XML 51 R26.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.2

Contingencies and Legal Proceedings | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies and Legal Proceedings | Contingencies and Legal Proceedings Contingencies Nuclear Insurance. Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act, commonly known as the Price-Anderson Act, provides a layered framework of financial protection to compensate for liability claims of members of the public for personal injury and property damages arising from a nuclear incident in the U.S. This financial protection consists of two layers of coverage: •The primary level is private insurance underwritten by American Nuclear Insurers and provides public liability insurance coverage of $450 million for each nuclear power plant licensed to operate. If this amount is not sufficient to cover claims arising from a nuclear incident, the second level, Secondary Financial Protection, applies. •Within the Secondary Financial Protection level, the licensee 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 $138 million per reactor per incident. With TVA's seven reactors, the maximum total contingent obligation per incident is $963 million. This retrospective premium is payable at a maximum rate currently set at approximately $20 million per year per nuclear incident per reactor. Currently, 95 reactors are participating in the Secondary Financial Protection program. In the event that a nuclear incident results in public liability claims, the primary level provided by American Nuclear Insurers combined with the Secondary Financial Protection should provide up to approximately $13.5 billion in coverage. Federal law requires that each Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") power reactor licensee obtain property insurance from private sources to cover the cost of stabilizing and decontaminating a reactor and its station site after an accident. TVA carries property, decommissioning liability, and decontamination liability insurance from Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited ("NEIL") and European Mutual Association for Nuclear Insurance. The limits available for a loss are up to $2.1 billion for two of TVA's nuclear sites and up to $2.8 billion for the remaining site. Some of this insurance may require the payment of retrospective premiums up to a maximum of approximately $115 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) with 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, but only to the extent the retrospective premium is deemed necessary by the NEIL Board of Directors to pay losses unable to be covered by NEIL's surplus. 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 11 — Asset Retirement Obligations. 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 June 30, 2022, $3.5 billion, representing the discounted value of future estimated nuclear decommissioning costs, was included in nuclear 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. Decommissioning costs studies are updated for each of TVA's nuclear units at least every five years, and TVA is currently performing a study with implementation expected in 2022. TVA maintains an NDT to provide funding for the ultimate decommissioning of its nuclear power plants. See Note 15 — Fair Value Measurements — Investment Funds. 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 various dates between 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 8 — Regulatory Assets and Liabilities and Note 11 — Asset Retirement Obligations. Non-Nuclear Decommissioning. At June 30, 2022, $3.7 billion, representing the discounted value of future estimated non-nuclear decommissioning costs, was included in non-nuclear AROs. 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 updates its underlying assumptions for non-nuclear decommissioning AROs at least every five years. However, material changes in underlying assumptions that impact the amount and timing of undiscounted cash flows are continuously monitored and incorporated into ARO balances in the period identified. TVA maintains an ART to help fund the ultimate decommissioning of its non-nuclear power assets. See Note 15 — Fair Value Measurements — Investment Funds. 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 8 — Regulatory Assets and Liabilities and Note 11 — Asset Retirement Obligations. Environmental Matters. TVA's 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, greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions, water quality control, and management and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. Regulations in these major areas continue to become more stringent and have, and will continue to have, 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 and natural gas-fired generating units in general and emissions of pollutants from those units. Environmental requirements placed on the operation of coal-fired and other generating units using fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas will likely continue to become more restrictive over time. Failure to comply with environmental and safety requirements can result in enforcement actions and litigation, which can lead to the imposition of significant civil liability, including fines and penalties, criminal sanctions, and/or temporary or permanent closure of non-compliant facilities. Historical non-compliance can also lead to difficulty in renewing existing permits, as well as difficulty in obtaining permits to bring new generation facilities online. Other obstacles to renewal or permitting of new facilities include a proliferation of non-government organizations seeking to use litigation tools to delay or stop all together permitting of new fossil fuel facilities in favor of renewable energy projects. TVA estimates that compliance with existing and future Clean Air Act ("CAA") requirements (excluding GHG requirements) could lead to costs of $124 million from 2022 to 2026, which include existing controls capital projects and air operations and maintenance projects. TVA also estimates additional expenditures of approximately $1.0 billion from 2022 to 2026 relating to TVA's CCR Program, as well as expenditures of approximately $128 million from 2022 to 2026 relating to compliance with Clean Water Act ("CWA") 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, and these estimates do not include expenditures expected to be incurred after 2026. Compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA's") CCR rule ("CCR Rule") required implementation of a groundwater monitoring program, additional engineering, and ongoing analysis. As further analyses are performed, including evaluation of monitoring results, there is the potential for additional costs for investigation and/or remediation. These costs cannot reasonably be predicted until a final remedy is selected where required. Liability for releases, natural resource damages, and required cleanup of hazardous substances is primarily regulated by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), and other federal and parallel state statutes. In a manner similar to many other governmental entities, industries, and power systems, TVA has generated or used hazardous substances over the years. TVA operations at some facilities have resulted in releases of contaminants that TVA has addressed or is addressing consistent with state and federal requirements. At both June 30, 2022 and September 30, 2021, TVA's estimated liability for required cleanup and similar environmental work for those sites for which sufficient information is available to develop a cost estimate was approximately $18 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. Additionally, the potential inclusion of new hazardous substances under CERCLA and RCRA jurisdiction could significantly affect TVA's future liability for remediating historical releases. Potential Liability Associated with Workers' Exposure to CCR Materials. In response to the 2008 ash spill at 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 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee ("Eastern District") by employees of a contractor involved in the cleanup and family members of some of the employees. The plaintiffs 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, among other issues, general causation and the second determining specific causation and damages. 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; Jacobs failed to provide reasonable care to the plaintiffs; and Jacobs's failures were capable of causing a list of medical conditions, ranging from hypertension to cancer. On January 11, 2019, the Eastern District referred the parties to mediation. Mediation has concluded, but the parties did not resolve the matter. If the litigation proceeds to the second phase, the principal question for resolution will be whether Jacobs's breaches were the specific medical cause of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries and damages. No trial date has been set for the second phase. On August 24, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the "Sixth Circuit") accepted Jacobs’s petition for interim appeal on issues relating to the availability of derivative governmental immunity as a defense to the plaintiffs’ claims. The Sixth Circuit held oral argument on Jacobs’s petition for interim appeal on March 11, 2022, and issued an opinion holding that Jacobs is not entitled to derivative governmental immunity on May 18, 2022. On September 29, 2021, the Eastern District certified four questions to the Tennessee Supreme Court regarding the applicability of the Tennessee Silicosis Claims Priority Act to the plaintiffs’ claims. The Eastern District’s order also stayed all proceedings pending the Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision. On March 24, 2022, the Tennessee Supreme Court accepted the four certified questions from the Eastern District, and oral argument on these questions was held on June 1, 2022. Other contractor employees and family members have filed lawsuits against Jacobs that are pending in the Eastern District. These pending lawsuits are stayed and raise similar claims to those being litigated in the case referenced above. While TVA is not a party to any of these lawsuits, TVA may potentially have an indemnity obligation to reimburse Jacobs for some amounts that Jacobs is required to pay. TVA will continue monitoring the litigation to determine whether these or similar cases could have broader implications for the utility industry. TVA does not expect any potential liability to have a material adverse impact on its results of operations or financial condition. 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 June 30, 2022, TVA had accrued $11 million of probable losses in Other long-term liabilities with respect to Legal Proceedings. 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"). Under the Environmental Agreements, TVA committed to, among other things, take actions regarding coal units that have been completed. TVA also agreed to invest $290 million in certain TVA environmental projects of which TVA had spent approximately $282 million as of June 30, 2022. Additionally, TVA holds restricted cash in an interest earning trust to fund the remaining project commitments. Any interest earned through the trust must also be spent on agreed upon environmental projects. The total remaining committed spend, including interest earned through the trust, was approximately $9 million as of June 30, 2022. 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. The liabilities related to the Environmental Agreements are included in Accounts payable and accrued liabilities and Other long-term liabilities on the June 30, 2022 Consolidated Balance Sheets. 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 June 30, 2022 Consolidated Balance Sheets and will be recovered in rates in future periods. Case Involving Kingston Fossil Plant. On August 12, 2021, an individual landowner and resident of Roane County, Tennessee, filed a lawsuit against TVA and Jacobs in the Eastern District. The complaint asserts claims for damage to property and personal injuries as a result of the 2008 ash spill at Kingston Fossil Plant and the resulting cleanup activities and from continuing operations at Kingston Fossil Plant. The complaint seeks compensatory damages of $8 million and punitive damages of $10 million. It also requests the court to order TVA to release certain information, to remediate alleged damages to the plaintiff's property, and to stop alleged migration of coal ash onto the plaintiff's property. On May 16, 2022, the court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiff’s claims against TVA for failure of the plaintiff to properly and timely serve TVA. In addition, on June 10, 2022, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s remaining claims against Jacobs on statute-of-limitations and other grounds. Case Involving Bull Run Fossil Plant. On August 3, 2021, four residents of Anderson County, Tennessee filed a lawsuit against TVA in the Eastern District. The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs live near Bull Run Fossil Plant ("Bull Run") and asserted claims for personal injuries resulting from exposures to CCR that migrated from Bull Run to their home and from second-hand exposures to CCR from a family member who worked with CCR. The complaint also asserted claims for damage to property resulting from the migration of CCR from Bull Run to their home. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount as compensation for their injuries and an award of punitive damages in an unspecified amount. The plaintiffs did not timely serve TVA with process, and the court dismissed the case without prejudice on May 5, 2022. On June 1, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reopen the case, and the court denied this motion on June 2, 2022. Case Involving Bellefonte Nuclear Plant. In November 2018, Nuclear Development, LLC ("Nuclear Development"), filed suit against TVA in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Nuclear Development alleged that TVA breached its agreement to sell Bellefonte Nuclear Plant ("Bellefonte"). As a remedy, Nuclear Development sought, among other things, (1) an injunction requiring TVA to maintain Bellefonte and the associated NRC permits until the case concluded; (2) an order compelling TVA to complete the sale of Bellefonte; and (3) if the court does not order TVA to complete the sale, monetary damages in excess of $30 million. On September 23, 2020, the parties filed competing motions for summary judgment. On March 31, 2021, the court denied both parties' summary judgment motions; however, the court ruled as a matter of law that it would have been illegal under Section 101 of the Atomic Energy Act for TVA to close the sale, relying on past NRC precedent to reach that conclusion. Notwithstanding the legal rulings, the court held that there were disputed issues of material fact as to whether TVA satisfied its contractual obligations to use commercially reasonable best efforts and to cooperate with Nuclear Development in effectuating the close of the sale. Trial took place in May 2021, and the parties filed post-trial briefs on June 9, 2021. Nuclear Development also filed a motion for judgment on partial findings and to reconsider the court's March 31 ruling. The court held closing arguments on July 1, 2021, and on August 26, 2021, the court issued its decision and final judgment. The court held that TVA did not breach its obligations to use commercially reasonable best efforts and to cooperate with Nuclear Development in effectuating the close of the sale. As a result, Nuclear Development is not entitled to specific performance or damages on that claim, and TVA retains full possession and control of the Bellefonte site; however, the court found that, under the contract's termination provision, Nuclear Development was entitled to have TVA return Nuclear Development's $22 million down payment and pay approximately $1 million of compensated costs, along with 7.5% prejudgment interest. Including post-judgment interest, TVA paid approximately $28 million to the court in September 2021 to satisfy the judgment. On July 18, 2022, the court denied Nuclear Development's post-trial motions, granted TVA's post-trial motions, and entered an Amended Final Judgement reflecting the correct prejudgment interest rate to be paid by TVA from the court-ordered 7.5% rate to the contractually-agreed 6% rate, entitling TVA to a return of the difference. Nuclear Development now has 60 days to appeal from the court's final judgement. Case Involving Rate Changes. On June 9, 2020, a proposed class action lawsuit was filed against TVA and one of its LPCs, Bristol Virginia Utilities Authority ("BVUA"), in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, by a LPC customer, asserting claims for breach of contract and violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The lawsuit alleges that the customers of TVA's LPCs are third-party beneficiaries under TVA's wholesale power contracts with its LPCs and that TVA’s rate changes dating back to 2010 violate Section 11 of the TVA Act. Section 11 of the TVA Act establishes the broad policy that TVA power projects shall be considered primarily for the benefit of the people of the Tennessee Valley and that service to industry is a secondary purpose to be used principally to secure a sufficiently high load factor and revenue returns to permit domestic and rural use at the lowest possible rates. The remedies requested include an injunction prohibiting TVA rate changes that violate Section 11, monetary damages, and repayment of rates charged in violation of Section 11. TVA and BVUA filed motions to dismiss the case on November 9, 2020, and filed supplemental motions to dismiss on December 21, 2020, in response to an amended complaint filed by the plaintiff. Oral argument on the motions was held on February 18, 2021, and on March 19, 2021, the court granted TVA’s and BVUA's motions to dismiss. The plaintiff appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ("Fourth Circuit") on April 15, 2021. The parties filed their briefs with the Fourth Circuit, and oral argument was held on January 27, 2022. Case Involving Long-Term Agreements. On August 17, 2020, the Southern Environmental Law Center ("SELC") filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on behalf of three environmental groups alleging that, beginning in August 2019, TVA violated the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") and Section 10 of the TVA Act by offering a Long-Term Agreement ("LTA") to its LPCs. The environmental groups represented by SELC are Protect Our Aquifer, Energy Alabama, and Appalachian Voices. The environmental groups claim that TVA violated NEPA because (1) TVA failed to perform an environmental review of the LTAs, which harmed the groups' advocacy efforts and their ability to participate in and to inform TVA's decision, and (2) the LTAs will have a negative effect on the environment by increasing TVA's reliance on coal and gas and impeding TVA's customers' efforts to institute renewable energy options. The groups also claim that the LTAs violate Section 10 of the TVA Act, which authorizes TVA to enter into power contracts "for a term not exceeding twenty years," because, the groups allege, the twenty-year rolling contract with a twenty-year notice of termination requirement makes the LTAs effectively "never ending." The environmental groups request the federal court to (1) declare that TVA's entry into long-term power agreements without preparing an environmental review violated NEPA and the TVA Act, (2) vacate the long-term contracts, and (3) enjoin TVA from implementing "system-wide energy contract programs that significantly affect the environment." TVA filed a motion to dismiss the case on October 20, 2020, and filed a supplemental motion to dismiss on December 4, 2020, in response to an amended complaint filed by the plaintiffs. Oral argument on the motion was held on February 26, 2021, and the court denied TVA's motion to dismiss on August 12, 2021. On August 13, 2021, the court held argument on the plaintiffs' motion to complete the administrative record and took the matter under advisement. On August 26, 2021, TVA filed its answer to the amended complaint. On January 24, 2022, the court ordered TVA to supplement the administrative record with background materials pertaining to TVA's decision to offer the LTA and its decision that an environmental review under NEPA was not warranted. On February 14, 2022, TVA filed a motion to reconsider part of the court's January 24th order. On February 18, 2022, the court granted the parties' joint motion to establish a scheduling order, setting the deadline for supplementing the administrative record as of May 24, 2022. On May 24, 2022, TVA filed the supplemental administrative record. On July 14, 2022, the court denied TVA's motion to reconsider and ordered additional supplementation of the administrative record. Challenge to Anti-Cherrypicking Amendment. On January 11, 2021, Athens Utilities Board, Gibson Electric Membership Corporation, Joe Wheeler EMC, and Volunteer Energy Cooperative filed a complaint and petition with FERC asking FERC to order TVA to provide transmission and interconnection service to the LPCs or other suppliers that want to serve them. The petitioners seek to avoid the limitations of the Anti-Cherrypicking Amendment ("ACPA") to the Federal Power Act ("FPA"), which prohibits FERC from ordering TVA to wheel power from another supplier if the power will be consumed within the TVA service territory. The petitioners argue that section 211A of the FPA, which gives FERC limited jurisdiction over the rates, terms, and conditions of transmission service provided by unregulated transmitting utilities such as TVA, provides an alternate grant of authority to enable FERC to order TVA to wheel power inside its service area unrestricted by the application of the ACPA. The petitioners also argue that the public power model is antiquated and TVA’s refusal to wheel power is not in the public interest because it stifles competition. On August 31, 2021, Joe Wheeler EMC notified FERC of its withdrawal from the complaint and petition. On October 21, 2021, FERC denied the petition. On November 22, 2021, Athens Utilities Board and Gibson Electric Membership Corporation filed a request for rehearing, and on December 7, 2021, TVA filed a response asking FERC to deny the request for rehearing. On December 23, 2021, FERC entered an order denying the request for rehearing by operation of law and providing for possible further consideration by FERC. On February 18, 2022, Athens Utilities Board and Gibson Electric Membership Corporation petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ("D.C. Circuit") to review the FERC orders. TVA and several other parties have intervened in this case. On March 21, 2022, FERC filed an unopposed motion asking the court to stay the case so that FERC could issue a further order in the underlying proceeding, and the court granted this motion on April 7, 2022. On April 22, 2022, however, FERC issued a notice stating that the rehearing request will not be addressed in a future order. As a result, the appellate case will now move forward. On May 25, 2022, the D.C. Circuit issued an order holding the case in abeyance pending further order of the court and ordered the parties to file motions to govern future proceedings by June 30, 2022. On June 15, 2022, the petitioners filed an amended petition for review. On June 30, 2022, the petitioners filed an unopposed motion to govern future proceedings requesting that the court hold the case in abeyance for an additional 30 days. On August 1, 2022, the petitioners filed an unopposed motion to govern further proceedings with the court. Administrative Proceeding Regarding National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit for Kingston. On December 28, 2021, the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity appealed the revised National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit issued by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation ("TDEC") for Kingston in December 2021 before the Tennessee Board of Water Quality, Oil, and Gas. The petitioners allege that TDEC unlawfully incorporated into the revised permit effluent limits for landfill leachate based on effluent limitation guidelines ("ELGs") for landfill leachate issued by the EPA in 1982 rather than establish new limits based on TDEC’s best professional judgment. TDEC is the respondent in the matter. TVA filed a motion to intervene, which was granted, and on April 8, 2022, the parties and TVA filed cross-motions for summary decisions. Oral argument on the cross-motions was held before an Administrative Judge on July 12, 2022, following which the judge stated that he was going to grant TVA's and TDEC's joint motion to dismiss the appeal and requested counsel for TDEC to prepare a proposed order dismissing the appeal.

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 Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration