Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

At September 30, 2015, the amounts of contractual cash commitments maturing in each of the next five years and beyond are shown below:



Commitments and Contingencies Payments due in the years ending September 30
	2016		2017		2018		2019		2020		Thereafter		Total
Membership interests of variable interest entity subject to mandatory redemption	2		2		2		2		3		26		37
Lease obligations
Capital	13		13		13		12		12		156		219
Non-cancelable operating	44		42		32		25		25		38		206
Purchase obligations
Power	217		226		229		235		241		3,124		4,272
Fuel	1,282		711		635		508		335		1,448		4,919
Other	262		198		193		189		173		1,830		2,845
Unfunded loan commitments	5		—		—		—		—		—		5
Payments on other financings	104		104		104		96		73		232		713

Total	$	1,929	$	1,296	$	1,208	$	1,067	$	862	$	6,854	$	13,216

In addition to the cash requirements, above, TVA has contractual obligations in the form of revenue discounts related to energy prepayments. See Note 1 — Energy Prepayment Obligations.



Energy Prepayment Obligations Payments due in the years ending September 30
	2016		2017		2018		2019		2020		Thereafter		Total
Energy Prepayment Obligations	$	100	$	100	$	100	$	10	$	—	$	—	$	310

Membership Interests of VIE Subject to Mandatory Redemption. At September 30, 2015, TVA had outstanding membership interests subject to mandatory redemption (including current portion) of $37 million issued by one of its VIEs of which it is the primary beneficiary. See Note 10.

Leases. TVA leases certain property, plant, and equipment under agreements with terms ranging from one to 38 years. Of the total obligations for TVA’s capital leases, $115 million represents the cost of financing. TVA’s rental expense for operating leases was $79 million in 2015, $75 million in 2014, and $71 million in 2013.

Power Purchase Obligations. TVA has contracted with various independent power producers and LPCs for additional capability to be made available to TVA. Several of these agreements have contractual minimum payments. In total, these agreements provide 1,255 MW of summer net capability. The remaining terms of the agreements range up to 17 years. TVA incurred $230 million, $237 million, and $267 million of expense under power purchase agreements during 2015, 2014, and 2013, respectively. Certain power purchase obligations are accounted for as capital leases. Costs under TVA’s power purchase agreements not accounted for as capital leases are included in TVA's consolidated statements of operations as purchased power expense and are expensed as incurred.

Under federal law, TVA is obligated to purchase power from qualifying facilities, cogenerators, and small power producers. As of September 30, 2015, there was a combined qualifying capacity of 882 MW from twenty-four different suppliers, from which TVA purchased power under this law. TVA’s obligations to purchase power from these qualifying facilities are not included in the Commitments and Contingencies table.

TVA, along with others, contracted with the Southeastern Power Administration ("SEPA") to obtain power and energy from eight U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hydroelectric facilities on the Cumberland River system. The agreement with SEPA can be terminated upon three years’ notice, but this notice of termination may not become effective prior to June 30, 2017. The contract requires SEPA to provide TVA an annual minimum of 1,500 hours of energy for each megawatt of TVA’s 405 MW allocation, and all surplus energy from the Cumberland River system. TVA’s obligations under its contract with SEPA are not included in the Commitments and Contingencies table.

Fuel Purchase Obligations. TVA has approximately $1.5 billion in long-term fuel purchase commitments ranging in terms of up to 5 years primarily for the purchase and transportation of coal. TVA also has approximately $3.4 billion of long-term commitments ranging in terms of up to 15 years for the purchase of enriched uranium and fabrication of nuclear fuel assemblies.

Other Obligations. Other obligations of $2.8 billion consist of contracts at September 30, 2015, for goods and services primarily related to capital projects as well as other major recurring operating costs.

Leasebacks. At September 30, 2015, and September 30, 2014, the outstanding leasback obligations related to CTs and QTE were $616 million and $691 million, respectively. See Note 14 — Lease/Leasebacks.

Contingencies

Nuclear Insurance. The Price-Anderson Act provides a layered framework of protection to compensate for losses arising from a nuclear event in the United States. For the first layer, all of the NRC nuclear plant licensees, including TVA, purchase $375 million of nuclear liability insurance from American Nuclear Insurers for each plant with an operating license. Funds for the second layer, the Secondary Financial Program, would come from an assessment of up to $127 million from the licensees of each of the 102 NRC licensed reactors in the United States. The assessment for any nuclear accident would be limited to $19 million per year per unit. American Nuclear Insurers, under a contract with the NRC, administers the Secondary Financial Program. With its six licensed units, TVA could be required to pay a maximum of $764 million per nuclear incident, but it would have to pay no more than $114 million per incident in any one year. These potential liabilities will increase to $133 million per year and a total of $891 million per nuclear incident once Watts Bar Unit 2 becomes operational. When the contributions of the nuclear plant licensees are added to the insurance proceeds of $375 million, over $13.0 billion, including a five percent surcharge for legal expenses, would be available. Under the Price-Anderson Act, if the first two layers are exhausted, the U.S. Congress is required to take action to provide additional funds to cover the additional losses.

TVA carries property, decommissioning, and decontamination insurance of $5.1 billion for its licensed nuclear plants, with up to $2.1 billion available for a loss at any one site, to cover the cost of stabilizing or shutting down a reactor after an accident. Some of this insurance, which is purchased from Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited ("NEIL"), may require the payment of retrospective premiums up to a maximum of approximately $127 million.

TVA purchases accidental outage (business interruption) insurance for TVA’s nuclear sites from NEIL. In the event that an accident covered by this policy takes a nuclear unit offline or keeps a nuclear unit offline, NEIL will pay TVA, after a waiting period, an indemnity (a set dollar amount per week) up to a maximum indemnity of $490 million per unit. This insurance policy may require the payment of retrospective premiums up to a maximum of approximately $36 million.

Decommissioning Costs. TVA recognizes legal obligations associated with the future retirement of certain tangible long-lived assets related primarily to coal-fired generating plants and nuclear generating plants, hydroelectric generating plants/dams, transmission structures, and other property-related assets.

Nuclear Decommissioning. Provision for decommissioning costs of nuclear generating units is based on options prescribed by the NRC procedures to dismantle and decontaminate the facilities to meet the NRC criteria for license termination. At September 30, 2015, the present value of the estimated future decommissioning cost of $2.2 billion was included in AROs. The actual decommissioning costs may vary from the derived estimates because of, among other things, changes in current assumptions, such as the assumed dates of decommissioning, changes in regulatory requirements, changes in technology, and changes in the cost of labor, materials, and equipment. Utilities that own and operate nuclear plants are required to use different procedures in calculating nuclear decommissioning costs under GAAP than those that are used in calculating nuclear decommissioning costs when reporting to the NRC. The two sets of procedures produce different estimates for the costs of decommissioning primarily because of the difference in the discount rates used to calculate the present value of decommissioning costs.

TVA maintains a NDT to provide funding for the ultimate decommissioning of its nuclear power plants. TVA monitors the value of its NDT and believes that, over the long term and before cessation of nuclear plant operations and commencement of decommissioning activities, adequate funds from investments will be available to support decommissioning. TVA’s operating nuclear power units are licensed through 2033 - 2041, depending on the unit. It may be possible to extend the operating life of some of the units with approval from the NRC. The balance in the NDT was $1.5 billion at September 30, 2015. See Note 9 — Nuclear Decommissioning Costs and Note 13.

Non-Nuclear Decommissioning. The present value of the estimated future non-nuclear decommissioning cost ARO was $1.7 billion at September 30, 2015. This decommissioning cost estimate involves estimating the amount and timing of future expenditures and making judgments concerning whether or not such costs are considered a legal obligation. Estimating the amount and timing of future expenditures includes, among other things, making projections of the timing and duration of the asset retirement process and how costs will escalate with inflation. The actual decommissioning costs may vary from the derived estimates because of changes in current assumptions, such as the assumed dates of decommissioning, changes in regulatory requirements, changes in technology, and changes in the cost of labor, materials, and equipment.

TVA maintains an ART to help fund the ultimate decommissioning of its power assets. Estimates involved in determining if additional funding will be made to the ART include inflation rate and rate of return projections on the fund investments. The balance in the ART was $435 million at September 30, 2015. See Note 9 — Non-Nuclear Decommissioning Costs and Note 13.

Environmental Matters. TVA’s power generation activities, like those across the utility industry and in other industrial sectors, are subject to most federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations. Major areas of regulation affecting TVA’s activities include air quality control, water quality control, and management and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. In the future, regulations in all of these areas are expected to become more stringent. Regulations are also expected to apply to new emissions and sources, with a particular emphasis on climate change, renewable generation, and energy efficiency.

TVA has incurred, and expects to continue to incur, substantial capital and operating and maintenance costs to comply with evolving environmental requirements primarily associated with, but not limited to, the operation of TVA’s coal-fired generating units. It is virtually certain that environmental requirements placed on the operation of TVA’s coal-fired and other generating units will continue to become more restrictive and potentially apply to new emissions and sources. Litigation over emissions or discharges from coal-fired generating units is also occurring, including litigation against TVA. Failure to comply with environmental laws can result in TVA being subject to enforcement actions, which can lead to the imposition of significant civil liability, including fines and penalties, criminal sanctions, and/or the shutting down of non-compliant facilities.

From the 1970s to 2015, TVA spent approximately $6.2 billion to reduce emissions from its power plants, including $315 million, $378 million, and $197 million in 2015, 2014, and 2013, respectively, on clean air controls. TVA estimates that compliance with future Clean Air Act ("CAA") requirements (excluding greenhouse gas ("GHG") requirements) could lead to additional costs of $750 million from 2016 to 2025 for additional clean air controls. There could be additional material costs if reductions of GHGs, including carbon dioxide, are mandated under the CAA or by legislation or regulation, or if future legislative, regulatory, or judicial actions lead to more stringent emission reduction requirements for conventional pollutants. These costs cannot reasonably be predicted at this time because of the uncertainty of such potential actions.

Liability for releases and cleanup of hazardous substances is primarily regulated by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), and other federal and parallel state statutes. In a manner similar to many other industries and power systems, TVA has generated or used hazardous substances over the years.

TVA is aware of alleged hazardous-substance releases at certain non-TVA areas in connection with which other potentially responsible parties may seek monetary damages from TVA. There is information indicating that TVA sent a small amount of equipment to Ward Transformer (“Ward”), a non-TVA site in Raleigh, North Carolina. The site is contaminated by PCBs from electrical equipment due to Ward’s practice of draining such equipment. A working group of potentially responsible parties is cleaning up on-site contamination in accordance with an agreement with the EPA. The cleanup effort has been divided into multiple phases, including on-site and downstream cleanup activities, two phases of soil cleanup, supplemental groundwater remediation, and cleanup of off-site contamination in the downstream drainage basin. TVA settled its potential liability for the on-site removal action for $300 thousand and has agreed to pay approximately $8 thousand to settle its potential liability in connection with an EPA study of the site. TVA believes that its liability for the remaining cleanup activities as well as any natural resource damages will be less than $1 million.

TVA operations at some TVA facilities have resulted in contamination, including coal ash, that TVA is addressing. At September 30, 2015 and 2014, TVA’s estimated liability for cleanup and similar environmental work for those sites for which sufficient information is available to develop a cost estimate (primarily the TVA sites) was approximately $23 million and $15 million, respectively, on a non-discounted basis, and was included in Accounts payable and accrued liabilities and Other long-term liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, TVA is party to or otherwise involved in lawsuits, claims, proceedings, investigations, and other legal matters ("Legal Proceedings") that have arisen in the ordinary course of conducting TVA's activities, as a result of a catastrophic event or otherwise.

General. At September 30, 2015, TVA had accrued $115 million of probable losses with respect to Legal Proceedings. Of the accrued amount, $55 million is included in Other long-term liabilities and $60 million is included in Accounts payable and accrued liabilities. TVA is currently unable to estimate any amount or any range of amounts of reasonably possible losses, and no assurance can be given that TVA will not be subject to significant additional claims and liabilities. If actual liabilities significantly exceed the estimates made, TVA's results of operations, liquidity, and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

Environmental Agreements. In April 2011, TVA entered into two substantively similar agreements, one with the EPA and the other with Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, and three environmental advocacy groups: the Sierra Club, the National Parks Conservation Association, and Our Children's Earth Foundation (collectively, the "Environmental Agreements”). They became effective in June 2011. Under the Environmental Agreements, TVA committed to (1) retire on a phased schedule 18 coal-fired units with a combined summer net dependable capability of 2,200 MW, (2) control, convert, or retire additional coal-fired units with a combined summer net dependable capability of 3,500 MW, (3) comply with annual, declining emission caps for SO₂ and NO_x, (4) invest $290 million in certain TVA environmental projects, (5) provide $60 million to Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Tennessee to fund environmental projects, and (6) pay civil penalties of $10 million. In exchange for these commitments, most past claims against TVA based on alleged New Source Review and associated violations were waived and cannot be brought against TVA. Future claims including those for sulfuric acid mist and GHG emissions can still be brought against TVA, and claims for increases in particulates can also be pursued at many of TVA’s coal-fired units. Additionally, the Environmental Agreements do not address compliance with new laws and regulations or the cost associated with such compliance.

The liabilities related to the Environmental Agreements are included in Accounts payable and accrued liabilities and Other long-term liabilities on the September 30, 2015 Consolidated Balance Sheet. In conjunction with the approval of the Environmental Agreements, the TVA Board determined that it was appropriate to record TVA's obligations under the Environmental Agreements as regulatory assets, and they are included as such on the September 30, 2015 Consolidated Balance Sheet and will be recovered in rates in future periods.

Several legal and administrative clean air proceedings have already been terminated in connection with the Environmental Agreements. Additionally, the proceeding discussed below involving the John Sevier CAA permit is expected to be narrowed in scope or terminated since TVA has now retired all four of the John Sevier coal-fired units.

Legal Proceedings Related to the Kingston Ash Spill. Seventy-eight lawsuits based on the Kingston ash spill were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Fifteen of these lawsuits were dismissed. On August 4, 2014, the court issued an agreed order that implements a mediated global resolution of pending claims. Under the order, the 63 pending cases were dismissed with prejudice, and TVA deposited $28 million with the court, which is responsible for disbursing the funds. The order anticipates that further legal proceedings will be required to resolve the claims of nine of the plaintiffs, and a portion of the $28 million was set aside under the order to cover the anticipated costs of resolving these claims. Claims of seven of the nine plaintiffs have been resolved. In April 2015, the court dismissed the claims of the remaining two plaintiffs, and these plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal of their claims.

Civil Penalty and Natural Resource Damages for the Kingston Ash Spill. In June 2010, TDEC issued a civil penalty order of approximately $12 million to TVA for the Kingston ash spill, citing violations of the Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Act and the Tennessee Water Quality Control Act. Of the $12 million, TVA initially paid $10 million, and agreed to undertake environmental projects valued at $2 million as a credit against the remaining penalty amount. TVA completed several of those projects and paid TDEC the small remaining difference rather than do more projects. In addition, TVA paid $750 thousand over three years into the Natural Resource Restoration Fund associated with the Kingston spill. In July 2015, TDEC, TVA and the United States Department of the Interior entered into an administrative order on consent which determined that TVA’s restoration activities were the appropriate measures to remedy any natural resource damages and released TVA from any claims for such damages.

Case Involving Tennessee Valley Authority Retirement System. In March 2010, eight current and former participants in and beneficiaries of TVARS filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee challenging the TVARS Board's 2009 decision to make changes to the TVARS Rules and Regulations (“Rules”) in exchange for a $1 billion contribution from TVA. The changes approved by the TVARS Board (1) suspended the TVA contribution requirements for 2010 through 2013, (2) reduced the calculation for COLA benefits for CY 2010 through CY 2013, (3) reduced the interest crediting rate for the fixed fund accounts, and (4) increased the eligibility age to receive COLAs from age 55 to 60. The plaintiffs alleged that these changes violated their constitutional rights (due process, equal protection, and property rights), violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and breached statutory duties owed to the plaintiffs. TVA and plaintiffs filed cross motions for summary judgment. In August 2015, the court granted TVA’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice. In September 2015, the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the "Sixth Circuit").

Cases Involving Gallatin Fossil Plant CCR Facilities. In January 2015, the State of Tennessee filed a lawsuit against TVA in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee. The lawsuit alleges that waste materials have been released into waters of the state from coal combustion residual ("CCR") facilities at Gallatin Fossil Plant ("Gallatin") in violation of the Tennessee Water Quality Control Act and the Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Act. TDEC is seeking injunctive relief as well as civil penalties of up to $17,000 per day for each day TVA is found to have violated the statutes. In February 2015, the court issued an order allowing the Tennessee Scenic Rivers Association ("TSRA") and the Tennessee Clean Water Network ("TCWN") to intervene in the case. In April 2015, TSRA and TCWN filed a lawsuit against TVA in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee alleging that waste materials have been released into the Cumberland River from CCR facilities at Gallatin in violation of the Clean Water Act. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties of up to $37,500 per violation per day.

Case Involving the NRC Waste Confidence Decision on Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage. In June 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ("D.C. Circuit") vacated the NRC's updated Waste Confidence Decision ("WCD"). The WCD is a generic determination by the NRC that spent nuclear fuel can be safely managed until a permanent off-site repository is established; this determination has been a key component of the NRC licensing activities since 1984. In August 2014, the NRC issued its final rule on continued storage of spent nuclear fuel (the "Continued Storage Rule"), which replaced the WCD. Several petitions for review were filed in October 2014 in the D.C. Circuit challenging the Continued Storage Rule.

Administrative Proceeding Regarding Renewal of Operating License for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. In May 2013, the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League ("BREDL"), the Bellefonte Efficiency and Sustainability Team ("BEST"), and Mothers Against Tennessee River Radiation filed a petition with the NRC opposing the renewal of the operating license for Sequoyah Units 1 and 2. The petition contained eight specific contentions challenging the adequacy of the license renewal application that TVA submitted to the NRC in January 2013. TVA filed a response with the ASLB opposing the admission of all eight of the petitioners' contentions. In July 2013, the ASLB concluded that BREDL was the only one of the three petitioners that had standing to intervene in this proceeding. The ASLB also held that seven of the contentions were inadmissible, and held one portion of the remaining contention related to the WCD in abeyance pending further direction from the NRC. In September 2014, the ASLB denied BREDL's contention related to the WCD. In March 2015, the ASLB issued an order terminating the administrative proceeding. In April 2015, BREDL filed motions with the NRC to reopen the record and to admit a new contention arguing that the environmental impact statement for Sequoyah must incorporate by reference the generic environmental impact statement released in connection with the Continued Storage Rule. The NRC rejected these motions in June 2015. In August 2015, BREDL asked the D.C. Circuit to review the NRC's decision after the court issues a decision on BREDL's petition for review challenging the Continued Storage Rule. The NRC issued the license renewal of the facility operating licenses for both units, effective on September 28, 2015.

Administrative Proceedings Regarding Bellefonte Units 3 and 4. TVA submitted its combined construction and operating license ("COL") for two Advanced Passive 1000 reactors at Bellefonte Units 3 and 4 to the NRC in October 2007. In June 2008, BEST, BREDL, and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy ("SACE") submitted a joint petition for intervention and a request for a hearing. The ASLB denied standing to BEST and admitted four of the 20 contentions submitted by BREDL and SACE. The NRC reversed the ASLB's decision to admit two of the four contentions, leaving only two contentions (concerning the estimated costs of the new nuclear plant and the impact of the facility's operations on aquatic ecology) to be litigated in a future hearing. In January 2012, TVA notified the ASLB that the NRC had placed the COL in “suspended” status indefinitely at TVA's request, and TVA requested that the ASLB hold the proceeding in abeyance pending a decision by TVA regarding the best path forward with regards to the COL. In April 2012, the ASLB issued an order maintaining the proceeding in "active" status, but amending the disclosure schedule.

In July 2012, BREDL petitioned for the admission of another new, late-filed contention stemming from the D.C. Circuit's order vacating the WCD. In September 2014, the ASLB denied BREDL’s request to file the new contention. Following the publication of the Continued Storage Rule, BREDL filed a petition with the NRC seeking suspension of the issuance of a final decision in the Bellefonte Units 3 and 4 proceeding and a motion with the ASLB seeking leave to file a new, late-filed contention stemming from the Continued Storage Rule. The NRC rejected this petition in February 2015. See Case Involving the NRC Waste Confidence Decision on Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage above.

Administrative Proceedings Regarding Watts Bar Unit 2. In July 2012, SACE petitioned for the admission of a late-filed contention, similar to the one filed in the Bellefonte Units 3 and 4 proceeding, stemming from the D.C. Circuit's order vacating the WCD. In September 2014, the ASLB denied SACE’s request to file the contention related to the WCD and terminated the proceeding. Following the publication of the Continued Storage Rule, SACE filed a petition with the NRC seeking suspension of the issuance of a final decision in the Watts Bar Unit 2 proceeding and motions with the ASLB to reopen the record and for leave to file a new, late-filed contention stemming from the Continued Storage Rule. The NRC rejected this petition in February 2015. In addition, in February 2015, SACE filed motions with the NRC to reopen the record and to admit a new contention relating to the expedited seismic evaluation process report for Watts Bar that TVA filed with the NRC in December 2014 as part of the Fukushima lessons-learned review process. These motions were denied in April 2015, and SACE appealed this decision to the NRC in May 2015. The NRC denied this appeal in September 2015.

In April 2015, SACE filed motions with the NRC to reopen the record and to admit a new contention arguing that the environmental impact statement for Watts Bar Unit 2 must incorporate by reference the generic environmental impact statement released in connection with the Continued Storage Rule. The NRC rejected these motions in June 2015. The proceeding remains closed. The NRC issued the operating license for Watts Bar Unit 2 in October 2015.

John Sevier Fossil Plant Clean Air Act Permit. In September 2010, the Environmental Integrity Project, the Southern Environmental Law Center, and the Tennessee Environmental Council filed a petition with the EPA, requesting that the EPA Administrator object to the CAA permit issued to TVA for operation of John Sevier. Among other things, the petitioners allege that repair, maintenance, or replacement activities undertaken at John Sevier Unit 3 in 1986 triggered the Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("PSD") requirements for SO₂ and NO_x. The CAA permit, issued by TDEC, remains in effect pending the disposition of the petition. TVA has now retired all four John Sevier coal-fired units, and this challenge likely will not proceed.

National Environmental Policy Act Challenge at Paradise Fossil Plant. To comply with the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, TVA chose to retire two coal-fired units at Paradise Fossil Plant and replace them with natural gas generation. Prior to making this decision, TVA completed an Environmental Assessment in November 2013 under NEPA. In July 2014, the Kentucky Coal Association and several individuals filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky alleging that TVA violated NEPA and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 in deciding to switch to natural gas generation. The plaintiffs demand that TVA prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, and are asking the court to preliminarily enjoin TVA from taking any further action relating to these matters pending compliance with NEPA. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in December 2014 and dismissed the case in February 2015. In March 2015, the plaintiffs appealed the court's decision to the United States Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit, and in October 2015, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the court's decision.

Kingston Fossil Plant NPDES Permit Administrative Appeal. The Sierra Club filed a challenge to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit issued by Tennessee for the scrubber-gypsum pond discharge at Kingston in November 2009 before the Tennessee Board of Water Quality, Oil and Gas ("TN Board"). TDEC is the defendant in the challenge, and TVA has intervened in support of TDEC's decision to issue the permit. The proceedings have been stayed at the request of the parties until December 21, 2015.

Bull Run Fossil Plant NPDES Permit Administrative Appeal. SACE and the TCWN filed a challenge to the NPDES permit for the Bull Run Fossil Plant in November 2010. TDEC is the defendant in the challenge, and TVA's motion to intervene to support TDEC's decision to issue the permit was granted in January 2011. At the contested case hearing in October 2013, the TN Board granted TDEC's and TVA's joint motion for involuntary dismissal following the conclusion of the petitioners' presentation of evidence. In December 2013, TCWN and SACE filed a petition for review of the TN Board's decision in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee. In March 2015, the court issued a final order affirming the TN Board's decision, and the petitioners subsequently appealed the court's decision to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

Johnsonville Fossil Plant NPDES Permit Administrative Appeal. SACE and TCWN filed a challenge to the NPDES permit for the Johnsonville Fossil Plant in March 2011. TDEC is the defendant in the challenge. TVA's motion to intervene was granted in August 2011. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this case in February 2015.

John Sevier Fossil Plant NPDES Permit Administrative Appeal. SACE and TCWN filed a challenge to the NPDES permit for John Sevier in May 2011. TDEC is the defendant in the challenge. TVA's motion to intervene was granted in August 2011. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this case in February 2015.

Gallatin Fossil Plant NPDES Permit Administrative Appeal. SACE, TCWN, and the Sierra Club filed a challenge to the NPDES permit for Gallatin in June 2012. TDEC is the defendant in the challenge. TVA's motion to intervene was granted in September 2012. Following discovery, SACE, TCWN, and the Sierra Club voluntarily dismissed seven of the eight claims asserted in their petition. TVA moved to dismiss the remaining claim, and the ALJ assigned to the matter granted TVA’s motion and dismissed the case. On November 7, 2014, SACE, TWCN, and the Sierra Club filed a petition for review of the ALJ's dismissal in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee. In February 2015, the court issued a final order affirming that the Gallatin NPDES permit was lawfully issued. In March 2015, the petitioners appealed the court's decision to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

Petitions Resulting from Japanese Nuclear Events. As a result of events that occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in March 2011, petitions have been filed with the NRC which could impact TVA's nuclear program.


•	Petition to Immediately Suspend the Operating Licenses of GE BWR Mark I Units Pending the Full NRC Review With Independent Expert and Public Participation From Affected Emergency Planning Zone Communities

Beyond Nuclear filed a petition in April 2011, requesting that the NRC take emergency enforcement action against all nuclear reactor licensees that operate units that use the General Electric Mark I BWR design. TVA uses this design at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant ("Browns Ferry") Units 1, 2, and 3. The petition requests the NRC to take several actions, including the suspension of the operating licenses at the affected nuclear units, including Browns Ferry, until several milestones have been met. In December 2011, the NRC provided its initial response to the petition. The NRC accepted five specific requests that would apply directly or indirectly to Browns Ferry, including issues relating to spent fuel pool use and location, Mark I containment hardened vent systems and design, and backup electrical power. Each of these items was accepted for further investigation, but the requests for immediate action were rejected. The NRC ultimately denied the petition.


•	Petition Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 - Demand For Information Regarding Compliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 44, Cooling Water, and 10 CFR 50.49, Environmental Qualification of Electric Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants

A petition was filed by the Union of Concerned Scientists in July 2011, requesting that a demand for information be issued for affected licensees, including TVA with regards to Browns Ferry, describing how the facilities comply with General Design Criterion 44, Cooling Water, within Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, and with 10 CFR 50.49, Environmental Qualification of Electric Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants, for all applicable design and licensing bases events. In November 2015, the NRC denied the petition.