Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

At September 30, 2016, 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
	2017		2018		2019		2020		2021		Thereafter		Total
Membership interests of variable interest entity subject to mandatory redemption	$	2	$	2	$	2	$	3	$	3	$	23	$	35
Lease obligations
Capital⁽¹⁾	51		51		50		50		50		564		816
Non-cancelable operating⁽²⁾	43		32		25		25		25		13		163
Purchase obligations
Power⁽³⁾	254		265		266		246		244		1,541		2,816
Fuel⁽⁴⁾	1,312		917		569		324		327		1,006		4,455
Other⁽⁵⁾	88		65		58		47		34		604		896
Unfunded loan commitments	9		4		—		—		—		—		13
Payments on other financings	76		76		75		73		207		26		533

Total	$	1,835	$	1,412	$	1,045	$	768	$	890	$	3,777	$	9,727

Notes

(1) Includes the interest component of capital leases based on the interest rates stated in the lease agreements and excludes certain related executory costs. Minimum commitments related to executory costs are included in purchase obligations.

(2) Does not include purchased power agreements that are accounted for as operating leases and included in power purchase obligations.

(3) Includes commitments for energy and/or capacity under power purchase agreements from coal-fired, hydroelectric, diesel, and gas-fired facilities, as well as transmission service agreements to support purchases of power from the market and wind power purchase agreements.

(4) Includes commitments to purchase nuclear fuel, coal, and natural gas, as well as related transportation and storage services.

(5) Primarily includes long-term service contracts, contracts that contain minimum purchase levels for the purchase of limestone along with related storage and transportation, and contractual obligations related to load control programs.

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
	2017		2018		2019		2020		2021		Thereafter		Total
Energy prepayment obligations	$	100	$	100	$	10	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	210
Interest payments relating to energy prepayment obligations	46		46		4		—		—		—		96
Total	$	146	$	146	$	14	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	306

Membership Interests of VIE Subject to Mandatory Redemption. At September 30, 2016, TVA had outstanding membership interests subject to mandatory redemption (including current portion) of $35 million issued by one of its VIEs of which it is the primary beneficiary. See Note 9.

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, $634 million represents the cost of financing. TVA’s rental expense for operating leases, excluding power purchase agreement operating leases, was $44 million in 2016, $44 million in 2015, and $41 million in 2014.

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 and are accounted for as either capital or operating leases. In total, these agreements provide 2,227 MW of summer net capability. The remaining terms of the agreements range up to 16 years. Additionally, TVA has contracted with regional transmission organizations to reserve 1,450 MW of transmission service to support purchases from the market and wind power purchase agreements. The remaining terms of these agreements range up to five years. TVA incurred $261 million, $262 million, and $264 million of expense under these power purchase and transmission service agreements during 2016, 2015, and 2014, respectively. Lease-related 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, 2016, there was a combined qualifying capacity of 259 MW from 25 different generation sources, 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.

Fuel Purchase Obligations. TVA has approximately $900 million in long-term fuel purchase commitments ranging in terms of up to 4 years for the purchase and transportation of coal and approximately $1.3 billion ranging in terms of up to 20 years for the purchase, transportation, and storage of natural gas. TVA also has approximately $2.3 billion of long-term commitments ranging in terms of up to 14 years for the purchase of enriched uranium and fabrication of nuclear fuel assemblies. TVA purchased $1.5 billion, $973 million, and $718 million under these fuel purchase obligations during 2016, 2015, and 2014, respectively.

Other Obligations. Other obligations of $896 million consist of contracts at September 30, 2016, for goods and services primarily related to capital projects as well as other major recurring operating costs. TVA incurred $174 million, $93 million, and $91 million of expense under these other obligations during 2016, 2015, and 2014, respectively.

Leasebacks. At September 30, 2016, and September 30, 2015, the outstanding leaseback obligations related to CTs and QTE were $467 million and $616 million, respectively. See Note 12 — 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 seven licensed units, TVA could be required to pay a maximum of $891 million per nuclear incident, but it would have to pay no more than $133 million per incident in any one year. 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 $132 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 $37 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, 2016, the estimated future decommissioning cost of $2.5 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 differences in the underlying assumptions.

TVA maintains a NDT to provide funding for the ultimate decommissioning of its nuclear power plants. See Note 15. 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 and additional contributions, if necessary, will be available to support decommissioning. TVA’s operating nuclear power units are licensed through 2033 - 2055, depending on the unit. It may be possible to extend the operating life of some of the units with approval from the NRC. See Note 7 — Nuclear Decommissioning Costs and Note 11.

Non-Nuclear Decommissioning. The estimated future non-nuclear decommissioning ARO was $1.6 billion at September 30, 2016. 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. See Note 15. 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. See Note 7 — Non-Nuclear Decommissioning Costs and Note 11.

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 also 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 2016, TVA spent approximately $6.5 billion to reduce emissions from its power plants, including $259 million, $315 million, and $378 million in 2016, 2015, and 2014, 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 $375 million from 2017 to 2021 for additional clean air controls. There could be additional material costs if reductions of GHGs, including carbon dioxide ("CO₂"), 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. TVA also estimates additional expenditures of $1.2 billion from 2017 to 2022 relating to TVA’s coal combustion residual conversion program as well as expenditures of $400 million from 2017 to 2023 relating to compliance with Clean Water Act requirements such as effluent limitation guidelines.

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 the EPA study of the site. On September 22, 2016, the Department of Justice lodged a consent decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Under the consent decree, TVA agreed to pay $10 thousand to settle all of its potential remaining liability associated with the site.

TVA operations at some TVA facilities have resulted in contamination that TVA is addressing. At both September 30, 2016 and September 30, 2015, 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 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, 2016, TVA had accrued $61 million of probable losses with respect to Legal Proceedings. Of the accrued amount, $18 million is included in Other long-term liabilities and $43 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, 2016 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, 2016 Consolidated Balance Sheet and will be recovered in rates in future periods.

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 amend 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 cost-of-living adjustments ("COLAs") 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 violated the substantive and procedural components of an anti-cutback provision in the Rules. TVA and the 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"). On August 12, 2016, the Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ rights were not violated because COLAs are not vested benefits. A few other issues were remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

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 January 2016, the court issued an agreed temporary injunction proposed by the State of Tennessee and TVA requiring TVA to conduct further environmental studies at Gallatin to determine the extent of soil, surface water, and groundwater contamination by CCR material at the site and to support the development of any necessary corrective action plan in cooperation with the other parties. Pursuant to the injunction, TVA submitted an Environmental Investigation Plan ("EIP") to the State of Tennessee on March 18, 2016. Following State comments on the draft EIP, TVA submitted a revised EIP to the State on June 20, 2016. On June 30, 2016, the State provided conditional approval to proceed with a portion of the investigation. In September and October 2016, the State provided additional approvals to proceed with other portions of the investigation. Trial in this action is scheduled to begin in October 2017.

In April 2015, TSRA and TCWN filed a separate 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. In June 2015, TVA filed a motion to dismiss the majority of the claims in the federal case based on the State of Tennessee’s diligent prosecution of substantially overlapping claims in its state court action. Since then, TVA has filed several other motions seeking to dismiss all claims in the case on other bases as well. In September 2016, the court ruled on all pending motions. The court held, among other things, that the lawsuit could proceed to trial but that the court could consider issues only to the extent that they are not being considered in the state court action. Trial is currently scheduled for January 30, 2017.

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 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 challenging the Continued Storage Rule were filed in October 2014 in the D.C. Circuit. In June 2016, the D.C. Circuit upheld the Continued Storage Rule. In July 2016, the petitioners filed a petition for rehearing en banc, and in August 2016, the petition for rehearing was denied.

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 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("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. 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 Sequoyah proceeding and a motion with the ASLB seeking leave to file a new, late-filed contention related to 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. With the NRC’s rejection of the final pending contention, the ASLB issued an order terminating the administrative proceeding in March 2015. 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 September 28, 2015. The petition for review was dismissed on September 21, 2016.

Administrative Proceedings Regarding Bellefonte Units 3 and 4. TVA submitted its combined construction and operating license ("COL") application for two Advanced Passive 1000 reactors at Bellefonte Nuclear Plant ("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. The ASLB again modified the disclosure schedule in December 2015. In February 2016, TVA filed a motion with the ASLB to withdraw its COL application for Bellefonte Units 3 and 4. On February 29, 2016, the ASLB granted TVA’s motion and terminated the proceeding. On March 28, 2016, TVA requested that the NRC remove the COL application from the docket, and the request was subsequently granted.

Case Involving Watts Bar Unit 2 Operating License. In October 2015, the NRC issued the operating license for Watts Bar Unit 2. In November 2015, SACE filed a petition in the D.C. Circuit seeking review of the issuance of the operating license for Watts Bar Unit 2. TVA moved to intervene in the proceeding in December 2015, and the motion was subsequently granted. The case was held in abeyance while the D.C. Circuit resolved the ongoing challenge to the Continued Storage Rule. See Case Involving the NRC Waste Confidence Decision on Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage above. The petition for review was dismissed on September 21, 2016.

Administrative Proceeding Regarding Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Extended Power Uprate. In September 2016, the BEST and Mothers Against Tennessee River Radiation requested a hearing and sought to intervene in TVA’s license amendment request for extended power uprates at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. The petitioners contend that TVA's application did not correctly report the potential risk from operating at increased power levels. TVA and the NRC staff filed answers opposing the petition to intervene in October 2016. The ASLB rejected the petition to intervene in November 2016.

Bull Run Fossil Plant Clean Air Act Permit. In September 2015, the Sierra Club and Environmental Integrity Project filed a petition with the EPA requesting that the EPA object to the CAA renewal permit issued by TDEC to TVA for operations at Bull Run. The petitioners alleged that the permit contained impermissibly lax monitoring requirements for opacity. In February 2016, the petitioners sued the EPA for not responding to the petition in a timely manner. In August 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a consent decree requiring the EPA to respond to the petition by November 10, 2016. On November 10, 2016, the EPA granted the petition and ordered TDEC to revise the permit to assure compliance with the opacity limits. The permit remains in effect during this process.

Gallatin Fossil Plant Clean Air Act Permit. In August 2016, the Sierra Club filed a petition with the EPA requesting that the EPA object to the CAA renewal permit issued by TDEC to TVA for operations at Gallatin. The petition alleges that the permit (1) contains compliance evaluation requirements for opacity, particulate matter, and fugitive dust that are impermissibly lax, (2) includes allowances for startup, shutdown, and malfunctions that are inconsistent with the CAA, (3) fails to include reporting requirements to ensure compliance with the Environmental Agreements, and (4) contains impermissibly high SO₂ emission limits. While the EPA has 60 days under the CAA to respond, the EPA has not yet acted on the petition.