CEG — what changed in the latest 10-Q
A section-by-section comparison of CEG's newest periodic SEC filing (10-K/10-Q) against the prior same-form filing: paragraphs added and removed per section, with verbatim excerpts. Purely a deterministic text diff — no similarity scores, no directional read, not investment advice.
Comparing 10-Q · 2026-08-06 vs the prior 10-Q · 2026-05-11
| Section | Outcome | Added | Removed | Minor | Unchanged |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MD&A | Text added/removed | +65 | −35 | ~41 | 58 |
| Market risk (Item 3) | Text added/removed | +1 | 0 | ~7 | 17 |
| Controls & procedures | Text added/removed | +3 | −1 | ~3 | 0 |
| Legal proceedings | No paragraph-level changes | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Risk factors | Text added/removed | 0 | 0 | ~1 | 0 |
| Other information | Text added/removed | +1 | 0 | ~1 | 0 |
Counts are paragraphs; added/removed means text added or removed vs the prior filing — no direction or judgement implied.
Representative excerpts
Up to 5 excerpts of about 300 characters per section, quoted verbatim from the two SEC filings.
MD&A
Text added vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-08-06
We have signed an additional 920 MW of long-term PPAs for clean, reliable nuclear generation with a diverse set of investment grade customers to help them meet their evolving energy needs. These agreements are for 15-20 years in duration and are set to begin in 2029 through 2032. Among these PPAs, o…
In January 2026, the National Energy Dominance Council, with support from Governors within the PJM territory, urged PJM to file proposed tariff revisions at FERC to improve reliability and cost-effectiveness within its capacity auctions. During the first quarter of 2026, PJM began stakeholder discus…
In December 2025, FERC issued an order finding the existing PJM Tariff to be unjust and unreasonable and directing PJM to take a number of actions. FERC ordered three new transmission services: an interim interruptible network integration transmission service (IT NITS), which will allow load to take…
In June 2026, FERC ruled on a number of issues presented in the co-location paper hearing and on several PJM compliance filings implementing directives from the December 2025 order. Importantly, FERC pressed PJM to implement changes to accommodate co-located load prior to PJM’s proposed June 2029 ef…
FERC also issued a series of orders in the various RTOs in response to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) published by DOE last fall. The orders direct filings by RTOs and their transmission owners that are designed to expedite service to large load (regardless of whether it is co-loc…
Text removed vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-05-11
In January 2026, the National Energy Dominance Council, with support from Governors within the PJM territory, urged PJM to file proposed tariff revisions at FERC to improve reliability and cost-effectiveness within its capacity auctions. During the first quarter of 2026, PJM began stakeholder discus…
In December 2025, FERC issued a draft order finding PJM's tariff unjust and unreasonable as it relates to colocated load, citing lack of sufficient clarity and consistency regarding rates, terms, and conditions of service for interconnection customers serving co-located load. The draft order also fo…
(a)Amounts may not sum due to rounding. Earnings per share amount is based on average diluted common shares outstanding of 354 million and 314 million for the three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025, respectively.
•Favorable decommissioning-related activities primarily driven by the Q1 2026 nuclear ARO update. See Note 9 — Asset Retirement Obligations of the Combined Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information;
•Favorable net market and portfolio conditions primarily driven by higher capacity revenues partially offset by higher costs related to a significant weather event in the first quarter of 2026 and lower CMC program revenue.
Market risk (Item 3)
Text added vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-08-06
(Dollars in millions except per share data, unless otherwise noted)
Controls & procedures
Text added vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-08-06
Pursuant to requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
Pursuant to requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
(Principal Executive Officer)Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Text removed vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-05-11
(Dollars in millions except per share data, unless otherwise noted)
Other information
Text added vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-08-06
On May 18, 2026, Andrew Novotny, Senior Executive Vice President, Constellation Power Operations, and President and CEO, Calpine, entered into a stock trading plan designed to comply with Rule 10b5-1 under the Exchange Act. Under the terms of the plan, Mr. Novotny is scheduled to sell an aggregate o…
How to read Risk Factors (Item 1A) in a 10-Q
A 10-Q risk-factor section usually takes one of three forms; this page classifies it as one of:
- Pointer — the filer states there have been no material changes and points back to the annual 10-K risk factors; there is no own risk text to compare this quarter.
- Partial update — the filer carves out specific updated risks ("except as set forth below"); the excerpts show exactly what is new this quarter.
- Restated in full — the quarter carries the complete risk-factor text. When the prior quarter was only a pointer there is no prior full text to diff against, so the page flags the section as restated instead.
This describes the filing structure only — it is never a judgement on whether risk went up or down.
Source: text-level diff of the two SEC EDGAR filings · deterministic (no AI-generated content) · for reference only · not investment advice