XML 48 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.6.0.2

Contingencies and Legal Proceedings | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies and Legal Proceedings | Contingencies and Legal Proceedings 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. See Note 9. 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 December 31, 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 13. 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. Non-Nuclear Decommissioning. The estimated future non-nuclear decommissioning ARO was $1.6 billion at December 31, 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 13. Estimates involved in determining if additional funding will be made to the ART include inflation rate, rate of return projections on the fund investments, and the planned use of other sources to fund decommissioning costs. 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. Environmental requirements placed on the operation of TVA’s coal-fired and other generating units will likely continue to become more restrictive over time. Litigation over emissions or discharges from coal-fired generating units is also occurring, including litigation against TVA. Failure to comply with environmental and safety 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. TVA estimates that compliance with existing and future Clean Air Act ("CAA") requirements (excluding greenhouse gas ("GHG") requirements) could lead to costs of approximately $335 million from 2017 to 2021, which include future clean air controls, existing controls capital projects, and air operations and maintenance projects. The majority of the $335 million is expected to be spent by 2018 on new controls at Gallatin and Shawnee. TVA also estimates additional expenditures of $1.2 billion from 2017 to 2022 relating to TVA’s coal combustion residuals ("CCR") conversion program as well as expenditures of approximately $400 million from 2017 to 2023 relating to compliance with Clean Water Act requirements. There could be additional material costs if new environmental laws or regulations become applicable to TVA or the facilities it operates, or if existing environmental laws or regulations are revised or reinterpreted. There could also be costs that cannot reasonably be predicted at this time, due to uncertainty of actions, that could increase these estimates. Liability for releases and cleanup of hazardous substances is primarily regulated by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 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. On November 22, 2016, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina entered a consent decree that resolved all issues associated with the Ward Transformer site. TVA settled all its remaining potential liability for $10 thousand. TVA operations at some facilities have resulted in contamination that TVA is addressing. At December 31, 2016, and September 30, 2016, respectively, TVA’s estimated liability for cleanup and similar environmental work for those sites for which sufficient information is available to develop a cost estimate was approximately $22 million and $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 December 31, 2016, TVA had accrued $51 million of probable losses with respect to Legal Proceedings. Of the accrued amount, $15 million is included in Other long-term liabilities and $36 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 SO 2 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. 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 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, which could include an order requiring TVA to relocate the CCR facilities. TDEC is also requesting 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 late September through early December 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, which could include an order requiring TVA to relocate the CCR facilities. The plaintiffs are also requesting 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 (1) TVA could be liable for civil penalties under the Clean Water Act and (2) the lawsuit could proceed to trial but the court could consider issues only to the extent that they are not being considered in the state court action. In December 2016, the court denied TVA's motion to reconsider the court's decision that TVA could be liable for civil penalties. Trial is currently scheduled for January 30, 2017. The costs associated with relocating the CCR facilities if required to do so by a court could be substantial, as could be any civil penalties TVA is ordered to pay. 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. The petitioners appealed the ASLB's decision to the NRC in November 2016. TVA and the NRC staff filed answers opposing the appeal in December 2016, and the petitioners have filed their response. 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 SO 2 emission limits. The EPA has not yet acted on the petition.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration