XML 67 R26.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.10.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Commitments Power Purchase Obligations. TVA has contracted with various independent power producers and LPCs for additional capacity 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 2,230 MW of summer net capability. The remaining terms of the agreements range up to 14 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 four years. TVA incurred $188 million, $178 million, and $218 million of expense under these power purchase and transmission service agreements during 2018, 2017, and 2016, respectively. Lease-related costs under TVA’s power purchase agreements not accounted for as capital leases, as well as certain leases that are 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, 2018, there was a combined qualifying facility capacity of 259 MW from 36 different generation sources, from which TVA purchased power under this law. Membership Interests of VIE Subject to Mandatory Redemption. At September 30, 2018, TVA had outstanding membership interests subject to mandatory redemption (including current portion) of $30 million issued by one of its VIEs of which it is the primary beneficiary. See Note 10 for additional information. At September 30, 2018, the mandatory redemptions for each of the next five years are shown below:
|  | 2019 |  | 2020 |  | 2021 |  | 2022 |  | 2023
Membership interests of variable interest entity subject to mandatory redemption |  | $ | 2 |  |  | $ | 3 |  |  | $ | 3 |  |  | $ | 3 |  |  | $ | 2 |
Leases. TVA leases certain property, plant, and equipment under agreements with terms ranging from one to 38 years. TVA’s rental expense for operating leases, including power purchase agreement operating leases, was $92 million, $90 million, and $86 million in 2018, 2017, and 2016, respectively. At September 30, 2018, the future minimum lease payments under operating leases, including purchased power agreements that are accounted for as operating leases, are shown below.
Operating Leases Minimum payments due in years ending September 30
2019 |  | $ | 69 |
2020 |  | 64 |
2021 |  | 62 |
2022 |  | 47 |
2023 |  | 7 |
Thereafter |  | 1 |
Total |  | $ | 250 |
At September 30, 2018, the future minimum lease payments under capital leases shown below were included as Capital leases and Other long-term liabilities on TVA's consolidated balance sheet.
Capital Leases Minimum payments due in years ending September 30
2019 |  | $ | 51 |
2020 |  | 51 |
2021 |  | 51 |
2022 |  | 51 |
2023 |  | 51 |
Thereafter |  | 468 |
Minimum annual payments |  | 723 |
Less: amount representing interest |  | (541 | )
Total |  | $ | 182 |
Leasebacks. At September 30, 2018 and 2017, the outstanding leaseback obligations related to CTs and QTE were $301 million and $338 million, respectively. See Note 13 — Lease/Leasebacks. At September 30, 2018, the future minimum payments under leaseback obligations are shown below.
Lease/Leasebacks Minimum payments due in years ending September 30
2019 |  | $ | 49 |
2020 |  | 50 |
2021 |  | 207 |
2022 |  | 25 |
2023 |  | — |
Thereafter |  | — |
Total |  | $ | 331 |
Unfunded Loan Commitments. At September 30, 2018, TVA's commitments under unfunded loan commitments is $3 million for 2019. TVA has no commitments under unfunded loan commitments for 2020 through 2023. In addition to the commitments above, TVA has contractual obligations in the form of revenue discounts related to energy prepayments. TVA will recognize $10 million of prepayment obligations and related interest payments of $4 million in revenue during 2019. No prepayment obligations or related interest payments will be recognized in revenue from 2020 through 2023. See Note 1 — Energy Prepayment Obligations. Contingencies Nuclear Insurance. Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act, commonly known as the Price-Anderson Act, provides a layered framework of protection to compensate for liability claims of members of the public for personal injury and property damages arising from a nuclear event in the U.S. This protection consists of two layers of coverage:
• | The primary level is private insurance underwritten by American Nuclear Insurers (“ANI”) and provides public liability insurance coverage of $450 million for each operating reactor. If this amount is not sufficient to cover claims arising from an accident, the second level, Secondary Financial Protection, applies.
• | Within the Secondary Financial Protection level, the owner of each nuclear reactor has a contingent obligation to pay a retrospective premium, equal to its proportionate share of the loss in excess of the primary level, regardless of proximity to the incident of fault, up to a maximum of approximately $127 million per reactor per incident. With TVA’s seven reactors, the maximum total contingent obligation per incident is $891 million. This retrospective premium is payable at a rate currently set at approximately $19 million per year per incident per reactor. Currently, 99 reactors are participating in the Secondary Financial Protection program.
In the event that a nuclear power plant event results in third-party damages, the primary level provided by ANI combined with the Secondary Financial Protection would provide approximately $13.0 billion in coverage. Federal law requires that each NRC power reactor licensee obtain property insurance from private sources to cover the cost of stabilizing or shutting down a reactor after an accident. TVA carries property, decommissioning, and decontamination insurance from Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited ("NEIL"), totaling $5.1 billion for its licensed nuclear plants with up to $2.1 billion available for a loss at any one site. Some of this insurance may require the payment of retrospective premiums up to a maximum of approximately $128 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 $44 million. Decommissioning Costs. TVA recognizes legal obligations associated with the future retirement of certain tangible long-lived assets related primarily to nuclear generating plants, coal-fired generating plants, hydroelectric generating plants/dams, transmission structures, and other property-related assets. See Note 12. 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, 2018, the estimated future decommissioning cost of $3.0 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 16. 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 12. Non-Nuclear Decommissioning. The estimated future non-nuclear decommissioning ARO was $1.8 billion at September 30, 2018. 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 non-nuclear power assets. See Note 16. 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. See Note 7 — Non-Nuclear Decommissioning Costs and Note 12. Environmental Matters. TVA’s power generation activities, like those across the utility industry and in other industrial sectors, are subject to 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. From 1970 to 2018, TVA spent approximately $6.7 billion to reduce emissions from its power plants, including $62 million, $206 million, and $259 million in 2018, 2017, and 2016, respectively, on clean air controls. TVA estimates that compliance with existing and future Clean Air Act ("CAA") requirements (excluding greenhouse gas ("GHG") requirements) could lead to costs of $163 million from 2019 to 2023, which include existing controls capital projects and air operations and maintenance projects. TVA also estimates additional expenditures of approximately $1.2 billion from 2019 to 2023 relating to TVA’s CCR conversion program, not including costs related to any new requirements related to the Gallatin lawsuits, as well as expenditures of approximately $466 million from 2019 to 2024 relating to compliance with Clean Water Act requirements. Future costs could differ from these estimates 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 ("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 operations at some facilities have resulted in contamination that TVA is addressing. At September 30, 2018 and 2017, 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 $12 million and $7 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. Potential Liability Associated with Workers’ Exposure to CCR Materials. In response to the 2008 ash spill at the Kingston, TVA hired Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (“Jacobs”) to oversee certain aspects of the cleanup. After the cleanup was completed, Jacobs was sued in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (“Eastern District”) by a group of workers who alleged that Jacobs had failed to take or provide proper health precautions and misled workers about the health risks associated with exposure to coal fly ash, which is a CCR material. The plaintiffs alleged that exposure to the fly ash caused a variety of significant health issues and illnesses, including in some cases death. The case was split into two phases, with the first phase considering general causation and the second determining specific causation. On November 7, 2018, a jury hearing the first phase returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, including determinations that Jacobs failed to adhere to its contract with TVA or the Site Wide Safety and Health Plan in place; Jacobs failed to provide reasonable care to the plaintiffs; and Jacobs’s failures were capable of causing a specific list of medical conditions, ranging from hypertension to cancer. The case will now proceed on the question of whether Jacobs’s failures did in fact cause the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. While TVA is not a party to this litigation, TVA could be obligated to reimburse Jacobs for some amounts that Jacobs is required to pay as a result of this litigation, but TVA cannot estimate at this time the amount of any such reimbursement obligations. Further, TVA will continue monitoring this litigation to determine whether this or similar cases could have broader implications for the utility industry. 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, 2018, TVA had accrued $18 million with respect to Legal Proceedings. Of the accrued amount, $11 million is included in Other long-term liabilities and $7 million is included in Accounts payable and accrued liabilities. 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 (of which TVA had spent approximately $276 million as of September 30, 2018), (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 ("NSR") 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, 2018 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, 2018 Consolidated Balance Sheet and will be recovered in rates in future periods. TVA has substantially completed the requirements in the Environmental Agreements related to retiring coal-fired units or installing controls on such units. Case Involving Tennessee Valley Authority Retirement System. In March 2010, eight current and former participants in and beneficiaries of TVARS filed suit in the U.S. 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 $1.0 billion contribution from TVA. 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 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. On March 2, 2017, the district court granted TVA's motion for a judgment on the administrative record and dismissed all the remaining claims in this case. The plaintiffs appealed this order to the Sixth Circuit which, on March 16, 2018, ruled in TVA's favor. The case is now concluded. Cases Involving Gallatin Fossil Plant CCR Facilities. TVA is a party in two lawsuits relating to alleged releases of waste materials from the CCR facilities at Gallatin. See Note 8 — Background — Lawsuit Brought by TDEC and — Lawsuit Brought by TSRA and TCWN. Consent Decree Involving Colbert Fossil Plant. In May 2013, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management ("ADEM") and TVA entered into a consent decree concerning alleged violations of the Alabama Water Pollution Control Act. The consent decree required, among other things, that TVA continue remediation efforts TVA had begun prior to the suit being filed and stop using an unlined landfill after a lined landfill is approved and constructed. In August 2018, the parties agreed to amend the consent order to deal with groundwater issues identified after TVA published groundwater monitoring reports in accordance with the CCR rule. The amended consent decree requires TVA to investigate the nature and extent of any groundwater contamination, develop and implement a remedy, provide semiannual status reports to ADEM, and remedy any seeps identified during inspections. TVA also paid $100,000 to Alabama under the consent decree. Petitions to Intervene in the Proceeding Involving the Early Site Permit Application for Small Modular Reactors at TVA's Clinch River Site. Three environmental groups — the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy ("SACE"), Tennessee Environmental Council ("TEC"), and Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League ("BREDL") — filed petitions to intervene in the proceeding regarding the Early Site Permit Application ("ESPA") that TVA submitted for review by the NRC in May 2016 relating to the potential future construction and operation of two or more small modular reactor units at TVA’s Clinch River site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. On October 10, 2017, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") issued a decision admitting two contentions proffered jointly by SACE and TEC and dismissing a third. The two admitted contentions challenge the application's environmental report. One of the contentions alleges that the environmental report fails to consider the possibility of a spent fuel pool fire, and the other objects to language in the environmental report regarding the technical advantages of small modular reactors ("SMRs"). The decision also denied admission of BREDL's one proffered contention. On November 6, 2017, TVA appealed the admission of the two contentions to the NRC. One of the contentions was subsequently dismissed. The NRC released a draft environmental impact statement ("EIS") concerning the application in April 2018. SACE and TEC submitted two additional contentions based on the draft EIS in May 2018. TVA and the NRC filed separate briefs opposing the admission of these contentions in June 2018. On July 31, 2018, the ASLB dismissed the remaining and proposed contentions and terminated the contested hearing. 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 ("PM"), and fugitive dust that are not as stringent as required, (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. On May 15, 2017, the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to compel the EPA to act on the petition. On November 17, 2017, the District Court ordered the EPA to respond to the petition by January 31, 2018. While proceedings on this petition were ongoing, TDEC modified the CAA renewal permit on November 6, 2017, to address compliance with the 1-hour SO 2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ("NAAQS"). On November 20, 2017, the Sierra Club filed a second petition requesting the EPA to object to the modified permit. On January 31, 2018, the EPA denied both petitions. Case Involving Tennessee River Boat Accident. On July 23, 2015, plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, seeking recovery for personal injuries sustained when the plaintiffs’ boat struck a TVA transmission line which was being raised from the Tennessee River during a repair operation. The district court dismissed the case, finding that TVA’s exercise of its discretion as a governmental entity in deciding how to carry out the operation barred any liability for negligence. In August 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the decision. The plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court ("Supreme Court") for review of the decision, arguing that the provision of the TVA Act which allows suit to be brought against TVA does not allow TVA to claim immunity for discretionary actions. On September 27, 2018, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs’ petition to review the case.

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 commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration