lifting interest in Vistra, the current P/E still sits a little below what this framework suggests would be typical for the company given its profile. On this basis, the stock does not screen as either clearly cheap or clearly expensive. Overall, Vistra looks roughly fairly valued on its current P/E multiple relative to this fair value benchmark. See what the numbers say about this price — find out in our valuation breakdown. Simply Wall St Narratives for Vistra pick up from the valuation puzzle and spell out what would need to happen to Vistra's growth, margins and earnings for the stock to be worth materially more or less than today's price, based on different assumptions about its future. Rather than relying on a single multiple or model output, each Narrative lays out the key drivers behind its view of fair value so you can compare those assumptions with Vistra's results as they are reported over time. Narratives sit on Simply Wall St's Community page and are updated as new information and discussion emerge. Community views on Vistra sit far apart, with one side leaning into long term AI power contracts and the other concerned about how much of that is already priced in. Bull case: 34% undervalued Read the full Bull Case to see why Vistra could be undervalued Bear case: 10% overvalued Read the full Bear Case to see why Vistra could be overvalued Do you think there's more to the story for Vistra? Head over to our Community to see what others are saying! Vistra now screens as about_right on market multiples, which means valuation alone no longer clearly argues for or against the stock after such an extreme move. The current P/E premium asks you to believe that data center demand and long term power contracts can support earnings without unexpected pushback from regulation or power markets. The core question from here is whether Vistra can turn those AI related opportunities into durable cash flows that justify paying this kind of multiple, or whether expectations have already moved far enough ahead of what the business can reasonably deliver. This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Companies discussed in this article include VST. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email [email protected]

Image source: The Motley Fool. Friday, Aug. 7, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. ET VP of Investor Relations - Eric Micek President and Chief Executive Officer - Jim Burke Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer - Kris Moldovan Operator: Good day, welcome to the Vistra Corp second quarter 2026 results conference call. All participants will be in a listen-only mode. Should you need assistance, please signal a conference specialist by pressing the star key followed by zero. After today's presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. To ask a question, you may press star, then one on a touch-tone phone. To withdraw your question, please press star then two. Please note, this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Eric Micek, VP of Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Eric Micek: Good morning, thank you for joining Vistra's investor webcast discussing our second quarter 2026 results. Our discussion today is being broadcast live from the investor relations section of our website at www.vistracorp.com. There you can also find copies of today's investor presentation and earnings release. Providing our prepared remarks today are Jim Burke, Vistra's President and Chief Executive Officer, and Kris Moldovan, Vistra's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Other senior Vistra executives will be available to address questions during the second part of today's call as necessary. Our earnings release presentation and other matters discussed on the call today include references to certain non-GAAP financial measures. All references to Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted Free Cash Flow before Growth throughout this presentation refer to ongoing operations' Adjusted EBITDA and ongoing operations' Adjusted Free Cash Flow before Growth. Reconciliations to the most directly comparable GAAP measures are provided in the earnings release and in the appendix in the investor presentation available in the investor relations section of Vistra's website. Today's discussion contains forward-looking statements, which are based on assumptions we believe to be reasonable only as of today's date. Such forward-looking statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected or implied. We assume no obligation to update our forward-looking statements. I encourage all listeners to review the safe harbor statements included on slide two of the investor presentation on our website that explain the risks of forward-looking statements, the limitations of certain industry and market data included in the presentation, and the use of non-GAAP financial measures. I will now turn the call over to our president and CEO, Jim Burke. Jim Burke: Thank you, Eric. Good morning, thank you all for joining us today to discuss our second quarter 2026 results. We remain on track to achieve another record result in 2026 as the business continues to perform very well. Within the geographies we serve, we are observing a structurally improved demand environment, with both PJM and ERCOT hitting new all-time summer peak loads in July. This recent experience reinforces our focus on operational excellence, delivering power to our customers in a reliable and safe manner when it's needed most. Data center development activity remains strong, we continue to be in active negotiations with large load customers as they seek to meet their power needs both in the short and long-term planning horizons. With our large, diversified, and flexible fleet, our development capabilities, innovative retail franchise, and experienced commercial team, we believe Vistra is well positioned to deliver on these opportunities. The activity level we see today reinforces our view that the long-term expected improvement in power market fundamentals is underway, and we remain excited about the growth opportunities ahead. Turning to slide five, the team has worked hard across the business, building on the first quarter momentum to deliver strong first half results for the company. We achieved second quarter Adjusted EBITDA of nearly $1.8 billion, compared to second quarter 2025 of approximately $1.35 billion, representing an over 30% increase year-over-year. At the core of these results are the 7,000 team members across the organization, whose close collaboration and consistent execution across generation, commercial, and retail highlights the one team culture that is central to our success and reflects the strength of the integrated business model. Operationally, the team successfully completed our annual spring maintenance cycle, positioning the fleet for strong performance through the critical summer period. To provide some perspective, the nuclear fleet successfully completed planned refueling outages for three of our units, and our gas and coal fleet successfully completed 92 planned outages in preparation for the summer run. This preparation was evident during the recent heat waves in Texas and PJM, where we achieved commercial availability of over 97% across the entire fleet. Moving to the outlook, we are reaffirming the guidance ranges for 2026 Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted Free Cash Flow before Growth and maintaining the range of potential 2027 Adjusted EBITDA midpoint opportunities. Kris will cover this in more detail later. Finally, we are also pleased to announce our partnership with KKR, NVIDIA, and the Kuwait Investment Authority to be a founding investor in Helix Digital Infrastructure. Helix will focus on combining power solutions for data centers with land and other digital infrastructure, creating a rack-to-grid one-stop shop solution that customers increasingly prefer. As part of this solution, the Helix platform will seek to leverage our deep expertise in power markets, our proven commercial track record, and our generation capabilities to deliver tailored energy solutions. Vistra's role will be twofold. First, as a founding investor, Vistra will commit up to $1 billion to be invested over time, with any amount in excess of $500 million subject to the achievement of certain milestones. This aligns our participation in what we expect to be a leading digital infrastructure platform. Second, Vistra will serve as the preferred power partner, allowing us to participate in Helix development projects either through contracted new build projects or through new contracts with existing assets. We believe this structure creates an additional avenue for growth and broadens our participation in a thoughtful manner as the digital economy expands. Importantly, we retain significant optionality to develop projects with Helix where it makes sense to do so while continuing to develop projects on our own as well. We're excited about the potential this platform brings to our company and look forward to working with the team to execute on this strategy. Turning to slide six, as we have outlined on previous calls, we see a structurally improved demand environment in power markets that supports our long-term outlook. We believe annual load growth of at least 4%-6% in ERCOT and 2%-3% in PJM through 2030 remain reasonable estimates for these markets. In July, we've also seen new all-time peaks in load in both PJM and ERCOT, with PJM hitting over 168 GW and ERCOT hitting over 91 GW. While data centers will be an important driver of load, particularly in 2028 and beyond, we believe a significant component of this growth is from sources other than data centers. This includes industrial reshoring, increasing electrification, population growth, particularly in Texas, and broader economic expansion. Importantly, despite the strong level of growth, the performance of power grids during these recent summer peaks demonstrates that the power grids in our key markets are able to meet this growing demand. As a diversified company with multiple forms of generation across the country, Vistra is well positioned to benefit from strengthening fundamentals across markets. Although recent demand trends combined with strong weather have driven strength in PJM forward pricing, the power price environment in ERCOT has softened recently. We view this as normal, with variability expected as load additions are lumpy and weather impacts can change year to year. We believe long-term growth fundamentals remain on track across our key markets, and our team is committed to delivering on our strategy given this growing load environment. This quarter has demonstrated strong execution across our business. Not to be left out of the discussion, we have been very active on many fronts related to the regulatory process and advocacy in our key markets. While there is still more to finalize, overall, we are encouraged by the direction of travel. I kept my opening remarks brief, recognizing that we will have an opportunity to provide our perspective on this topic in Q&A. With that, I'll turn it over to Kris to provide more details on our second quarter results, our outlook, and our capital allocation. Kris Moldovan: Thank you, Jim. Turning to slide eight, Vistra delivered second quarter Adjusted EBITDA of $1.767 billion, representing a more than 30% increase compared to the second quarter of 2025. This strong performance was driven by contributions across both our generation and retail segments, reflecting the benefits of our integrated business model and comprehensive hedging program. Our generation business delivered approximately $994 million of Adjusted EBITDA in the quarter, compared to approximately $593 million in the second quarter of 2025. The year-over-year improvement was primarily driven by favorable hedging activity, resulting in the company's average realized prices being approximately 5% higher on a per MWh basis compared to the same quarter last year. Higher capacity revenues in PJM, optimizing the run profile of our flexible gas generation assets to capture margin opportunities, the restart of Martin Lake Unit 1, and contributions from the assets acquired from Lotus in the third quarter of 2025. Retail also had a strong quarter, contributing approximately $773 million of Adjusted EBITDA, compared to approximately $756 million in the second quarter of 2025. As a reminder, the second and fourth quarters are typically the strongest quarters for retail given seasonal timing of margins. Turning to slide nine, we are reaffirming our 2026 Adjusted EBITDA guidance range of $6.8 billion-$7.6 billion and our adjusted free cash flow before growth guidance range of $3.925 billion-$4.725 billion. Given our performance through the first half of the year, we are confident in our ability to deliver at or above the midpoint of these ranges. Looking forward to 2027, current ERCOT forward curves are meaningfully lower than they were on October 31st, 2025, which form the basis for the 2027 midpoint opportunity range we provided on our Q3 2025 earnings call. However, due to several offsetting factors, including higher prices in PJM, the support from our comprehensive hedging program, and the downside protection afforded by the nuclear PTC, we are maintaining our 2027 Adjusted EBITDA midpoint opportunity range of $7.4 billion-$7.8 billion. As a reminder, that range excludes any contribution from the pending acquisition of Cogentrix and the premium above market we expect to receive under the long-term power purchase agreements at our PJM nuclear sites with Meta. Turning to slide 10, our forecast indicates that we will generate more than $10 billion of available cash in 2026 and 2027. We have been opportunistic, yet disciplined in allocating this available cash. We have allocated approximately $3 billion to our equity holders in 2026 and 2027 through share repurchases and common and preferred dividends. Notably, our share repurchase program continues to create significant value. Since initiating the program in November 2021, we have retired approximately 171 million shares at an average cost of approximately $38 per share. We currently have approximately $1.2 billion of share repurchase authorization remaining, which we expect to exhaust no later than the end of 2027. I am also pleased to report that with the amount of repurchases through August 3rd, we have returned over $6.5 billion to our shareholders through share repurchases since initiating the program in late 2021, well ahead of the target we communicated at that time of at least $6 billion through year-end 2026. Pursuant to the opportunistic design of our 10b5-1 trading plan, our repurchase activity through July continued to run ahead of pro-rata pace, given the elevated free cash flow yield indicated by our share price. We will continue to evaluate our allocation to our shareholders with the flexibility to allocate additional cash to share repurchases in 2026 and/or 2027 should market conditions warrant. In addition to allocating significant amounts directly to our equity holders, we also expect to allocate approximately $4.5 billion-$5 billion to accretive growth investments, including the Cogentrix acquisition, the development of the Permian Peakers, the PJM nuclear operate supported by power purchase agreements with Meta, the development of the Oak Hill 2 solar facility supported by a power purchase agreement with a large investment-grade counterparty, and now our capital commitment to Helix. Although we cannot predict the amount or timing of any potential capital calls by Helix, we believe it is prudent to allocate a portion of our available cash to cover any such requests. Even after these significant allocations directly to our equity holders into growth, we expect approximately $2 billion-$2.5 billion of additional cash available to allocate through year-end 2027. As always, we will be disciplined in how we allocate this remaining capital, balancing return of capital to our shareholders, strategically investing in attractive organic and inorganic growth opportunities that meet our mid-teens levered return threshold, and further strengthening our balance sheet. Speaking of the balance sheet, we have achieved investment-grade credit ratings from two of the major credit ratings agencies. We don't plan to stop there. Our long-term goal is to achieve mid-investment-grade credit ratings at all three major credit rating agencies. We believe we can achieve these ratings primarily through disciplined EBITDA growth, we will also consider allocating some of our available capital to additional debt paydown as necessary or appropriate. We believe mid-investment-grade credit ratings would allow us to maintain financial flexibility to continue to opportunistically grow our business and would position us well for long-term value creation. In closing, we are pleased with our second quarter results and the momentum we have built through the first half of the year. We continue to see load growth materializing in our primary markets, we believe our integrated business model positions us well to deliver significant value to our stakeholders. With that, operator, we're ready to open the line for questions. Operator: We will now begin the question and answer session. To ask a question, you may press star then one on your touchtone phone. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing the keys. If at any time your question has been addressed and you would like to withdraw your question, please press star then two. At this time, we will pause momentarily to assemble our roster. The first question today comes from Shahriar Pourreza with Wells Fargo. Please go ahead. Constantine: Hi, good morning, team. It's actually Constantine here for Char. Appreciate the time today. Kris Moldovan: Hey, Constantine. How are you doing? Constantine: Not too bad. Morning. I just wanted to get your view on Texas data center audits, potential delays, Batch Zero. Has there been any commercial or counterparty concerns that you've heard just from existing or potential customers and as we kind of get through this uncertainty, especially with the curve impacts that we're seeing? Is there any kind of pressure on near-term outlook and mitigation strategies through hedging, especially for 2027, 2028, when the portfolio is a little bit more open? Jim Burke: Sure. There's a lot there. I appreciate the question. Let me start by framing it first as we put out a load forecast a little over two years ago in May of 2024 with an expectation of 115 to 120 gigawatts of load in ERCOT in 2030. That's still what we're projecting. From a long-term fundamentals of the business, we haven't actually changed our forecast for ERCOT, even though the queues have certainly grown. I think that's part of the challenge of what policymakers are balancing is I think the concerns around generation supply are overstated when you look at a lot of the media reporting. I think the demand is overstated when you look at the interest that's being expressed in these queues. Policymakers are saying we need better information to make decisions because they're going to prioritize reliability and affordability for customers, we support that. We fully support it. I do think in the near term, I think the audit is going to probably pause some of the reviews for a couple of months. We don't know exactly the timeframe. The key project that we have in our portfolio at Comanche Peak, we're looking to energize at the end of 2027. We don't see that being affected at this point, we support the conversation that the governor is wanting to have with the data center community. To make sure that Texas does this right. I don't think it's a concern in the intermediate and long term, I think, and we'll talk, I'm sure, at some point in the Q&A about the forward pricing. What you see right now is the grid has more supply on it. This load that we expect to hook up, we expected to hook up in the 2027, 2028 time frame. 2026 being soft is not that big of a surprise to us. That's also why we do the comprehensive hedging that we do. I'd like to see the queues culled. At the end of the day, I think everybody, if we raise the criteria and raise the bar on what is being proposed from the data center load, an ERCOT queue that has at times been expressed as over 400 GW, we think is somewhere in the 12 GW to 15 GW by 2030. When you have numbers overstated by more than 20x, it causes problems for policy makers. We support the thinning of the queues and getting to better realistic decisions to make sure we can all move forward. Constantine: Excellent. Appreciate that. Maybe just shifting to some of the commercial constructs. There's been multiple data points recently from peers around new projects, IRRs, pricing, margin expectations on existing gen. Do you have a view here? Should long-term contracting still focus on the new build cost, kind of in that $90 range, or is there room for clean premium speed to market, et cetera? Jim Burke: Yeah, there's a big spread. Obviously, that's one of the ironies of this discussion. Again, from a media standpoint, there's a view that power prices are too high, they need to come down. Depends on what you're measuring off of. Year to date, ERCOT wholesale prices have been $30 a MWh. They were $30 a MWh last year. 30 is not going to get new stuff built. That's part of the dilemma. I think even when we talk about PJM and talking about a cap on the RBP of 555, that might get some things built, but there's still a lot that may not get built if you're looking at that as a hard cap. There's a range with that 555, so some things can bid above it if something's clear below that. In our role as investors and also owner-operators, the price of equipment in some cases has doubled, if not tripled. What was an acceptable price to build at a year or two ago is no longer an acceptable price. I think the challenge is going to be, from a contracting standpoint, is when the customers, the large load customers, they are interested in contracting with existing, and they are interested in contracting at a premium with existing, because it's still a discount to what new build would require, whether you're doing it bilaterally or you expect to do it on your own. As a behind the meter or island is. There's a big spread there. That's why I think our large base load position, there's a big spread between what we're currently receiving in a day ahead spot type market versus what new build looks like. We still see that interest level from the customer base, and I think you're going to see customers still contracting for new because there's areas of the country they want to be and they're looking for speed, and there's going to be customers that are contracting with existing. Our views on that have not changed. As far as margins and premiums, our views on that haven't changed. I think the cost of new build has continued to tick up. If there's anything that's changed, that's kind of been where we've seen the pressure. Constantine: The preference for Vistra is still kind of the hybrid solution, so mix of new plus existing capacity for this sort of deal? Jim Burke: Yeah, look, we have been a bit of an all the above. It really is customer driven. Some customers are going to put more of a preference on new and additionality. Others are going to look more for speed and where can they get hooked up. Co-location, for instance, can bring a speed advantage to hook up that even a new build, even if it were islanded, might still take more time. Yes, we're going to be in all forms of that. We have to get a return that we think is attractive for our shareholders, but we have the capabilities to be in all of those solution sets, and I'd expect us to continue going forward. Constantine: Makes sense. No cookie cutter approach. Appreciate the time today. Jim Burke: Perfect. Constantine: Thanks so much. Jim Burke: Thank you. Thanks for the questions. Operator: The next question comes from Jeremy Tonet with J.P. Morgan. Please go ahead. Jeremy Tonet: Hi, good morning. Jim Burke: Hey, Jeremy. Kris Moldovan: Hey, Jeremy. Jeremy Tonet: Interesting times across both PJM and ERCOT. I was just wondering if you could talk about the relative dynamics between the two and what you're looking to secure more contracts, I guess, how the conversation trend compares, contrasts between the two. Jim Burke: Yeah, that's a great question. I'll start off, I'm going to ask Stacey to comment since she is in the middle of these discussions on a daily basis. The two markets are starting in slightly different places. As you know, with Texas, you can see it in the forwards, you can see it in the real-time settles, the Texas market is just a lot less tight at the moment than the PJM market. What we have here is a situation where customers are just trying to get through the study processes. ERCOT took an approach to do a BAS sort of slow things down for a moment and then study as much as you can realistically at once to give clear guidance to people. Now, that's going to pause for the reasons we just covered on the call for a few months, but the approach is still the same. In PJM, there's still a process that's much more localized in terms of how the study process works, obviously even the criteria that's being used around some of the wires to cost and whether there's minimum takes and credit and other things that are still not yet settled in ERCOT. The markets are at different levels of maturity in terms of how different utilities are prioritizing the studies and the load, we have to work with customers on that. Of course, our assets have some unique characteristics in each market. Since we're having conversations across both those major markets, I'm going to let Stacey provide more color on how she sees these developing. Stacey Doré: Yeah. Thanks, Jim. Thanks for the question, Jeremy. We continue to see a lot of interest in both PJM and ERCOT. We're in active discussions in both markets across multiple sites both about our existing resources as well as new build. Both markets have their own share of regulatory uncertainty and things in flux. I think at this point in time, it really comes down more to where are individual customers looking to expand their presence, each customer is a little bit different in that regard. They have their own zone-type goals, when they come to us, they share with us where they're looking to locate their data centers. We continue to see really high interest in both of our largest markets, ERCOT and PJM. I'd say the regulatory uncertainty, of course, customers want more clarity. As we move along, we're getting more clarity. We're seeing a lot of progress at FERC. As Jim started the Q&A session off with, we're also supportive of Governor Abbott's attempt to thin the queue and ensure responsible development. You've seen customers come out in support of Governor Abbott's efforts. Those are positives. Those are actually helping us move towards clarity. At the same time, as we've seen with even the contracts we've executed to date, customers don't need perfect clarity in order to contract. You can find ways to deal with those risks through contractual provisions. They're not waiting on perfect clarity, obviously, the more clarity, the better. We continue to feel very optimistic about our opportunities in both PJM and ERCOT. Jeremy Tonet: Got it. That's helpful. Thank you for that. Dialing into PJM a little bit more, just wondering, as PJM continues to evolve here and we step towards the RBP, wondering what Vistra's strategy would be here, the relative level of appeal here, and also how RBP compares to bilateral discussions, if there's a preference one way or the other. Jim Burke: Yeah. I believe the bilateral discussion, which is something we've been supportive of, even under current market conditions, unrelated to whether we're specifically talking about an RBP and the other framework around this IRAS, which I'm sure we'll talk about. Setting that aside, the bilateral conversation is something that we have real possibilities with customers. We have good sites. We have some opportunities to develop these with their interest. Again, that has to meet their needs from a speed and a cost standpoint. That's a willing buyer, willing seller marketplace. Any bilaterals, as you know, that get done that meet the hurdles could drop the required RBP procured amount. Ultimately, over time, I think if energy markets and bilaterals can continue to develop adequate returns, even less dependence on a capacity market, I think would overall be helpful for clarity of what kind of returns people can expect in these various markets, including PJM. We're active in those discussions. When we think about the RBP itself, there's realistically batteries, peakers, CCGTs that you could see bid into that. Depending on where people are with their cost of equipment and EPC and when they got some of that locked down, the 555, there's going to probably need to be a spread around that $555 a megawatt day for certain projects to work. There's going to be pressure there. I think the bilaterals, you're going to see some pressure on that. That is, again, the conundrum of power markets today are still lower than where new build would require power markets to be to earn an adequate return. Whether that's going to come through the RBP or come through bilateral remains to be seen. Jeremy Tonet: Got it. That makes a lot of sense. Since you brought up IRAS, maybe any thoughts you could share there, how you see things unfolding from this point? Jim Burke: Yeah. I'm going to start off, but I'm going to turn it over to Stacey. There's a lot of detail in tracking all of these dockets and how this is unfolding. I just would like to say that our discussions with customers have been evolving over the last two years, and we've mentioned this, that large load customers are willing to be part of the solution. They're willing to offer some flexibility. Our DNA is a choice-based DNA. We like customers to have incentives to be flexible, whether that's speeding them up in the interconnect queue, being able to ramp their load faster, maybe getting a discount on wires or capacity if they offered in DR. So we're much more of a carrot approach, because certain customers are making investments to be flexible. They should be compensated for it in some form, either actually or with speed. Some of these dockets, and we understand why, go much more to a stick approach, and it effectively says, if you don't do these things, you're at risk of disconnection. I think that's a much more blunt instrument, and I think this idea that you might actually be required to curtail before those that were paid to be curtailed, that feels odd to me. That's not the way markets should clear. You should actually have a spectrum of benefits or attributes that customers are willing to be paid for. I think we've got to work on this, and we're going to weigh in on this, as I'm sure many of the stakeholders in the process will weigh in. It's not filed yet, so we don't know all the details, but obviously there'll be a lot to unpack when it comes in. I'm going to let Stacey add any comments to this. Stacey Doré: Yeah. The only thing I would add, really, I think Jim covered it well, is we obviously have said for a long time we don't support bring your own new capacity mandates. As we referenced, even in this discussion today, customers in PJM are already in conversations about bilateral agreements for new build. We should let the market drive the incentives to do that, rather than using the stick approach. We will be weighing in on that proposal when it gets filed at FERC. Many others will be as well. We do continue to believe that data center flexibility is a key asset, really, for the grid. It should be encouraged, but it should be encouraged with incentives. It should also be recognized as a valuable resource that can be used during times of grid tightness. We need to wait and see what the proposal says, and see what provisions are really specified in that proposal before we respond. We do have some concerns about it. We think customers have some concerns about it as well. Frankly, it may actually even give some advantage to co-location with existing resources, we believe, at the end of the day, because there's still a speed advantage to avoiding some of the transmission build that's necessary often to connect front of the meter. Typically in these co-location conversations, customers are bringing backup generation anyway. We actually see it as potentially driving customers to be even more interested in co-location with existing resources. Jeremy Tonet: Got it. That makes a lot of sense. Thank you. Jim Burke: Perfect. Thank you. Operator: The next question comes from Michael Sullivan with Wolfe Research. Please go ahead. Michael Sullivan: Hey, good morning. Jim Burke: Good morning, Michael. Michael Sullivan: Hey, Jim. I want to ask a little more on the Helix platform and just how you see that playing out. You had a big announcement, you're putting some money into it this year. How does that materialize through time? Maybe some color on what the milestones are that would require putting more money into it, and then how does that work at the same time you've been working through some of these existing commercial discussions? Jim Burke: Yeah. Michael, thank you for that. First of all, it is considered an additive proposition for Vistra. As we looked at the extent of the customer conversations we were having, I've even mentioned on previous calls, we've added staff to have conversations, Stacey would say she's still short-staffed to have conversations. It's part of extending our, what I'd call our channel or our capability to actually evaluate more deals. It's focused on both existing assets and new assets, and then bringing a simpler solution for customers so they can talk about the infrastructure of a data center and where it gets its power. Today, they're having to string all these conversations together, and it is complicated, and they go in fits and starts. Being customer-focused, our partnership, obviously led first by KKR, is helping us to bring a platform to a customer conversation. It is an option for Vistra to participate on any of these, so if we want to use an existing asset to support a deal like this, that's our opportunity. It's not a requirement. We're excited about it because the more deals you can evaluate, the better chance you're going to find something that's meeting the spectrum of customer need as they evaluate their business over time. In addition, there's some criteria that if there's certain milestones met and the deals are actually coming and they're valuable to Vistra, then we'd put in an additional $500 million, and we'd be excited to do so because we wanted the interest to be aligned. That was important for us, that was important for KKR, and the other partners, is that there's skin in the game. We're excited about the opportunity. We think this is, again, a customer orientation, and we view that the chance to market our current assets as well as develop some new ones with someone who has a much greater access to capital in a sense that if it's required to do things like powered shells, powered land, that's something we don't believe our shareholders are expecting us to put a lot of capital in, given our core business. Having a partner who can is very complementary, and that's how we see it unfolding. Michael Sullivan: Okay, great. Very helpful. Kris, I think you mentioned just in terms of the financial outlook, midpoint or better in 2026, maybe just a sense of what's driving that. For 2027, the midpoint opportunity, you mentioned the ERCOT softness and some of the offsets there. Should we just think about that as kind of netting out to a similar place or any kind of upward or downward bias around that range? Kris Moldovan: Thanks, Michael. I think on 2026, obviously, what we talked about in the prepared remarks were the start that we've had to the year positions us well. It's not typical for us to change guidance absent if there's a deal has closed or something at this time of the year. We're still getting through the summer. We still feel good about the full year, and that we'll be at or above the midpoint. We have confidence that'll be the case. As we turn to 2027, as you mentioned and as we mentioned in the prepared remarks, the ERCOT forwards are meaningfully lower. That headwind is offset by some higher prices in PJM. We do have the hedging program and the downside protection of the PTC. I would say that they don't fully offset the ERCOT headwinds, so we would be trending towards the lower end of that range. Of course, we have announced two significant transactions that aren't included in that, and that's Cogentrix and the Meta PPA. They're still excluded. Our current expectation is that we'll provide a guidance update for 2026 and 2027 on the third quarter earnings call. If Cogentrix hasn't closed at that time, we'll wait and likely provide an update to earnings for 2027 on our next earnings call after it closes. Again, with those two transactions, though, as you look to 2027 that we have not included, based on our previous disclosures, you could reasonably conclude that they'd add roughly $700 million to our midpoint opportunity, absent any other impacts. Those impacts could obviously be further curve moves or what we learn about the hedge levels with respect to Cogentrix, among some other things. We're excited about 2026, and we feel that we have an opportunity to get back to where we want to be in 2027. Michael Sullivan: Great. Very helpful. Thank you. Operator: The next question comes from James West with Melius Research. Please go ahead. James West: Hey, good morning, Jim and Kris. Jim Burke: Hey, James. James West: Hey. Was curious to dig in a little more on Helix. Clearly, deep pocket is a good term to use to describe your current partners. You also described yourselves as founding partners, which maybe suggests additional partners are coming in. That's kind of the first part of the question. The second part is: How are you thinking about this entity and its capital raising abilities going forward? Is it going to be from these platform companies or these infrastructure companies that you have and these investors that you have, or do you think this is something that could be a publicly traded entity over time? I mean, how are you guys thinking about the evolution here? Kris Moldovan: Yeah, thanks. I think we are a founding investor, and we do expect that they will continue to add more investors over time and substantially increase the amount of the capital that they have access to. I think from how we utilize that, the best word is we have a lot of flexibility in every deal. Each deal will be different, and we could bring them in as an equity partner in any kind of new build power that we do. We could do that all of ourselves. We could search other opportunities to finance those. I think each deal will be different. We do expect to work with them. But on the power side, it'll be a negotiation each time about how we go about financing our portion of any transaction that we get involved in. Jim Burke: James, let me just add, one of the things we were really excited about is KKR actually approached us as part of this and wanted us to be the preferred power partner for this relationship. That gives us a lot of optionality with this. Again, not a requirement. If there is an opportunity for Helix to develop a project in a market that doesn't really make sense for Vistra's capabilities, we may not be the actual power provider in that, and we want Helix to be successful. But since we cover so much of the market and the markets we're in are actually attractive data center markets, we expect to be developing and being in that relationship with Helix to be able to bring a powered solution, whether it's existing assets or new. But we want to be good partners. If we don't have something to bring to the table on something, we'll just be effectively carried in our financial investment that we have committed on the deal. But we do expect a lot of overlap with what we're doing and what they're doing. James West: Okay. Got it. Maybe just one quick follow-up, and you may have mentioned this earlier, I may have missed it, but with Greg Abbott's moratorium here, is there a certain timeline that's been set to go through all the audit process and to clean up the queue? Jim Burke: Yeah. First of all, this is also, I know I've used the term media a couple of times. James West: Sure. Yeah Jim Burke: I'm just trying to recognize that things get distilled to words that aren't being used. Like, there isn't a moratorium at this point in time, and there is a pause on letting people know we were expecting to hear where we would stand from a base load for Batch Zero any day now. We expect that's going to get kicked out, and the PUC and ERCOT are going to work to get through these audits, we think in a couple months' timeframe. We don't see it impacting our projects in the timeframe that we were expecting to energize. It is possible that there were people looking to energize here in the more short-term horizon that might see a delay. I think this is about confidence and the fact that there's a lot of attention on this data center topic. I'll give you a simple example because we lived it. We've got two counties around our nuclear power plant. We had an idea that one of the counties would probably be the more ideal location to start siting a data center. There were eight projects being considered in that county. Per my earlier remarks, there is a reasonable chance there'll be no projects in that county. It stirred up, as you would imagine, a lot of concern in the local community about, "I might be okay with one of these, but I don't know if I'm okay with eight of these." We welcome the queue getting smaller and let the real projects move forward. If there's some short-term delay as a function of that, in the long run, I think we're all going to be better off if we can start talking about more realistic numbers. James West: Makes sense. Thanks, Jim. Jim Burke: Thank you. Operator: The next question comes from Carly Davenport with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Carly Davenport: Hey, good morning. Thank you for taking the question. Jim Burke: Morning, Carly. Carly Davenport: Morning. Maybe just one on capital allocation. Just as you think about that $2 billion-$2.5 billion of cash available for allocation, can you talk about your kind of general willingness to lean in on the buyback if the market gives you opportunities, and if that's something that you would potentially go back to the Board on in terms of the remaining $1.2 billion on the authorization? Kris Moldovan: Yeah. Thanks, Carly. I think I mentioned in the prepared remarks that we do have flexibility. We have the $1.2 billion left. We said that we expect to exhaust that no later than the end of 2027. Both management and the Board. As we look at opportunities for share repurchases, I think there could be an opportunity, and we are flexible in adding to the share repurchase program in 2026 and/or 2027. I think if we add to it in 2026, we will go to the Board and ask for additional authorization to make sure that we have at least $1 billion for 2027, and potentially more. Carly Davenport: Great. Okay. That's very clear. Thank you. Then, maybe just one on, you've referenced the moves in the power curves a number of times on the call. Could you just talk a little bit about the hedge updates that you provided, and particularly on 2028? Is there any detail you can share across regions in terms of how you've changed activity across ERCOT and the East over the last quarter? Jim Burke: Well, Carly, I don't think we're going to talk that much about hedging strategies in detail on the call. You've seen some offsets in the portfolio. Of course, you've seen PJM strengthening. You've seen ERCOT weakening. It helps to be a diversified player in this context, and that has played out, not only in year-to-date results, but we expect that to continue to play out going forward. I think what we're seeing in ERCOT is a recency bias with what we're seeing with the weather, and frankly, a lot of batteries that came into the system post-August 2023, when the ECRS payments were rather large. What we've seen since then is returns on batteries have been about a fifth of what investors probably expected that they would be, and that's the way competitive markets work. There's no guaranteed rate of return. They are putting more supply in critical hours in that bridging solar hours to wind hours, and batteries were able to bridge that at this time. We're seeing the battery queues slow down, which you would expect. That's kind of natural when you're not getting the rates of return that you expected. Then you're going to see the load eventually hook up, and that is something that we've talked about obviously with this data center load. In Texas, the oil and gas and the residential small business load is about 3 of the 5%-6%, so the data center piece is about 2%. You've got 3% CAGR on non-data center sectors, about 2% CAGR being driven by the data center. I think we're going to see some strengthening that you're not seeing at the moment because of the recency effects. I'd be interested. Sean Stucki's here, our head of commercial. They did a little bit of a deep dive on the battery performance just to give some insight as to how that affected pricing over the tightest days. Really, we were not close to any reliability event, but we were closer to seeing pricing that would be more expected with the kind of demand that we saw that day. Sean, I'd love for you to add some commentary there. Shawn Stuckey: Yeah. Thanks, Jim. I'll add a little bit of color. If you look at July 22nd, there was about a three-and-a-half-hour window as the solar was dropping off the grid that you needed the batteries to serve load, and you needed about 25 gigawatt hours worth of batteries to serve, and there's only about 31 gigawatt hours worth of batteries available on the system. Even though that day cleared $57, the batteries knew that they were not going to run out. It was a little bit of a chase to the bottom as they were looking to sort of deplete their energy toward the end of the day and capture the last bit of revenue that they could get. Had they known that they were going to have the ability to price themselves and be a little bit more competitive, we think it's very easy that day could have cleared in closer to a $400 or $500 day. It's just a function of this market that you're sort of right on the razor's edge. It very easily with just a couple thousand megawatts difference in either thermal performance or load and/or wind, $57 could've been $400 or $500. Jim Burke: Just to be clear, razor's edge is more about pricing. There were still reliability reserves that ERCOT was maintaining. As you know, Carly, there's pricing mechanisms that as you get tighter, you'd expect to see the real-time prices reflect that. So it really is a closer dynamic, and that's just the way these markets work. Good for customers. This is exactly the way markets should clear. That's what competition does, whether it's on the retail or the wholesale side. So again, this notion that this is a market that's not able to handle this load growth is not bearing out in the facts. Carly Davenport: Got it. Okay. No, that's super clear. Really helpful color. Thank you. Jim Burke: Thank you, Carly. Operator: The next question comes from David Arcaro with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. David Arcaro: Hey, thanks. Good morning. Jim Burke: Hey, David. David Arcaro: On Helix, I was wondering if you might be able to give any additional color on the project pipeline, in terms of megawatts or any progress or timing that could be possible, just where is it in terms of its development outlook? I'm also curious about return targets, if there's any way that you'd be able to frame that up, maybe versus your own capital return targets internally. Jim Burke: Sure. I'm going to let Stacey take this one, David, since she's working the pipelines, both the internal pipelines that we have and the pipelines that we'll look at with our Helix partnership. Stacey Doré: Thanks, Jim. Obviously we just launched it last month or I guess in June, it's early days, but we're having very close collaboration with KKR in particular, and they are staffing Helix up for development. We're really excited about the opportunity to simplify the conversations, especially on our existing sites. On our own, we are working on in-customer conversations about PPAs for our existing sites. Those end up being, in a lot of cases, multi-party conversations that we have to pull together because typically for those sites, the hyperscaler customers want to bring in a co-location developer, you've got them in the conversation. You've got other equipment providers in the conversation. Helix really is going to provide us an opportunity to simplify those conversations on our existing sites. Excuse me. You can think about the pipeline as really anything that's in our existing portfolio. We're able to bring that to bear with Helix and as well as pipeline conversations that they bring to us where they're getting inbounds from customers and they bring us into the power conversation. There's a number of those conversations as well, where there's opportunities that we would not have otherwise seen, but they're bringing us into the conversation to help them understand what the power possibilities are. It goes both ways. They bring us opportunities, we show them opportunities, and that's just another channel for us to increase our opportunity set. For us at Vistra, we would be looking to achieve the same mid-teens return targets that we've always promised our investors. We would only do projects that hit our return targets. Obviously, Helix is going to have a bit of a different risk appetite for projects, and that's part of why we think it is a good channel for us to be able to look at projects and just benefit even as an investor from projects where maybe we're not providing the power, but they're taking more risk on capital. It's a good opportunity for us to not only have another channel to promote our own pipeline, but also to benefit from the economics associated with data centers to the extent that they get those projects done. We're in very close coordination with them and a lot of activity going on to launch that business, and we're in direct conversations with all of the major hyperscalers about it. Jim Burke: Thanks, Stacey. David Arcaro: Great. Thanks. Yeah, that all makes sense. I appreciate that. I was just curious, looking at Batch Zero, do you have other projects outside of Comanche Peak that you may be working on with partners just within your own development pipeline that might be going through the Batch Zero process? Any color you'd be able to provide there would be great. Stacey Doré: Yeah. Thanks, David. We do have projects in Batch Zero baseload, in Batch Zero to-be-studied load, and even in the to-come Batch One process, which is not yet finalized in terms of the rules for those. We have multiple projects there. We're not going to comment on specifics beyond that, but we do have projects throughout the pipeline of Batch Zero. Jim Burke: I think on the earlier questions, David, about some of the delays, I think the studied load, which would be studied in consideration of the baseload of Batch Zero, that's part of what probably is going to see more of the uncertainty at this point. I think the baseload projects, because they've been studied, we'd expect those to be moving forward. I think the to-be-studied has yet another potential of figuring out what's the allocation, when is that going to be completed. That's why, with some confidence, we feel the baseload projects, and obviously we need to meet delivery dates for our customers, but that's important, that we keep moving forward. We haven't gotten any signals that folks in Austin see the baseload projects at this point as being materially off of a timeframe. As I mentioned, if some were looking to energize in the very near future, there may be an issue, ours are tagged towards next year, we feel we can continue to make the progress we need. Stacey Doré: If I could just add, the PUC and ERCOT have worked really hard this year to launch Batch Zero in record time, frankly, in a very active stakeholder process. Of course, we will know more at the open meeting next week where they discuss the Governor's directive, and it's very important that they carry out the Governor's directive and that what comes out of that are only projects that are going to engage in responsible development. I would just say, I think that the PUC and ERCOT and really all of Texas stakeholders are motivated to preserve the value that they've created through the Batch Zero process and to get the audit done in a timely manner and in a way that it doesn't result in material delays for the projects there. Jim Burke: Yeah, that's a good add. Thanks, Stacey. David Arcaro: Great. Jim Burke: Thanks, David. David Arcaro: Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Operator: The last question today comes from Rini Singh with Bank of America. Please go ahead. Rinny Singh: Hi, guys. Thanks for taking the question. Jim Burke: Hi, Rini. Rinny Singh: I think first, Stacey, you mentioned that the IRAS procedure could increase some of this co-location, especially with speed to advantage in the transmission. How are you thinking about that co-location proceeding? I guess the timeline for it and the remaining uncertainty that we need to figure out for that procedure. Stacey Doré: Thank you for that question. First of all, I'd just say, we were very pleased with FERC's co-location order that came out in June. They have made it crystal clear that PJM and the transmission owners need to accommodate co-location. They need to adopt these new transmission services that do so. They've given PJM very clear instructions about amending the tariff to do so. That was a very positive development for co-location projects, and we see that customers see it that way as well. They had ordered PJM to make a compliance filing and the transmission owners as well by mid-August. PJM and the transmission owners have now asked for more time to do that. We don't know if FERC's going to grant more time, but if they do, I think they will still want there to be as quick of a response as possible because this docket has been pending for some time, and FERC has made it clear they want these projects to be able to move forward with clarity. I think sometime in the next call it 30 to 60 days, whatever amount of time FERC decides to give PJM and the transmission owners, we will see a filing from PJM and the TOs that gets specific around accommodating these arrangements and the types of transmission services that apply to them. That will give all of us clarity about the rates that apply to these projects as well. We're very optimistic about the outcome of that. The order itself, frankly, adopted a lot of Vistra's arguments and positions as we advocated for those projects to be available to customers. Rinny Singh: Okay, great. That makes sense. Thanks, Stacey. If I could just ask, sticking on PJM, just what's the appetite for contracting energy and capacity versus just energy with this environment of potentially the bring your own new capacity charges and then also the possibility of being flexible in your conversations? How is that shaping up? Stacey Doré: Yeah. We're still seeing robust customer appetite for both energy and capacity. In order to actually power their data centers, they need both. They see a rising price environment, they have interest in locking in some cost for that. I wouldn't say that we've seen a big increase in appetite for energy-only deals, although, of course, we're open to whatever conversations customers want to have. The conversations we're in, they're still interested in contracting for energy and capacity. Rinny Singh: Okay, great. Thanks so much, guys. Really appreciate it. Jim Burke: Thank you, Rini. Operator: This concludes our question and answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Jim Burke for any closing remarks. Jim Burke: Thank you everyone for joining. I want to take a moment to thank our team for their continued execution and service to our customers and communities, especially during these hot summer months. The other thing that we'll continue to do is give you the most accurate view we can on these supply and demand variables and how they'll actually play out. Boy, I'm sorry. I thought I was done here, and now I'm giving you more. Look, it's important that we give you an accurate view on these variables because these are serious policy matters, and we're going to be engaged with customers and our peers in the industry and policymakers to get it right. We look forward to updating you on the progress of our business. We look forward to seeing you also in the fall, hopefully in person. Thank you for joining, and have a great day. Operator: The conference is now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect. Before you buy stock in Vistra, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Vistra wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut are built for long-term growth and could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $421,943!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,382,819!* That performance is why people listen. With a track record of beating the S&P 500 by nearly 5x, Stock Advisor offers a distinct advantage. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built for the long haul. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 14, 2026. This article is a transcript of this conference call produced for The Motley Fool. While we strive for our Foolish Best, there may be errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in this transcript. As with all our articles, The Motley Fool does not assume any responsibility for your use of this content, and we strongly encourage you to do your own research, including listening to the call yourself and reading the company's SEC filings. Please see our Terms and Conditions for additional details, including our Obligatory Capitalized Disclaimers of Liability. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Vistra. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Vistra (VST) Q2 2026 Earnings Call Transcript was originally published by The Motley Fool

Download the Complete Report Here Key Takeaways: 2Q26 reinforced IMSR’s milestone-driven commercialization roadmap; the more important development was a material improvement in the long-term economics of the business. Terrestrial Energy advanced across all three execution pillars, engineering and regulation, supply chain, and commercial development, with Texas A&M moving into site execution, NRC and DOE programs progressing, and Riot advancing toward first-site selection. At the same time, management raised estimated lifetime revenue per IMSR Plant to approximately $2.7 billion from $2.1 billion and blended gross margin to 33% from 22%, with 79% of revenue expected after construction through Core-unit and Fuel Salt supply. Commercial and regulatory execution improved visibility into IMSR’s next phase of development. Site control and development agreements moved the flagship RELLIS project into active site-level work, while NRC approval of the PIE methodology added a second reusable foundational element to the IMSR licensing basis and continued TETRA/TEFLA progress further advanced the licensing and fuel-readiness pathway. We view these developments as strengthening the quality of IMSR’s flagship project while further de-risking the path toward commercial deployment. Liquidity remains a meaningful strategic advantage as IMSR moves into a more execution-intensive phase. The company ended 2Q26 with approximately $283.4 million of cash and investments, while quarterly burn declined to $6.4 million, or approximately $2.2 million per month, from $7.9 million in 1Q26. With spending expected to increase in 2H26 as site work, testing and program activity ramp, the balance sheet and absence of financial debt provide substantial flexibility to fund near-term de-risking without creating near-term financing pressure. Texas A&M-RELLIS made the most important project-level progression during the quarter, moving from commercial project selection toward site-specific execution. Terrestrial Energy signed ground-lease and research agreements covering approximately 77 acres at RELLIS, securing site control and enabling characterization and environmental work required for a future NRC construction permit application. The company subsequently engaged Zachry Nuclear to support site characterization and data collection, adding established nuclear engineering capability to the development effort. We view this as a meaningful step beyond the original project announcement, as RELLIS is now progressing from commercial intent toward a controlled development site with work underway to support permit preparation. The next phase should be measured by progress through site characterization, environmental review and construction-permit preparation. These activities are contributing to the expected 2H26 spending ramp, but successful execution would further reduce project risk and improve readiness for licensing, financing and eventual construction. The unit-economics reset meaningfully improves the revenue and gross-profit potential embedded in each successful IMSR deployment. Following roughly 12 to 18 months of additional engineering work, management increased estimated cumulative revenue per IMSR Plant to approximately $2.7 billion from $2.1 billion, or roughly 29%, while blended gross margin rose to 33% from 22%. The revision reflects refinement of the underlying economics rather than a change in the plant design or business model. The revised model includes approximately $98 million of pre-construction revenue at a 23% margin, $477 million of construction services and component supply at 26%, $1.58 billion of Core-unit supply at 33%, and $583 million of Fuel Salt supply at 40%. Fuel strategy remains a core IMSR differentiator, combining a simpler supply-chain pathway with a meaningful recurring revenue opportunity. Management estimates approximately $583 million of Fuel Salt revenue over the life of an IMSR Plant, representing 21% of lifetime revenue at a 40% gross margin. IMSR uses standard-assay LEU enriched below 5% U-235, avoiding the HALEU supply constraints facing many advanced-reactor designs, while Westinghouse is working with Terrestrial Energy on the supply of enriched uranium tetrafluoride and TEFLA is developing the downstream process required to produce commercial IMSR Fuel Salt. Because IMSR is liquid-fueled, the production chain eliminates a separate physical fabrication step involving fuel pins, assemblies or TRISO particles, while qualification is focused on establishing the thermophysical characteristics of the liquid fuel chemistry rather than demonstrating the structural performance of physical fuel elements and cladding. While commercial Fuel Salt production and qualification still need to be completed, the combination of standard enrichment and fewer fabrication steps could reduce an important source of fuel supply complexity and support a high-margin, long-duration revenue stream. Liquid fuel qualification remains less familiar to regulators, however, and still represents an execution requirement. NRC approval of the PIE methodology adds a second reusable element to the IMSR licensing basis. The broader regulatory program is now shifting toward the technical data required for plant licensing and commercial readiness. The approval follows the earlier Principal Design Criteria report, with both analyses able to be referenced in future applications without repeating the underlying regulatory review, an important feature for standardized fleet deployment. Management expects at least two additional Topical Report submissions during the remainder of 2026, while TETRA continues to generate reactor data for a future NRC operating license application, TEFLA advances the commercial Fuel Salt production process, and expanded graphite irradiation testing at NRG Petten supports materials qualification and supplier selection. Supply chain execution is also progressing through continued procurement of fuel, components and services for TETRA and TEFLA, alongside Westinghouse engagement on enriched uranium tetrafluoride supply. We view progress across these programs as continuing to reduce the key regulatory, technical and supply chain dependencies ahead of commercial deployment. The Riot collaboration remains IMSR’s largest incremental data-center opportunity, but the next meaningful milestone is conversion of the 4GW framework into an identifiable first project. Riot and Terrestrial Energy are evaluating multiple IMSR Plants representing up to 4GW of potential nuclear capacity within the broader 7.8GW commercial pipeline, with management now focused on down-selecting an initial site. We believe the opportunity should increasingly be measured by progress toward site control, development scope, financing and offtake rather than aggregate GW, as first-site selection would begin converting a broad commercial framework into a site-specific development opportunity. Project financing should become an increasingly important measure of commercial de-risking as IMSR’s project pipeline advances, particularly given Terrestrial Energy’s capital-light role. Management does not expect first-of-a-kind projects to rely solely on conventional non-recourse project finance, with early deployments more likely to require a combination of strategic customer capital, infrastructure partners and government support. Importantly, Terrestrial Energy intends to direct corporate capital toward engineering, licensing, Core-unit manufacturing and Fuel Salt production rather than owning and funding multibillion-dollar generating assets. We therefore view evidence of third-party capital formation around Texas A&M, Riot and other projects as an increasingly important commercial KPI, as it would validate the ability to advance deployments while preserving the company’s capital-light business model. Leadership additions are increasingly aligned with the next phase of licensing and project execution. Pamela Cowan joined as EVP of Engineering in July with more than 35 years of nuclear-sector experience, while Kathryn McCarthy joined the Board following senior nuclear-project roles at Idaho National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The organizational buildout is also beginning to show in the cost base, with 2Q26 G&A expense rising approximately $0.7 million sequentially to $8.0 million, including roughly $0.5 million of higher stock-based compensation. We view the increase as primarily supporting execution capacity as RELLIS enters site work, additional NRC submissions are prepared, and TETRA/TEFLA activity advances. Financial performance remained consistent with IMSR’s pre-revenue development stage, with sequential loss improvement primarily reflecting testing timing and higher investment income rather than a change in underlying spending requirements. Net loss narrowed to $9.4 million from $10.5 million in 1Q26, while R&D declined approximately $1.1 million sequentially to $3.5 million as certain testing expenditures shifted between periods and G&A increased to $8.0 million from approximately $7.3 million. Other income improved to approximately $2.35 million, supported by $2.48 million of interest and dividend income and minimal interest expense. We continue to view GAAP earnings as a secondary KPI at this stage, with the more relevant measure being whether development spending translates into licensing, technical and commercial milestones. Liquidity remains a meaningful strategic advantage as IMSR enters a more execution-intensive phase of commercialization and project development. Terrestrial Energy ended June with approximately $283.4 million of cash and investments, compared with $289.9 million at the end of 1Q26, while quarterly cash burn declined to $6.4 million, or approximately $2.2 million per month, from $7.9 million in 1Q26. The improvement largely reflected timing and scope changes across testing activities, including the expanded graphite irradiation program, while management expects spending to increase through the second half as RELLIS site characterization, testing, DOE-backed TETRA/TEFLA programs and organizational capacity ramp. Working-capital requirements remain modest, with accounts payable and accrued expenses of approximately $4.3 million and total current liabilities of only $6.2 million at quarter end. With more than $280 million of liquidity and no financial debt, IMSR retains substantial flexibility to fund this higher level of activity without near-term financing pressure. A key monitorable is whether the 2H26 spending ramp converts into tangible regulatory, technical and project milestones that further de-risk commercialization. 2H26 should be defined by higher investment and additional de-risking across licensing, project development and the two principal supply businesses. Management continues to expect at least two additional NRC Topical Report submissions during the remainder of 2026, while work at the approximately 77-acre Texas A&M-RELLIS site should progress through characterization, environmental evaluation and preparation for a future construction permit application. TETRA and TEFLA remain central to generating licensing-quality reactor data and developing the commercial Fuel Salt production process, while additional graphite irradiation cycles support materials qualification and supplier down-selection. Commercially, the next steps include advancing Riot toward first-site selection within the previously announced up-to-4GW framework and developing the Core-unit and Fuel Salt production capabilities that underpin 79% of estimated lifetime plant revenue and the revised ~$2.7 billion per-plant economics. With spending expected to rise from the $6.4 million 2Q26 burn, we believe 2H26 execution should be judged less on near-term earnings and more on whether incremental investment converts into tangible licensing, site, fuel and manufacturing milestones that support the targeted 2034 first commercial operation. Disclaimer: Exec Edge does not publish proprietary estimates, ratings, price targets, or investment recommendations. The valuation discussion below is illustrative only and is based on company filings, management commentary, and third-party data and estimates. It does not constitute a recommendation, price target, rating, or prediction of future pricing. IMSR’s current valuation assigns a relatively modest enterprise value to the technology and development platform despite substantial liquidity and improving commercial economics. At $5.81 per share, Terrestrial Energy carries a market capitalization of roughly $616 million and adjusted enterprise value of approximately $332 million after netting $283.4 million of cash and investments at 2Q26 end, with no meaningful financial debt. Liquidity therefore represents approximately 46% of current equity value, while the remaining enterprise value reflects the company’s reactor technology and IP, two approved foundational NRC analyses, Texas A&M-RELLIS development site, DOE-supported TETRA and TEFLA programs, and commercial project pipeline. The valuation discount has widened despite continued regulatory, commercial and economic de-risking. At approximately $5.81 per share, IMSR trades well below the current Street target mean of $13.50. The shares also remain more than 40% below the $10.00 SPAC transaction price. More recently, adjusted EV has declined approximately 31% from the ~$482 million level at our May earnings update to ~$332 million currently, despite subsequent progress across Texas A&M site development, continued NRC and DOE execution, and the increase in estimated lifetime revenue per plant to ~$2.7 billion from $2.1 billion with blended gross margin rising to 33% from 22%. IMSR remains pre-revenue and meaningful licensing, engineering and project execution risks remain, but continued progress across NRC submissions, RELLIS development, Fuel Salt and Core-unit manufacturing, Riot first-site selection and project financing should incrementally reduce the probability discount applied to future deployments. Relative valuation provides additional context for the re-rating opportunity. Established Gen III operators command substantially higher EVs supported by operating assets and cash flows, while pre-revenue Gen IV developers trade primarily on regulatory progress, project visibility, fuel readiness and execution credibility. Within the advanced-reactor group, IMSR’s ~$332 million adjusted enterprise value remains toward the lower end of the peer range, despite substantial liquidity and continued progress across licensing, site development and commercial readiness. Given material differences in reactor technology, licensing maturity and business model, peer EVs are not directly comparable, but the current discount reinforces the extent to which commercialization timing and execution risk remain embedded in IMSR’s valuation. Successful delivery against upcoming regulatory, fuel, project and financing milestones provides the clearest pathway toward narrowing that gap. Read Exec Edge’s Initiation on Terrestrial Energy Here Subscribe to our Weekly Newsletter to Receive All Research Contact: Executives-Edge.com [email protected] The post Terrestrial Energy’s Lifetime Revenue Up 29%, Advancing in Texas A&M, DOE Fuel Program – Quarterly Update Report appeared first on ExecEdge.

GE Vernova Inc.’s GEV second-quarter 2026 results suggest that the company is entering a stronger earnings growth phase. The company delivered significant growth in orders and revenues, expanded margins and generated substantial free cash flow during the quarter. With demand continuing to build across its Power and Electrification businesses, GE Vernova is increasingly benefiting from a combination of higher volumes, favorable pricing and improved execution.The company’s second-quarter performance was particularly strong on the top line. Revenues reached $11.1 billion, representing a 22% year-over-year increase and 12% organic growth. Orders were even stronger, reaching $24.2 billion, up 88% organically, driven primarily by Power and Electrification. GE Vernova’s backlog also increased $13 billion sequentially to approximately $176 billion, providing substantial visibility into future revenues.Profitability is another important part of the earnings story. Adjusted EBITDA increased to $1.2 billion, while adjusted EBITDA margin reached 11.3%, marking an improvement of 340 basis points organically. The improvement reflects stronger volumes, favorable pricing and disciplined execution. As more of GE Vernova’s growing backlog converts into revenues, continued operating leverage could provide additional support to earnings and margins.GE Vernova’s raised 2026 guidance further highlights the strength of its current momentum. The company now expects revenues of $45.5-$46.5 billion compared with its previous outlook of $44.5-$45.5 billion. Free cash flow guidance was also raised to $11.5-$12.5 billion from $6.5-$7.5 billion, while adjusted EBITDA margin guidance remained unchanged at 12-14%. Rising electricity demand, data-center expansion and tight power markets are creating a favorable earnings environment for utilities with growing generation capacity and strong power portfolios.Vistra VST is benefiting from higher power and capacity prices, an expanding generation portfolio and growing demand from large electricity users.Constellation Energy CEG is positioned to benefit from rising demand for reliable, carbon-free power, particularly from data centers and other large customers. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for 2026 earnings per share (EPS) indicates an increase of 74.11% and that for 2027 EPS implies a decline of 21.2% year over year. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research GEV is trading at a premium relative to the industry, with a forward 12-month price-to-earnings of 38.82X compared with the industry average of 24.81X. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research In the past six months, the company’s shares have risen 30.4% against the industry’s 5.5% decline. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research The company currently has a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report GE Vernova Inc. (GEV) : Free Stock Analysis Report Constellation Energy Corporation (CEG) : Free Stock Analysis Report Vistra Corp. (VST) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research (zacks.com). Zacks Investment Research

Vistra Corp. VST reported second-quarter 2026 earnings of $1.80 per share, which beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.54 by 16.9%. GAAP diluted earnings were 76 cents per share, down 6.2% from 81 cents a year ago.The reaction from the market was quite positive after the earnings release, with the stock gaining 3.08% since VST reported second-quarter results. Revenues totaled $4.02 billion, missing the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $6.29 billion by 36.2% and declining 5.5% year over year. Operating revenues fell to $4.02 billion from $4.25 billion a year earlier. The decline primarily reflected a $611 million increase in unrealized mark-to-market losses on commodity derivative positions. However, higher retail contractual rates, stronger wholesale capacity and energy revenues and the addition of plants acquired from Lotus provided partial offsets. Vistra Corp. price-consensus-eps-surprise-chart | Vistra Corp. Quote Total retail electricity sales volume declined 4.4% to 31,800 GWh, as ERCOT sales volumes fell 7.8% and Northeast/Midwest volumes increased 0.7%.Fuel, purchased power costs and delivery fees declined 10.1% to $1.77 billion. Lower costs reflected a $123 million increase in unrealized mark-to-market gains on commodity derivatives and lower realized fuel costs from optimizing dispatch of select gas units, partly offset by the acquired Lotus plants.Operating costs increased 16.4% to $853 million, driven mainly by higher maintenance and outage costs, the Lotus plants and incremental costs tied to the Moss Landing incident, net of insurance recoveries. Selling, general and administrative expenses fell 6.4% to $392 million, reflecting lower transition and merger costs and legal settlements.Ongoing operations adjusted EBITDA rose 31% to $1.77 billion, aided by higher realized energy and capacity prices and contributions from the Lotus assets.Operating income rose 7.4% to $553 million. Net income attributable to Vistra decreased 6.7% to $305 million, mainly because unrealized mark-to-market losses on derivative positions increased by $488 million. As of Aug. 3, 2026, Vistra had hedged nearly 100% of expected generation volumes for 2026, 94% for 2027 and 72% for 2028. Management said the hedging program supports the company's 2026 outlook and helps reduce exposure to changes in forward power prices. Cash and cash equivalents were $435 million at June 30, 2026, compared with $785 million at year-end 2025. Total available liquidity stood at $6.30 billion, including $4.41 billion available under the corporate revolving credit facility and $1.45 billion under the commodity-linked facility.Cash provided by operating activities for the first six months of 2026 rose 89.8% to $2.22 billion. Vistra spent $709 million on share repurchases during the period. As of Aug. 3, roughly $1.2 billion remained under the authorization, which the company expects to complete no later than year-end 2027. Vistra reaffirmed 2026 ongoing operations adjusted EBITDA guidance of $6.8-$7.6 billion and ongoing operations adjusted free cash flow before growth of $3.925-$4.725 billion.Management said first-half performance supports an outcome at or above the midpoint of the 2026 ranges.The company also advanced several growth initiatives. Vistra committed up to $1 billion to Helix Digital Infrastructure and will serve as its preferred power partner. It also received FERC approval for the pending Cogentrix Energy acquisition, which is expected to close in late 2026 and add about 5,500 MW of natural gas generation capacity. The company currently has a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here. Duke Energy Corporation's DUK second-quarter 2026 earnings of $1.43 per share surpassed the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.29 by 10.9%. The bottom line increased 14.4% from $1.25 reported in the year-ago quarter.Total operating revenues were $7.59 billion, which missed the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $7.72 billion by 1.6%. The top line increased 1% from $7.51 billion in the year-ago period.CenterPoint Energy, Inc. CNP reported second-quarter 2026 adjusted earnings of 40 cents per share, which surpassed the Zacks Consensus Estimate of 37 cents by 8.1%. The bottom line increased 37.9% from the year-ago quarter’s figure of 29 cents.CNP generated revenues of $2.15 billion, which beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate by 1.8%. The top line was 10.7% higher than the year-ago quarter’s reported figure of $1.94 billion.CMS Energy Corporation CMS reported second-quarter 2026 adjusted EPS of 37 cents, which came in line with the Zacks Consensus Estimate. However, the bottom line declined 47.9% from 71 cents in the year-ago quarter.CMS' operating revenues totaled $1.83 billion, which missed the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.91 billion by 4.2%. The top line also fell 0.5% from $1.84 billion in the prior-year quarter. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Vistra Corp. (VST) : Free Stock Analysis Report Duke Energy Corporation (DUK) : Free Stock Analysis Report CMS Energy Corporation (CMS) : Free Stock Analysis Report CenterPoint Energy, Inc. (CNP) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research (zacks.com). Zacks Investment Research

Vistra Corp. VST used its second-quarter 2026 earnings call to reinforce a power-demand outlook driven by data centers and broader load growth, while acknowledging softer ERCOT pricing. Management sharpened 2027 framing, expanded on Helix and emphasized capital-allocation flexibility. Executive vice president and CFO Kristopher Moldovan reaffirmed 2026 adjusted EBITDA guidance of $6.8 billion to $7.6 billion and adjusted free cash flow before growth of $3.925 billion to $4.725 billion. He expects results at or above both midpoints. President and CEO James Burke highlighted second-quarter adjusted EBITDA of $1.767 billion, up more than 30% year over year. Fleet commercial availability exceeded 97% during recent heat in Texas and PJM. VST’s second-quarter 2026 earnings of $1.80 per share topped the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.54. However, revenues of $4.02 billion missed the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $6.29 billion. Vistra Corp. price-consensus-eps-surprise-chart | Vistra Corp. Quote The CEO maintained Vistra's view of annual load growth of at least 4% to 6% in ERCOT and 2% to 3% in PJM through 2030. He expects data centers to become a larger driver from 2028. A Wells Fargo analyst pressed management on Texas data center audits and Batch Zero delays. CEO Burke said reviews could pause for a few months, but Vistra does not expect its late-2027 Comanche Peak project to be affected. Chief strategy and sustainability officer Stacey Dore said Vistra remains in active discussions across multiple ERCOT and PJM sites. She added that customers are still willing to contract before every regulatory detail is settled. CFO Kristopher Moldovan said current ERCOT forward curves are meaningfully below levels used for Vistra's 2027 midpoint opportunity range of $7.4 billion to $7.8 billion. Higher PJM prices, hedges and nuclear production tax credit protection support maintaining the range. A Wolfe Research analyst asked about the 2027 bias. Moldovan clarified that those offsets do not fully cover the ERCOT headwind and said Vistra is trending toward the lower end of the range. Cogentrix and the Meta power purchase agreements remain excluded. The CFO said prior disclosures support roughly $700 million of additional midpoint opportunity from those items before other impacts. He expects a 2026 and 2027 guidance update on the third-quarter call, subject to Cogentrix's closing timetable. CEO James Burke described Helix as an added channel for data center opportunities, not a required route. Vistra has committed up to $1 billion, with funding above $500 million tied to milestones, and will serve as Helix's preferred power partner. Wolfe Research and Morgan Stanley analysts asked about Helix's pipeline and economics. Chief strategy and sustainability officer Stacey Dore said the platform can draw from Vistra's sites and bring new inbound customer opportunities. Dore said any Vistra power project pursued through Helix must meet the company's mid-teens return targets. Helix can also take a different capital-risk profile where Vistra does not provide the power. CFO Moldovan said Vistra expects more than $10 billion of available cash across 2026 and 2027. About $3 billion is allocated to equity holders and $4.5 billion to $5 billion to growth, leaving $2 billion to $2.5 billion for further allocation. A Goldman Sachs analyst asked about faster buybacks. Moldovan said the remaining $1.2 billion authorization should be exhausted no later than year-end 2027 and management has flexibility to seek additional authorization. The CFO also reiterated Vistra's goal of mid-investment-grade ratings at three major agencies. He said disciplined EBITDA growth is the primary path, with debt reduction available when appropriate. CEO Burke closed by emphasizing reliable fleet performance, disciplined development and a realistic view of power-market supply and demand as policy debates continue. Management paired confidence in long-term load growth with caution around ERCOT pricing, regulatory timing and the pace at which data center demand converts into contracted load. VST carries a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold) at present. Its Momentum Score and VGM Score are A, while its Value Score and Growth Score are B, leaving all four scores in the A-B range. Style Scores complement the Zacks Rank, and the strongest combinations are generally associated with Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) or 2 (Buy) stocks. VST's rank can change as earnings estimates are revised after the reported results. You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank stocks here. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Vistra Corp. (VST) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research (zacks.com). Zacks Investment Research

Interested in Vistra Corp.? Here are five stocks we like better. Vistra’s second-quarter adjusted EBITDA rose more than 30% to $1.767 billion, driven by stronger generation earnings and continued retail performance. The company reaffirmed its 2026 adjusted EBITDA guidance of $6.8 billion to $7.6 billion and expects to perform at or above the midpoint. Management cited structurally stronger electricity demand, with record summer peaks in PJM and ERCOT and projected annual load growth through 2030. However, lower ERCOT forward prices are pushing the company toward the lower end of its 2027 EBITDA range, partly offset by PJM pricing, hedging and nuclear tax credits. Vistra is expanding its data-center strategy through Helix Digital Infrastructure, a partnership with KKR, NVIDIA and the Kuwait Investment Authority, committing up to $1 billion. It also plans significant capital deployment toward growth projects, shareholder returns and potential debt reduction through 2027. Analysts See Major Upside for These 5 Stocks Vistra (NYSE:VST) reported second-quarter adjusted EBITDA of $1.767 billion, up more than 30% from about $1.35 billion a year earlier, as higher generation earnings and continued retail strength lifted results. The company reaffirmed its full-year financial outlook and said it remains on track for another record year in 2026. President and Chief Executive Officer Jim Burke said the company is seeing a “structurally improved demand environment” in its core markets. Both PJM and ERCOT recorded new all-time summer peak loads in July, with PJM exceeding 168 gigawatts and ERCOT surpassing 91 gigawatts. → No Hangover: Revisiting Microsoft One Week After Earnings Atomic Dividends: Big Tech's New Energy Bet Burke said Vistra continues to estimate annual load growth of at least 4% to 6% in ERCOT and 2% to 3% in PJM through 2030. While data centers are expected to be a significant contributor, particularly from 2028 onward, he said industrial reshoring, electrification, population growth in Texas and broader economic expansion are also driving demand. Vistra’s generation segment produced about $994 million in second-quarter adjusted EBITDA, compared with approximately $593 million in the prior-year quarter. Chief Financial Officer Kris Moldovan attributed the improvement primarily to favorable hedging activity, which resulted in average realized prices that were approximately 5% higher per megawatt-hour than a year earlier. → MarketBeat Week in Review – 08/03 - 08/07 Radioactive Returns: Geopolitics and AI Fuel a Nuclear Supercycle Other factors included higher PJM capacity revenues, optimization of flexible gas generation to capture margin opportunities, the restart of Martin Lake Unit 1 and contributions from assets acquired from Lotus in the third quarter of 2025. The retail business contributed about $773 million in adjusted EBITDA, compared with approximately $756 million a year earlier. Moldovan noted that the second and fourth quarters are typically the strongest seasonal periods for retail margins. → Why the Landlord of the AI Boom Could Outlast the Chipmakers Operationally, Burke said Vistra completed planned refueling outages at three nuclear units and 92 planned outages across its gas and coal fleet ahead of the summer season. During recent heat waves in Texas and PJM, the company achieved commercial availability above 97% across its fleet, he said. Vistra reaffirmed 2026 adjusted EBITDA guidance of $6.8 billion to $7.6 billion and adjusted free cash flow before growth guidance of $3.925 billion to $4.725 billion. Moldovan said first-half performance gives the company confidence it can deliver results at or above the midpoint of those ranges. The company also maintained its 2027 adjusted EBITDA midpoint opportunity range of $7.4 billion to $7.8 billion. Moldovan said ERCOT forward curves are “meaningfully lower” than the levels used when the range was established in late 2025, but higher PJM prices, Vistra’s hedging program and downside protection from the nuclear production tax credit provide offsets. Still, Moldovan said those factors do not fully offset the ERCOT headwinds and that the company is trending toward the lower end of the range. The 2027 range excludes the pending Cogentrix acquisition and expected above-market value from long-term power purchase agreements at Vistra’s PJM nuclear sites with Meta. Based on prior disclosures, Moldovan said those two transactions could add roughly $700 million to Vistra’s 2027 midpoint opportunity, absent other factors such as market-curve changes or Cogentrix hedge levels. Vistra announced a partnership with KKR, NVIDIA and the Kuwait Investment Authority as a founding investor in Helix Digital Infrastructure. The platform is intended to combine power solutions, land and other digital infrastructure for data-center customers. Vistra committed up to $1 billion to Helix over time, with investments above $500 million subject to specified milestones. The company will also act as Helix’s preferred power partner and may participate in projects through contracted new generation or contracts involving existing assets. Burke said the arrangement is additive to Vistra’s existing data-center strategy rather than a replacement for its own development efforts. The company retains the option to pursue projects with Helix or independently. Chief Strategy and Sustainability Officer Stacey Doré said Helix could simplify multiparty discussions involving hyperscale customers, co-location developers and equipment providers. Vistra would pursue only projects that meet its established mid-teens levered return threshold, while Helix could also provide exposure to projects where Vistra is not the power provider. Vistra expects to generate more than $10 billion of available cash across 2026 and 2027. The company has allocated roughly $3 billion to shareholders through repurchases and common and preferred dividends, while planning $4.5 billion to $5 billion for growth investments, including Cogentrix, Permian gas units, PJM nuclear projects supported by Meta agreements, the Oak Hill 2 solar project and Helix. Since beginning its repurchase program in November 2021, Vistra has retired about 171 million shares at an average cost of roughly $38 each. It has returned more than $6.5 billion through repurchases and has about $1.2 billion remaining under its current authorization, which it expects to use by the end of 2027. The company expects an additional $2 billion to $2.5 billion of cash to be available for allocation through the end of 2027. Moldovan said Vistra will balance potential shareholder returns, growth investments meeting its return threshold, debt reduction and efforts to improve its credit profile. In Texas, Burke said Vistra supports efforts to audit and narrow the ERCOT data-center interconnection queue, which he said has included demand estimates substantially above the company’s own long-term forecast. He said Vistra does not view the process as a moratorium and does not expect it to affect its Comanche Peak project, which is targeted for energization at the end of 2027. In PJM, Doré said Vistra remains in active discussions with customers for both existing generation and new-build projects. She said the company supports market-based incentives for data-center load flexibility rather than mandates requiring customers to bring their own new capacity. Vistra (NYSE: VST) is an integrated power company that develops, owns and operates electricity generation and retail businesses in the United States. The company's operations span wholesale power production—through a diversified fleet of thermal and lower‑carbon generation assets—and retail electricity supply to residential, commercial and industrial customers. Vistra serves organized wholesale markets and competitive retail markets, with a notable presence in Texas and other regional U.S. power markets. Vistra's core activities include the ownership and operation of generation facilities, the commercial dispatch and optimization of those assets into wholesale markets, and the sale of electricity and related services to end-use customers through its retail brands. This instant news alert was generated by narrative science technology and financial data from MarketBeat in order to provide readers with the fastest reporting and unbiased coverage. Please send any questions or comments about this story to [email protected]. The article "Vistra Q2 Earnings Call Highlights" was originally published by MarketBeat. View MarketBeat's top stocks for August 2026.

Concerned about an AI bubble? Sign up for The Daily Upside for smart and actionable market news, built for investors. Beneath the obvious AI hyperscaler stocks — Meta, Nvidia and so on — lies another layer of trades: the energy companies providing the power AI needs to, for instance, edit your ex out of the family photo. Vistra, one of the leading US power generators, reports this morning as it builds out capacity to meet the demand of AI giants. Rival power provider Constellation Energy meanwhile boosted its forecast for the year yesterday after reporting $7.5 billion in second-quarter sales. Sign up for The Daily Upside at no cost for premium analysis on all your favorite stocks. READ ALSO: Can a Manufacturing Rebound Turn Fluor’s Fortunes Around? and For Moderna’s Greenlit mRNA Flu Vaccine, Payoff Is a Ways Off US power use is expected to keep notching record highs in 2026 and 2027, according to the Energy Information Administration. Data centers could suck up a fifth of the US’s total electricity in 2035, up from about 6% today, BloombergNEF found. In states with more data centers, including Texas, that share is expected to be higher. The grid’s already strained, and the record amount of capacity it’s been able to supply to data centers in the past is just over 7 gigawatts a year (one gigawatt is roughly the equivalent of one nuclear reactor). BloombergNEF analysts expect the grid to come 19 gigawatts short of what data centers demand by 2035. To fill the gap, hyperscalers and power companies like Vistra and Constellation are trying to create sparks any way they can: AI is sourcing its juice from both natural-gas and nuclear options. Earlier this year, Vistra struck a deal to buy Cogentrix Energy and its 10 gas-fired power plants for $4.7 billion and reached a 20-year agreement that’ll see Meta buy power from some of Vistra’s nuclear plants. Constellation Energy has forged deals to supply nuclear power to Meta and Microsoft. Constellation said in 2024 it plans to restart Three Mile Island, where the US’s worst nuclear meltdown occurred. The power generated there will supply Microsoft. Not Overnight: AI’s demand could continue to outpace power providers’ ability to meet it, straining the grid and pushing up electricity prices. When explaining Vistra’s projections for how quickly it could increase its available power supply, president and CEO Jim Burke hedged investors’ expectations this spring, saying, “The physical world takes much longer to develop than what people might imagine it takes.” This post first appeared on The Daily Upside. To receive razor sharp analysis and perspective on all things finance, economics, and markets, subscribe to our free The Daily Upside newsletter.

This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Adjusted EBITDA (Q2 2026): $1,767 million, a more than 30% increase compared to $1.35 billion in Q2 2025. Generation Segment Adjusted EBITDA: Approximately $994 million in Q2 2026, up from approximately $593 million in Q2 2025. Retail Segment Adjusted EBITDA: Approximately $773 million in Q2 2026, compared to approximately $756 million in Q2 2025. Average Realized Prices: Approximately 5% higher on a per megawatt hour basis compared to the same quarter last year. 2026 Adjusted EBITDA Guidance: Reaffirmed at $6.8 billion to $7.6 billion. 2026 Adjusted Free Cash Flow Before Growth Guidance: Reaffirmed at $3.925 billion to $4.725 billion. 2027 Adjusted EBITDA Midpoint Opportunity Range: Maintained at $7.4 billion to $7.8 billion. Available Cash (2026-2027): Forecast to generate more than $10 billion. Shareholder Returns (2026-2027): Approximately $3 billion allocated through share repurchases and common and preferred dividends. Share Repurchase Program: Retired approximately 171 million shares at an average cost of approximately $38 per share since November 2021; returned over $6.5 billion to shareholders through August 3. Growth Investments (2026-2027): Approximately $4.5 billion to $5 billion allocated, including Cogentrix acquisition, Permian gas units, PGM nuclear, Oak Hill 2 solar, and Helix capital commitment. Additional Cash Available: Approximately $2 billion to $2.5 billion expected to be available for allocation through year-end 2027. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 6 Warning Signs with VST. Is VST fairly valued? Test your thesis with our free DCF calculator. Release Date: August 07, 2026 For the complete transcript of the earnings call, please refer to the full earnings call transcript. Vistra Corp (NYSE:VST) delivered a strong second quarter with adjusted EBITDA of $1.767 billion, a 30% year-over-year increase, driven by favorable hedging, higher PJM capacity revenues, and contributions from new assets. The company reaffirmed its 2026 guidance and expects to deliver at or above the midpoint of its adjusted EBITDA and free cash flow ranges, reflecting confidence in its operational execution. Vistra Corp (NYSE:VST) announced a strategic partnership with KKR, NVIDIA, and the Kuwait Investment Authority to launch Helix digital infrastructure, positioning the company as a preferred power partner and expanding its growth opportunities in the data center market. The company's diversified fleet achieved over 97% commercial availability during recent heat waves in Texas and PJM, demonstrating operational excellence and reliability. Vistra Corp (NYSE:VST) has returned over $6.5 billion to shareholders through share repurchases since 2021, exceeding its original target, and maintains a strong capital allocation strategy with $2-2.5 billion in additional cash available through 2027. ERCOT forward curves have softened significantly, with power prices lower than expected, which could pressure future earnings despite offsetting factors like higher PJM prices and hedging. The Texas data center audit and potential delays in the ERCOT interconnection queue create near-term uncertainty for load growth and project timelines, though the company expects minimal impact on its key projects. The company's 2027 adjusted EBITDA midpoint opportunity range is trending toward the lower end due to ERCOT headwinds, with the benefit of the Cogentrix acquisition and Meta PPA excluded from the current guidance. Regulatory uncertainty in PJM, including the proposed IRAS framework and potential capacity market changes, could impact future revenue streams and create challenges for new build economics. The Helix digital infrastructure partnership involves a capital commitment of up to $1 billion, with additional investments subject to milestones, which could divert capital from other opportunities if not managed carefully. Q: How is Vistra viewing the Texas data center audit and potential delays, and what is the impact on near-term outlook and hedging strategies for 2027-2028?A: Jim Burke (CEO) stated that Vistra's long-term ERCOT load forecast of 115-120 gigawatts by 2030 remains unchanged. He supports the audit as a way to thin out an overstated queue (over 400 GW proposed vs. 12-15 GW expected), which will help policymakers make better decisions. The near-term pause is not expected to affect Vistra's key Comanche Peak project, targeted for energization at the end of 2027. The company's comprehensive hedging program is designed to mitigate near-term market softness. Q: Can you provide more detail on the Helix digital infrastructure platform, including how it will materialize, what milestones trigger additional investment, and how it works alongside existing commercial discussions?A: Jim Burke (CEO) explained that Helix is an additive proposition that extends Vistra's channel to evaluate more deals, focusing on both existing and new assets. It provides a one-stop-shop solution for customers, simplifying the complex process of combining power and data center infrastructure. Vistra's role is as a preferred power partner, not a requirement, and the additional $500 million investment is contingent on achieving certain milestones that prove valuable to Vistra. This structure allows Vistra to maintain optionality while benefiting from KKR's greater access to capital for projects like powered shells. Q: What are the relative dynamics between PJM and ERCOT in securing new contracts, and how do the conversations compare and contrast?A: Jim Burke (CEO) and Stacey Dore (EVP, Chief Strategy & Sustainability Officer) noted that both markets are seeing high interest, but they are at different levels of maturity. ERCOT is currently less tight, with a pause in the study process, while PJM has a more localized process. Customers are not waiting for perfect regulatory clarity to contract, as risks can be managed through contractual provisions. Vistra is in active discussions across multiple sites in both markets for existing resources and new builds. Q: What is Vistra's strategy regarding the PJM RBP (Reliability Pricing Model), the level of appeals, and how does it compare to bilateral discussions?A: Jim Burke (CEO) stated that Vistra supports bilateral discussions as a willing buyer/willing seller marketplace, which could reduce the required RBP procured amount. The $555 per megawatt-day price may need a spread for certain projects to work, given rising equipment and EPC costs. The company believes that successful bilaterals could lessen dependence on the capacity market and provide clearer return expectations. The conundrum remains that current power prices are still lower than what new build requires for an adequate return. Q: What are Vistra's thoughts on the IRAS (Interconnection Rights and Access Service) proposal, and how might it unfold?A: Jim Burke (CEO) and Stacey Dore (EVP) expressed concerns about the "stick" approach of IRAS, which could require curtailment before those paid to be curtailed. Vistra prefers a "carrot" approach, incentivizing customer flexibility. They do not support bring-your-own-new-capacity mandates and believe the market should drive incentives. The proposal may actually give an advantage to co-location with existing resources, as it offers a speed advantage and customers often bring backup generation anyway. Q: Can you provide more color on the financial outlook for 2026 and 2027, including what is driving the confidence in the midpoint and the offsets to ERCOT softness?A: Kristopher Moldovan (CFO) stated that the strong first-half performance positions Vistra to deliver at or above the midpoint of 2026 guidance. For 2027, lower ERCOT forwards are a headwind, but this is partially offset by higher PJM prices, the hedging program, and nuclear PTC downside protection. The company is trending towards the lower end of the 2027 range, but the excluded Cogentrix acquisition and Meta PPA could add roughly $700 million to the midpoint opportunity. Guidance updates are expected on the Q3 earnings call. Q: How is Vistra thinking about capital allocation, specifically the willingness to lean in on buybacks and potentially go back to the board for additional authorization?A: Kristopher Moldovan (CFO) confirmed that Vistra has flexibility with the remaining $1.2 billion share repurchase authorization, expected to be exhausted by the end of 2027. Management and the board are open to adding to the program in 2026 and/or 2027 if market conditions warrant. If they add in 2026, they would go to the board to ensure at least $1 billion is available for 2027. Q: Can you provide details on hedging updates, particularly for 2028, and how activity has changed across ERCOT and the East?A: Jim Burke (CEO) declined to provide specific hedging details but noted the benefits of diversification, with PJM strengthening and ERCOT weakening. He attributed ERCOT softness to a "recency bias" from weather and a significant influx of batteries that have performed below expectations, adding supply during critical hours. A deep dive on July 22 showed that a day clearing at $57 could have easily cleared at $400-$500 with just a few thousand megawatts difference, highlighting the razor's edge nature of pricing. Q: What is the project pipeline and return targets for the Helix platform, and how does it compare to Vistra's internal targets?A: Stacey Dore (EVP) stated that Helix is in early days but is being staffed up by KKR. The pipeline includes opportunities from Vistra's existing portfolio and new inbounds brought by Helix. Vistra will only pursue projects that meet its mid-teens levered return threshold. Helix may have a different risk appetite, allowing Vistra to benefit as an investor from projects where it may not provide the power, broadening its opportunity set. Q: How is Vistra thinking about the FERC colocation proceeding, its timeline, and the remaining uncertainty?A: Stacey Dore (EVP) expressed satisfaction with FERC's June colocation order, which clearly directs PJM and transmission owners to accommodate colocation. PJM and the TOs have requested more time for a compliance filing, but FERC is expected to push for a quick response For the complete transcript of the earnings call, please refer to the full earnings call transcript.

Vistra Corp. VST is expected to deliver an improvement in both top and bottom lines when it reports second-quarter 2026 results on Aug. 7, before market open. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for VST’s second-quarter revenues is pegged at $6.29 billion, indicating an increase of 48.07% from the year-ago reported figure. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research The consensus mark for VST’s second-quarter earnings is pegged at $1.54 per share, indicating a 52.48% increase from the year-ago reported figure. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research Our model does not predict an earnings beat for Vistra this time around. The combination of a positive Earnings ESP and a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy), 2 (Buy) or 3 (Hold) increases the chances of an earnings beat. That is not the case here, as you can see below.You can uncover the best stocks to buy or sell before they are reported with our Earnings ESP Filter.Earnings ESP: Vistra has an Earnings ESP of 0.00%. Zacks Rank: VST currently carries a Zacks Rank #3. You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank stocks here.A few utilities reported positive earnings surprises this season and they have nuclear assets like VST, which are utilized to produce reliable clean energy.Ameren Corporation AEE reported second-quarter 2026 earnings of $1.13 per share, which beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.08 by 4.6%. Duke Energy Corporation's DUK second-quarter 2026 earnings of $1.43 per share surpassed the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.29 by 10.9%. NextEra Energy NEE reported second-quarter 2026 results with adjusted earnings per share of $1.15 and beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.09 by 5.5%.The Zacks Consensus Estimate for AEE, DUK and NEE’s 2026 earnings per share reflects an increase of 0.56%, 0.15% and 0.25%, respectively, in the past 60 days. Vistra's second-quarter results are likely to benefit from rising clean electricity demand, fueled by the rapid expansion of U.S. data centers, industrial reshoring and Permian Basin electrification. With a diversified generation portfolio and a high-quality nuclear fleet, the second-quarter earnings are likely to have benefited from accelerating load growth across key markets such as PJM and ERCOT.Vistra's comprehensive hedging program is expected to support second-quarter results, with nearly 100% of its 2026 generation volume hedged against market and price volatility. Contributions from acquired Lotus assets are expected to have boosted second-quarter earnings.Vistra’s share repurchase program has boosted shareholder value and supported EPS growth, aiding its second-quarter performance. As of May 1, 2026, Vistra has nearly $158 billion available for share repurchases, which might have further supported earnings growth.Vistra's long-term nuclear PPAs are likely to have supported second-quarter earnings by providing stable cash flows, while its highly efficient generation fleet further contributed to performance. VST’s current ROE is pegged at 105.64% compared with its industry’s 11.21%. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research Vistra is currently valued at a discount compared with its industry on a forward 12-month P/E basis. VST is trading at a P/EF12M of 13.62X compared with the industry’s 15.8X. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research Vistra is expanding its generation capacity through organic investments and strategic acquisitions, while its integrated business model provides a competitive advantage over non-integrated peers. The extension of licenses for its nuclear plants enables the company to continue delivering large volumes of carbon-free electricity. Strong free cash flow generation further supports shareholder returns through share repurchases and dividends. Vistra is well positioned to benefit from accelerating demand for clean electricity through continued expansion of its clean generation portfolio via acquisitions and organic growth. The company’s disciplined hedging strategy and rising power demand from data centers further strengthen its long-term outlook.Given its compelling valuation and industry-leading ROE, the stock warrants consideration from long-term investors. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Vistra Corp. (VST) : Free Stock Analysis Report Ameren Corporation (AEE) : Free Stock Analysis Report NextEra Energy, Inc. (NEE) : Free Stock Analysis Report Duke Energy Corporation (DUK) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research (zacks.com). Zacks Investment Research