Tennessee Valley Authority - Quarter Report: 2009 March (Form 10-Q)
UNITED
STATES
SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington,
D.C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
(Mark One)
x QUARTERLY
REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13, 15(d), OR 37 OF THE
SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2009
OR
o TRANSITION
REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934
For the
transition period from ____ to ____
Commission
file number 000-52313
TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY
(Exact
name of registrant as specified in its charter)
A
corporate agency of the United States
created
by an act of Congress
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
|
62-0474417
(IRS Employer Identification
No.)
|
|
400
W. Summit Hill Drive
Knoxville,
Tennessee
(Address of principal executive
offices)
|
37902
(Zip
Code)
|
(865) 632-2101
(Registrant’s telephone number,
including area code)
None
(Former name, former address and
former fiscal year, if changed since last report)
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to
be filed by Section 13, 15(d), or 37 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to
such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Yes xNo o
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on
its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be
submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this
chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to submit and post such files).
Yes oNo o
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an
accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting
company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,”
“accelerated filer,” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the
Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large
accelerated filer o
|
Accelerated
filer o
|
Non-accelerated
filer x
(Do not check if a smaller
reporting company)
|
Smaller
reporting company o
|
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in
Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
Yes o No x
1
3
|
|
5
|
|
6
|
|
6
|
|
7
|
|
8
|
|
9
|
|
10
|
|
39
|
|
39
|
|
45
|
|
48
|
|
52
|
|
57
|
|
58
|
|
58
|
|
59
|
|
61
|
|
63
|
|
63
|
|
64
|
|
65
|
|
68
|
|
68
|
|
68
|
|
68
|
|
69
|
|
69
|
|
70
|
|
71
|
|
72
|
This
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (“Quarterly Report”) contains forward-looking
statements relating to future events and future performance. All
statements other than those that are purely historical may be forward-looking
statements. In certain cases, forward-looking statements can be
identified by the use of words such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,”
“anticipate,” “believe,” “intend,” “project,” “plan,” “predict,” “assume,”
“forecast,” “estimate,” “objective,” “possible,” “probably,” “likely,”
“potential,” or other similar expressions.
Although the Tennessee Valley Authority
(“TVA”) believes that the assumptions underlying the forward-looking statements
are reasonable, TVA does not guarantee the accuracy of these
statements. Numerous factors could cause actual results to differ
materially from those in the forward-looking statements. These
factors include, among other things:
|
▪
|
New
laws, regulations, and administrative
orders;
|
|
▪
|
Unplanned
contributions to TVA’s pension or other postretirement benefit plans or to
TVA’s nuclear decommissioning trust;
|
▪ | Cost overruns associated with the cleanup and recovery activities associated with the Kingston ash spill, which may result from, among other things, the final ash disposal plan approved by regulatory authorities, changes in laws and regulatory requirements, and the identification of other environmentally sensitive material in the river sediment that requires remediation; |
|
•
|
Fines,
penalties, and settlements associated with the Kingston ash
spill;
|
▪ | The outcome of legal and administrative proceedings, including, but not limited to, proceedings involving the Kingston ash spill and the North Carolina public nuisance case; |
▪ | Significant changes in demand for electricity; | |
|
•
|
Loss
of customers;
|
|
•
|
The
performance or failure of TVA’s generation, transmission, and related
assets (including facilities such as ash
ponds);
|
|
•
|
Disruption
of fuel supplies, which may result from, among other things, weather
conditions, production or transportation difficulties, labor challenges,
or environmental regulations affecting TVA’s fuel
suppliers;
|
|
•
|
Purchased
power price volatility;
|
|
•
|
Events
at facilities not owned by TVA that affect the supply of water to TVA’s
generation facilities;
|
|
•
|
Compliance
with existing or future environmental laws and
regulations;
|
▪ | Significant delays or cost overruns in construction of generation and transmission assets; | |
|
•
|
Inability
to obtain regulatory approval for the construction of generation
assets;
|
|
•
|
Weather
conditions, including
drought;
|
|
•
|
Failure
of TVA’s transmission facilities or the transmission facilities of other
utilities;
|
|
•
|
Events
at a nuclear facility, even one that is not operated by or licensed to
TVA;
|
|
•
|
Catastrophic
events such as fires, earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, pandemics, wars,
terrorist activities, and other similar events, especially if these events
occur in or near TVA’s service
area;
|
|
•
|
Reliability
of purchased power providers, fuel suppliers, and other
counterparties;
|
|
•
|
Changes
in the market price of commodities such as coal, uranium, natural gas,
fuel oil, construction materials, electricity, and emission
allowances;
|
▪ | Changes in the prices of equity securities, debt securities, and other investments; | |
|
•
|
Changes
in interest rates;
|
|
•
|
Creditworthiness
of TVA, its counterparties, and its
customers;
|
|
•
|
Rising
pension costs and health care
expenses;
|
|
•
|
Increases
in TVA’s financial liability for decommissioning its nuclear facilities
and retiring other assets;
|
|
•
|
Limitations
on TVA’s ability to borrow
money;
|
|
•
|
Changes
in the economy;
|
|
•
|
Ineffectiveness
of TVA’s disclosure controls and procedures and its internal control over
financial reporting;
|
|
•
|
Changes
in accounting standards;
|
|
•
|
The
loss of TVA’s ability to use regulatory accounting;
|
▪ | Problems attracting and retaining skilled workers; |
|
•
|
Changes
in technology;
|
|
•
|
Changes
in TVA’s plans for allocating its financial resources among
projects;
|
|
•
|
Differences
between estimates of revenues and expenses and actual revenues and
expenses incurred;
|
|
•
|
Volatility
in financial markets;
|
|
•
|
Changes
in the market for TVA securities;
and
|
|
•
|
Unforeseeable
events.
|
Additionally, other risks that may
cause actual results to differ materially from the predicted results are set
forth in Item 1A, Risk Factors and Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations in TVA’s Annual Report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2008 (the “Annual Report”) and in
Part I, Item 2, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and
Results of Operations, and Part II, Item 1A, Risk Factors, in this Quarterly
Report. New factors emerge from time to time, and it is not possible
for management to predict all such factors or to assess the extent to which any
factor or combination of factors may impact TVA’s business or cause results to
differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking
statement.
TVA undertakes no obligation to update
any forward-looking statement to reflect developments that occur after the
statement is made or for any other reason.
Fiscal
Year
Unless otherwise indicated, years
(2009, 2008, etc.) in this Quarterly Report refer to TVA’s fiscal years ended
September 30.
Notes
References to “Notes” are to the Notes
to Financial Statements contained in Part I, Item 1, Financial Statements in
this Quarterly Report.
Available
Information
TVA's Annual Reports on Form 10-K,
Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments
to those reports are made available on TVA's web site, free of charge, as soon
as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with or
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). TVA's
web site is www.tva.gov. Information contained on TVA’s web site
shall not be deemed to be incorporated into, or to be a part of, this Quarterly
Report. In addition, the public may read and copy any reports or
other information that TVA files with or furnishes to the SEC at the SEC’s
Public Reference Room at 100 F Street N.E., Washington, D.C.
20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the
Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. TVA's SEC
reports are also available to the public without charge from the web site
maintained by the SEC at www.sec.gov.
TENNESSEE
VALLEY AUTHORITY
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(UNAUDITED)
(in
millions)
Three
Months Ended March 31
|
Six
Months Ended March 31
|
|||||||||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
|||||||||||||
Operating
revenues
|
||||||||||||||||
Sale
of electricity
|
||||||||||||||||
Municipalities
and cooperatives
|
$ | 2,509 | $ | 2,072 | $ | 5,078 | $ | 3,985 | ||||||||
Industries
directly served
|
362 | 382 | 804 | 774 | ||||||||||||
Federal
agencies and other
|
32 | 33 | 70 | 58 | ||||||||||||
Other
revenue
|
30 | 31 | 58 | 61 | ||||||||||||
Total
operating revenues
|
2,933 | 2,518 | 6,010 | 4,878 | ||||||||||||
Operating
expenses
|
||||||||||||||||
Fuel
and purchased power
|
1,232 | 973 | 2,615 | 1,895 | ||||||||||||
Operating
and maintenance
|
586 | 559 | 1,176 | 1,139 | ||||||||||||
Depreciation,
amortization, and accretion
|
398 | 392 | 794 | 782 | ||||||||||||
Tax
equivalents
|
137 | 117 | 285 | 237 | ||||||||||||
Environmental
clean up costs — Kingston ash spill (Note 1)
|
150 | — | 675 | — | ||||||||||||
Total
operating expenses
|
2,503 | 2,041 | 5,545 | 4,053 | ||||||||||||
Operating
income
|
430 | 477 | 465 | 825 | ||||||||||||
Other
income (expense), net
|
20 | (2 | ) | 11 | 1 | |||||||||||
Interest
expense
|
||||||||||||||||
Interest
on debt and leaseback obligations
|
321 | 340 | 655 | 681 | ||||||||||||
Amortization
of debt discount, issue, and reacquisition cost, net
|
5 | 5 | 10 | 10 | ||||||||||||
Allowance
for funds used during construction and nuclear fuel
expenditures
|
(9 | ) | (5 | ) | (17 | ) | (8 | ) | ||||||||
Net
interest expense
|
317 | 340 | 648 | 683 | ||||||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$ | 133 | $ | 135 | $ | (172 | ) | $ | 143 | |||||||
The
accompanying Notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
|
TENNESSEE
VALLEY AUTHORITY
BALANCE SHEETS
(UNAUDITED)
(in
millions)
ASSETS
|
||||||||
March
31
2009
|
September
30
2008
|
|||||||
Current
assets
|
(Unaudited)
|
|||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
$ | 211 | $ | 213 | ||||
Restricted
cash and investments
|
— | 106 | ||||||
Accounts
receivable, net
|
1,200 | 1,405 | ||||||
Inventories
and other, net
|
1,025 | 779 | ||||||
Total
current assets
|
2,436 | 2,503 | ||||||
Property,
plant, and equipment
|
||||||||
Completed
plant
|
40,527 | 40,079 | ||||||
Less
accumulated depreciation
|
(17,531 | ) | (16,983 | ) | ||||
Net
completed plant
|
22,996 | 23,096 | ||||||
Construction
in progress
|
2,204 | 1,892 | ||||||
Nuclear
fuel and capital leases
|
941 | 791 | ||||||
Total
property, plant, and equipment, net
|
26,141 | 25,779 | ||||||
Investment
funds
|
702 | 956 | ||||||
Regulatory
and other long-term assets
|
||||||||
Deferred
nuclear generating units
|
2,543 | 2,738 | ||||||
Other
regulatory assets
|
5,307 | 4,166 | ||||||
Subtotal
|
7,850 | 6,904 | ||||||
Other
long-term assets
|
644 | 995 | ||||||
Total
regulatory and other long-term assets
|
8,494 | 7,899 | ||||||
Total
assets
|
$ | 37,773 | $ | 37,137 | ||||
LIABILITIES
AND PROPRIETARY CAPITAL
|
||||||||
Current
liabilities
|
||||||||
Accounts
payable and accrued liabilities
|
$ | 1,972 | $ | 1,333 | ||||
Environmental
clean up costs – Kingston ash spill (Note 1)
|
250 | — | ||||||
Collateral
funds held
|
— | 103 | ||||||
Accrued
interest
|
411 | 441 | ||||||
Current
portion of leaseback obligations
|
60 | 54 | ||||||
Current
portion of energy prepayment obligations
|
105 | 106 | ||||||
Short-term
debt, net
|
1,621 | 185 | ||||||
Current
maturities of long-term debt
|
401 | 2,030 | ||||||
Total
current liabilities
|
4,820 | 4,252 | ||||||
Long-term
liabilities
|
||||||||
Other
long-term liabilities
|
4,523 | 3,514 | ||||||
Regulatory
liabilities
|
424 | 860 | ||||||
Environmental
clean up costs – Kingston ash spill (Note 1)
|
348 | — | ||||||
Asset
retirement obligations
|
2,382 | 2,318 | ||||||
Leaseback
obligations
|
1,259 | 1,299 | ||||||
Energy
prepayment obligations
|
875 | 927 | ||||||
Total
long-term liabilities
|
9,811 | 8,918 | ||||||
Long-term
debt, net
|
19,885 | 20,404 | ||||||
Total
liabilities
|
34,516 | 33,574 | ||||||
Commitments and
contingencies
|
||||||||
Proprietary
capital
|
||||||||
Appropriation
investment
|
4,713 | 4,723 | ||||||
Retained
earnings
|
2,396 | 2,571 | ||||||
Accumulated
other comprehensive loss
|
(154 | ) | (37 | ) | ||||
Accumulated
net expense of nonpower programs
|
(3,698 | ) | (3,694 | ) | ||||
Total
proprietary capital
|
3,257 | 3,563 | ||||||
Total
liabilities and proprietary capital
|
$ | 37,773 | $ | 37,137 | ||||
The
accompanying Notes are an integral part of these financial
statements.
|
TENNESSEE
VALLEY AUTHORITY
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(UNAUDITED)
For
the Six Months Ended March 31
(in
millions)
2009
|
2008
|
|||||||
Cash
flows from operating activities
|
||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$ | (172 | ) | $ | 143 | |||
Adjustments
to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by
operating activities
|
||||||||
Depreciation,
amortization, and accretion
|
804 | 792 | ||||||
Nuclear
refueling outage amortization
|
60 | 50 | ||||||
Amortization
of nuclear fuel
|
103 | 88 | ||||||
Non-cash
retirement benefit expense
|
70 | 71 | ||||||
Prepayment
credits applied to revenue
|
(52 | ) | (53 | ) | ||||
Fuel
cost adjustment deferral
|
678 | (15 | ) | |||||
Environmental
clean up costs - Kingston ash spill
|
598 | — | ||||||
Changes
in current assets and liabilities
|
||||||||
Accounts
receivable, net
|
182 | 278 | ||||||
Inventories
and other, net
|
(295 | ) | (55 | ) | ||||
Accounts
payable and accrued liabilities
|
92 | (253 | ) | |||||
Accrued
interest
|
(30 | ) | 21 | |||||
Pension
contributions
|
— | (37 | ) | |||||
Refueling
outage costs
|
(44 | ) | (85 | ) | ||||
Other,
net
|
(4 | ) | 14 | |||||
Net
cash provided by operating activities
|
1,990 | 959 | ||||||
Cash
flows from investing activities
|
||||||||
Construction
expenditures
|
(859 | ) | (686 | ) | ||||
Nuclear
fuel expenditures
|
(302 | ) | (195 | ) | ||||
Change
in restricted cash and investments
|
(17 | ) | 43 | |||||
Change
in collateral funds
|
(260 | ) | — | |||||
Proceeds
of investments, net
|
4 | 2 | ||||||
Loans
and other receivables
|
||||||||
Advances
|
(4 | ) | (4 | ) | ||||
Repayments
|
5 | 6 | ||||||
Net
cash used in investing activities
|
(1,433 | ) | (834 | ) | ||||
Cash
flows from financing activities
|
||||||||
Long-term
debt
|
||||||||
Issues
|
619 | 1,602 | ||||||
Redemptions
and repurchases
|
(2,558 | ) | (214 | ) | ||||
Short-term
debt issues (redemptions), net
|
1,436 | (854 | ) | |||||
Payments
on leaseback financing
|
(27 | ) | (24 | ) | ||||
Payments
on equipment financing
|
(7 | ) | (7 | ) | ||||
Financing
costs, net
|
(5 | ) | (13 | ) | ||||
Payments
to U.S. Treasury
|
(17 | ) | (20 | ) | ||||
Net
cash (used) provided by financing activities
|
(559 | ) | 470 | |||||
Net
change in cash and cash equivalents
|
(2 | ) | 595 | |||||
Cash
and cash equivalents at beginning of period
|
213 | 165 | ||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents at end of period
|
$ | 211 | $ | 760 | ||||
The
accompanying Notes are an integral part of these financial
statements.
|
TENNESSEE
VALLEY AUTHORITY
STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN PROPRIETARY
CAPITAL (UNAUDITED)
(in
millions)
For
the Three Months Ended March 31, 2009 and 2008
Appropriation
Investment
|
Retained
Earnings
|
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Income
(Loss)
|
Accumulated
Net
Expense of
Stewardship
Programs
|
Total
|
Comprehensive
Income
(Loss)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Balance
at December 31, 2007 (unaudited)
|
$ | 4,738 | $ | 1,768 | $ | (23 | ) | $ | (3,685 | ) | $ | 2,798 | ||||||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
— | 137 | — | (2 | ) | 135 | $ | 135 | ||||||||||||||||
Return
on Power Facility Appropriation Investment
|
— | (5 | ) | – | — | (5 | ) | — | ||||||||||||||||
Accumulated
other comprehensive loss
|
— | — | (44 | ) | — | (44 | ) | (44 | ) | |||||||||||||||
Return
of Power Facility Appropriation Investment
|
(5 | ) | — | — | — | (5 | ) | — | ||||||||||||||||
Balance
at March 31, 2008 (unaudited)
|
$ | 4,733 | $ | 1,900 | $ | (67 | ) | $ | (3,687 | ) | $ | 2,879 | $ | 91 | ||||||||||
Balance
at December 31, 2008 (unaudited)
|
$ | 4,718 | $ | 2,264 | $ | (210 | ) | $ | (3,695 | ) | $ | 3,077 | ||||||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
— | 136 | — | (3 | ) | 133 | $ | 133 | ||||||||||||||||
Return
on Power Facility Appropriation Investment
|
— | (4 | ) | — | — | (4 | ) | — | ||||||||||||||||
Accumulated
other comprehensive income
|
— | — | 56 | — | 56 | 56 | ||||||||||||||||||
Return
of Power Facility Appropriation Investment
|
(5 | ) | — | — | — | (5 | ) | — | ||||||||||||||||
Balance
at March 31, 2009 (unaudited)
|
$ | 4,713 | $ | 2,396 | $ | (154 | ) | $ | (3,698 | ) | $ | 3,257 | $ | 189 | ||||||||||
The
accompanying Notes are an integral part of these financial
statements.
|
For
the Six Months Ended March 31, 2009 and 2008
Appropriation
Investment
|
Retained
Earnings
|
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Income (Loss)
|
Accumulated
Net
Expense
of
Stewardship
Programs
|
Total
|
Comprehensive
Income
(Loss)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Balance
at September 30, 2007
|
$ | 4,743 | $ | 1,763 | $ | (19 | ) | $ | (3,683 | ) | $ | 2,804 | ||||||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
— | 147 | — | (4 | ) | 143 | $ | 143 | ||||||||||||||||
Return
on Power Facility Appropriation Investment
|
— | (10 | ) | — | — | (10 | ) | — | ||||||||||||||||
Accumulated
other comprehensive loss
|
— | — | (48 | ) | — | (48 | ) | (48 | ) | |||||||||||||||
Return
of Power Facility Appropriation Investment
|
(10 | ) | — | — | — | (10 | ) | — | ||||||||||||||||
Balance
at March 31, 2008 (unaudited)
|
$ | 4,733 | $ | 1,900 | $ | (67 | ) | $ | (3,687 | ) | $ | 2,879 | $ | 95 | ||||||||||
Balance
at September 30, 2008
|
$ | 4,723 | $ | 2,571 | $ | (37 | ) | $ | (3,694 | ) | $ | 3,563 | ||||||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
— | (168 | ) | — | (4 | ) | (172 | ) | $ | (172 | ) | |||||||||||||
Return
on Power Facility Appropriation Investment
|
— | (7 | ) | — | — | (7 | ) | — | ||||||||||||||||
Accumulated
other comprehensive loss
|
— | — | (117 | ) | — | (117 | ) | (117 | ) | |||||||||||||||
Return
of Power Facility Appropriation Investment
|
(10 | ) | — | — | — | (10 | ) | — | ||||||||||||||||
Balance
at March 31, 2009 (unaudited)
|
$ | 4,713 | $ | 2,396 | $ | (154 | ) | $ | (3,698 | ) | $ | 3,257 | $ | (289 | ) | |||||||||
The
accompanying Notes are an integral part of these financial
statements.
|
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(UNAUDITED)
(Dollars
in millions except where noted)
1. Kingston
Fossil Plant Ash Spill
During the first quarter of 2009, an
event occurred at Tennessee Valley Authority’s (“TVA”) Kingston Fossil Plant
(“Kingston”), which is located near Kingston, Tennessee, and which TVA operates
pursuant to the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§
831-831ee (as amended, the “TVA Act”), that was reportable to federal, state,
and local environmental and emergency response agencies.
The Event. On December 22, 2008, a
dike failed at Kingston, allowing approximately five million cubic yards of
water and coal fly ash to flow out onto approximately 300 acres, primarily Watts
Bar Reservoir and shoreline property owned by the United States and managed by
TVA. TVA had originally estimated that 50 acres of property not
managed by TVA had been affected by the spill. However, more detailed
examinations determined that only eight acres of property not managed by TVA had
been directly impacted by the ash.
At this time, the cause of the event is
not known. TVA has retained an independent engineering firm to
perform a root-cause analysis. Additionally, TVA’s Office of
Inspector General is performing an independent assessment of the cause of the
event. The firm retained to investigate the root cause of the event
is coordinating its investigation with representatives of the Office of
Inspector General, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
(“TDEC”), and the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”).
Kingston is one of the larger fossil
plants operated by TVA. It generates 10 billion kilowatt-hours of
electricity a year, enough to supply the needs of about 700,000 homes in the
Tennessee Valley. While TVA has been conservatively operating the
plant since the event, TVA’s ability to operate the plant itself was not
affected by the ash release, although constraints associated with the
containment of fly ash produced by operations have somewhat limited the plant’s
availability.
Response and
Cleanup. Fly ash is a by-product of a coal-fired
plant. It is a gray material with a consistency similar to flour. It
is made up mostly of silica, similar to sand. Though the ash itself
is inert, it may contain trace amounts of other substances that occur naturally
in coal, such as arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, and selenium. It is
used in building products such as cement, mortar, stucco, and grout. It also is
used in some potting soils and as a soil conditioner. TVA has sold
fly ash commercially. At Kingston, fly ash is placed in wet ash
containment areas. The involved containment area covered
approximately 84 acres. The depth of the containment area was
approximately 60 feet. The event resulted in about 60 acres of
contained wet ash being displaced.
Cleanup and recovery efforts are being
conducted in coordination with federal and state agencies. Starting
on the day of the event, TVA put equipment and personnel in place to install
floating booms to minimize the movement of cenospheres (inert hollow spheres of
sand-like material created in the coal-fired boiler) along the river surface and
to prepare for cleanup of the floating material. Progress has been
made in removing the ash from
two local
roads. The two roads have reopened to local traffic - one in late
March and one in mid-April. The rail spur near Kingston has been
cleared, and the plant has resumed receiving shipments of coal by
rail.
TVA has constructed structures in the
waterway, one weir and one dike, as part of the recovery. The weir is
under water and the dike is above water. The weir allows water flow
to continue while inhibiting the ash material from flowing
downstream. The dike is used to keep additional ash located in an
embayment area from moving into the river. The coal ash in the Emory
River and the temporary weir have raised the flood elevations from Kingston
through Harriman (approximately 11 miles). Until the ash and the weir
are removed, there is an increased risk of flooding for some river-front
properties upstream of the weir and ash spill. The change in the
flood elevation is only a temporary one until TVA removes the ash and underwater
weir from the river. TVA has informed residents that it will assume
financial responsibility for flooding damage that would not have occurred in the
absence of the ash and weir. After the ash and weir are removed, the
flood elevations will return to levels established before the
spill. TVA’s financial responsibility related to flood damages will
also end at this time.
TVA has recognized a charge of $675
million for the six months ended March 31, 2009, in connection with the current
expected cleanup costs related to the event. Costs incurred through
March 31, 2009, totaled $77 million. The $675 million expense
currently includes, among other things, a reasonable estimate of costs to
contain the cenospheres, perform sampling and analysis, construct the weir and
dike, and the low end of a range of estimates to remove an estimated 5 million
cubic yards of ash. The cost of the removal of the ash is in large
part dependent on the final disposal plan, which will be developed by TVA and by
regulatory authorities.
During the three months ended March 31,
2009, TVA revised its estimate and increased the expense recorded by $150
million. The estimate changed because TVA obtained better information
as the work progressed. The revised estimate reflects an increase in
the number of cubic yards of ash that will need to be transported offsite versus
what could be stored on site. Additionally, the revised estimate
reflects higher transportation rates, and the evaluation of different modes of
transportation. As work progresses, TVA will continue to revise its
estimates as more information is available. TVA currently believes
the recovery process will take several years. As such, TVA has
accrued a portion of the estimate in current liabilities, with the remaining
portion shown as a long-term liability on TVA’s March 31, 2009 Balance
Sheet.
On March 2, 2009, TVA submitted its
Corrective Action Plan (“CAP”) to TDEC and the EPA for the recovery efforts at
Kingston. The CAP outlines how TVA will proceed with planning and
implementing work needed to restore the site of the ash spill while maintaining
public health and safety. TVA met with State of Tennessee and EPA
officials to discuss the plan on March 19, 2009, and TVA is awaiting a formal
response from TDEC and the EPA on the plan. In conjunction with this
plan, TVA and local, state, and federal agencies are to serve as a source of
information, a coordinating mechanism to ensure rapid communication of
information among agencies, and a professional
review
group to provide advice and review on documents and analyses prepared during the
recovery effort. On February 5, 2009, TVA submitted its proposed
Phase I Dredging Plan to the EPA and TDEC for approval and to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers for review. On March 19, 2009, after TDEC and EPA
approved the Phase I Plan dredging operations commenced. During Phase
I, TVA plans to partially clear the river channel to restore flow without
disturbing legacy or natural river sediments. Future work to remove
the remaining ash in the river channel will be addressed in the second phase of
dredging.
Due to the uncertainty at this time of
the final methods of remediation, a range of reasonable estimates has been
developed and the low end of the range has been recorded. The range
of estimated cost varies from approximately $675 million to approximately $975
million This range could change significantly depending on the method
of containment or the amount of ash. This range can also be impacted
if new coal ash laws and regulations are implemented at the state or federal
level.
No amounts are included in the
estimates above for regulatory actions, litigation, fines or penalties that may
be assessed, final remediation activities, or other settlements because TVA
cannot estimate these at this time. Also, all of the regulatory
requirements for the final closure of the site, the continued ground water
monitoring requirements, and any ongoing environmental impact studies that may
be required are not known at this time and are not included in the
estimate. As ash removal continues, it is possible that other
environmentally sensitive material potentially in the river sediment before the
ash spill may be uncovered. If other materials are identified,
additional remediation not included in the above estimates may be
required.
TVA will also be working with state and
federal agencies to determine the extent of the environmental impact of the ash
release and the steps necessary to monitor and restore the environment over the
long term. At this time, TVA does not know the extent of the damage
or the remedies that will be required for restoration.
Post-Spill
Testing. The EPA and TDEC began water quality testing shortly
after the event. TDEC reports that samples received to date show that
municipal water supplies have met drinking water standards. Samples
taken of raw water in the river also have met drinking water standards except
for a few instances for arsenic immediate to the site. A sample right
after the spill and samples after a large rain event showed total arsenic in the
water to be above drinking water standards, but still below fish and aquatic
life standards. All the EPA, TDEC, and TVA water treatment facility
sampling results from Rockwood, Harriman, Cumberland, and Kingston, Tennessee,
indicate that the municipal drinking water, which is filtered and treated by
municipal treatment facilities, continues to meet water quality
standards.
Both
municipal drinking water and the water sampled from private groundwater wells
continue to meet the state standards for drinking water. The EPA and
TDEC began water quality testing within hours of the event. TDEC
tests show the water is safe in that it meets the quality standards set by the
state for drinking water. TDEC is also testing private groundwater
wells, and those results show these water sources meet standards as
well. Each agency does its
own sampling, and the analyses are done by certified, independent
labs. To date, more than 1,050 utility and surface water samples and
more than 100 well and spring water samples taken from within a four-mile radius
of the spill site have been collected. The City of Kingston has also
conducted more than 140 tests on utility drinking water.
To date, more than 30,000 mobile air
monitoring samples have been collected offsite and in residential
areas. All sample results have been within the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter.
The EPA soil testing reports indicate
that, except for arsenic, concentrations of metals in the spilled ash are well
below the EPA Region 4 Removal Action Levels (“RALs”). Some
concentrations of arsenic were above the residential RALs but below the
industrial RALs. The concentrations are well below levels found in
well-fertilized soils and many naturally occurring soils in
Tennessee. In addition, the levels were significantly below the
limits to be
classified
as a hazardous waste. To date, more than 120 ash, soil and sediment
samples have been collected.
Other groups have also sponsored other
testing of sediment in the vicinity of Kingston. In some cases, these
tests have been reported in the media as finding levels of radium and arsenic
that differ significantly from those found by TVA, TDEC, the EPA, and
independent labs.
Insurance. TVA
has property and excess liability insurance programs in place which may cover
some of the costs. The insurers for each of these programs have been
notified of the event. Although two of the insurers that provide
liability insurance have denied coverage, TVA is working with its insurers to
provide information, as it becomes available, on the event and its cause, to
determine applicable coverage. As a result, no estimate for potential
insurance recovery has been accrued at this time.
CERCLA
Designation. On April 1, 2009, TVA’s President and Chief
Executive Officer (“CEO”) directed the Senior Vice President, Office of
Environment and Research, to oversee environmental response actions for the
Kingston ash spill in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA") and to take such actions as necessary
to protect the public health or welfare consistent with the National Contingency
Plan. By utilizing CERCLA, TVA will restore the area in a manner that
protects public health and the environment. CERCLA processes are intended
to be rigorous and transparent, and include opportunities for public
input. CERCLA also prohibits legal actions by third parties challenging
how the site is being cleaned-up while TVA is remediating the site.
Although coal ash is not a hazardous waste, it does contain some materials
that are CERCLA hazardous substances when they appear in certain compound
forms. CERCLA processes can be used to clean up the spilled
ash.
Claims and
Litigation. Seven lawsuits have been filed, all of which are
currently pending before the same judge in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville. A discovery and
briefing order was entered in these cases on April 9, 2009. On April
17, 2009, TVA filed motions in each of these cases asking that the tort claims
be dismissed.
Three
lawsuits have been filed by individual plaintiffs for damages allegedly caused
to their real or personal property by the Kingston ash spill.
|
•
|
Raymond v. TVA – This
lawsuit was filed on December 30, 2008, by four individual property owners
in Roane County, Tennessee, against TVA and certain TVA
officers. The complaint alleges causes of action based in tort
– negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, trespass, nuisance, and
strict liability – and inverse condemnation. The plaintiffs
seek $165 million dollars ($15 million in compensatory damages and $150
million in punitive damages) for the damage to their
property.
|
|
•
|
Auchard v. TVA – Two
hundred seventy-six individuals who allegedly own property and/or reside
in the vicinity of the Kingston ash spill on behalf of themselves and
eighteen minors filed suit against TVA on February 18,
2009. The complaint alleges causes of action based in tort –
public nuisance, statutory public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass,
negligence, gross negligence, negligence per se, negligent infliction of
emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, strict
liability for ultra – hazardous activity, and increased risk of future
harm. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages and injunctive relief relating to spill remediation, including an
order directing TVA to fund medical
monitoring.
|
|
•
|
Scofield v. TVA – Five
Roane County residents filed suit against TVA on February 20, 2009,
seeking damages in excess of $75,000 and other
relief.
|
Four lawsuits seeking class action
status for individuals allegedly damaged by the Kingston ash spill have also
been filed.
|
•
|
Mays v. TVA – A
landowner in Roane County, Tennessee, filed suit on January 7, 2009,
against TVA. The plaintiff is seeking class action status on
behalf of all similarly situated landowners. The complaint
alleges
|
|
that
the ash spill constitutes a private nuisance which has interfered with the
use and value of the property of the proposed class members, and seeks
compensatory damages in excess of $5
million.
|
|
•
|
Blanchard v. TVA – Nine
individual landowners in Roane County, Tennessee, filed suit on January 9,
2009, against TVA. The plaintiffs are seeking class action
status on behalf of all similarly situated persons. The
complaint alleges causes of action based in tort – negligence, negligence
per se, gross negligence, and trespass, among other things – and inverse
condemnation, and seeks compensatory damages in excess of $5
million.
|
|
•
|
Giltnane v. TVA – Six
individual landowners in Roane County, Tennessee, and one local business
filed suit on January 9, 2009. The plaintiffs are seeking class
action status on behalf of all entities (including individuals and
businesses) located within a 25-mile radius of Kingston. The
complaint alleges, among other things, gross negligence, strict liability,
nuisance per se, and violation of various state and federal environmental
statutes. The plaintiffs seek, among other forms of relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, and an injunction requiring TVA to
perform immediate medical and
environmental testing, to abate the nusance, and to
remediate
|
|
the
environmental damage.
|
|
•
|
Long v. TVA –
Forty-three individuals in Roane County, Tennessee, filed suit on March
17, 2009, against TVA, four TVA employees, and certain TVA
contractors. The plaintiffs are seeking class action status on
behalf of all entities (including all individuals and businesses) within a
10-mile radius of Kingston. As to TVA, the complaint alleges
causes of action based in tort – negligence, gross negligence,
recklessness, willful misconduct, wanton misconduct, negligence per se,
trespass, nuisance, ultra hazardous activity, misrepresentation/fraud,
intentional infliction of emotional distress , and negligent infliction of
emotional distress – and also alleges National Environmental Policy Act
(“NEPA”) claims under the Administrative Procedures
Act. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, and
injunctive relief relating to spill remediation, including an order
directing TVA to fund medical monitoring. As to the four TVA
employees, the complaint alleges constitutional tort claims in addition to
state-law tort claims.
|
TVA has received several notices of
intent to sue, including one from a coalition of environmental groups (including
the Sierra Club) alleging violations of federal laws related to
Kingston. TVA has also received notices of intent to sue from
attorneys representing the owners of 46 properties in the vicinity of
Kingston.
As of
April 22, 2009, TVA has settled claims with owners of 71 tracts of land and also
settled 30 personal property claims. TVA acquired these 71 tracts and
paid over $40 million in connection with these settlements. A portion
of this amount has been recorded as property, plant, and equipment and a portion
has been charged to expense. In addition, TVA has received
substantial other claims from private individuals and companies allegedly
affected by the ash spill, and it expects to receive additional
claims.
TDEC
Order. On January 12, 2009, TDEC issued an administrative
order in connection with the Kingston ash spill. The order is based
on a finding of an emergency requiring immediate action to protect the public
health, safety, or welfare, or the health of animals, fish, or aquatic life, or
a public water supply, or recreational, commercial, industrial, agricultural, or
other reasonable uses. The order assesses no penalties, addressing
just the corrective action for the emergency situation. TDEC reserves
the right to issue further orders. Among other things, the order
requires TVA to:
|
•
|
Continue
to implement actions to prevent the movement and migration of sediment
contaminated with ash further
downstream,
|
|
•
|
Provide
support for TDEC’s comprehensive review of all TVA coal ash impoundments
located within Tennessee,
|
|
•
|
Submit
to TDEC all existing studies, reports, and memoranda that are potentially
relevant to explaining or analyzing the failure of the Kingston
containment structures,
|
|
•
|
Provide
support for TDEC’s initial assessment of the impact of the ash release on
all waters of the state, including wetlands and
groundwaters,
|
• Submit
to TDEC a CAP that includes a plan for:
|
–
|
Remediating
impacted segments of the environment and restoration of all natural
resource damages,
|
– Monitoring
air and water,
– Providing
protection of public and private drinking water supplies,
– Managing
on a short-term and long-term basis coal ash at Kingston, and
– Addressing
any health and safety hazards,
• Implement
the CAP upon its approval by TDEC,
|
•
|
Assist
TDEC in the evaluation to determine the need for further remedial action
or monitoring beyond that
|
|
already
conducted under the CAP, and if additional actions are determined by TDEC
to be necessary,
|
submit
plans for and implement the additional activities, and
• Pay
all costs associated with TDEC’s investigation of the ash release.
TVA has provided information on the
containment structure at Kingston, and submitted the required CAP as described
above.
In a letter to TVA dated February
5, 2009, the EPA and TDEC expressed their commitment to work collaboratively in
their oversight of cleanup activities associated with the ash spill at
Kingston. The commitment by the EPA and TDEC will help ensure that the
reviews and approvals by the two regulatory agencies will be conducted in an
efficient and expeditious manner. Also, the EPA and TDEC informed TVA that
they concluded that the Kingston ash spill was in violation of the Clean Water
Act ("CWA") and have requested that TVA provide duplicate copies of all plans,
reports, work proposals and other submittals to the EPA and TDEC
simultaneously. The EPA and TDEC, in turn, agreed they will
coordinate their reviews and approvals.
Fly Ash
Storage. At Kingston, fly ash is collected in wet ash ponds.
Six of the eleven fossil plants operated by TVA use wet fly ash collection
ponds. The other five plants use a dry collection
method. TVA’s ash collection sites follow the permit requirements for
the states in which they are constructed. They are surrounded by
dikes and incorporate drain systems and water runoff controls. TVA’s
ash collection areas undergo daily visual inspections, quarterly state
inspections, and annual detailed engineering inspections which include an
assessment report. In addition, TVA has retained an independent
engineering firm to perform by-product facility assessments at TVA’s eleven
active and one closed fossil plants, and the assessment work is
underway. The root cause analysis firm hired to investigate the
Kingston event is sharing information with the assessment
contractor.
TVA is unable to predict at this time
whether any regulatory actions may be taken, or what the outcome or impact of
any such regulations could be. As a result of the incident at
Kingston and other recent incidents involving coal combustion waste disposal
facilities, there has been a significant increase in the potential for new
regulations related to coal combustion waste disposal. Currently,
coal combustion by-products, including fly ash, are not regulated as hazardous
waste. TVA, along with others in the utility industry, have responded
to information requests from the EPA and from Congress related to by-product
storage practices and facilities, and TVA expects that additional regulation of
coal combustion by-product is likely over the next few months or years -
possibly at both the state and federal level. Until the form and
timing of any such legislation or regulation are better defined, the impacts on
TVA cannot be determined.
After the Kingston incident, TVA
undertook a third party safety evaluation to determine the overall stability and
safety of existing embankments associated with ash storage facilities across the
system. The first phase of the evaluation was completed on January
30, 2009, and involved a “walk-down” of all facilities, a review of recent and
historical inspection reports, and a determination of any immediate actions
necessary to reduce risks. The second phase built on the results of the first
phase and developed action plans including geotechnical investigations, studies
and risk mitigation steps such as performance monitoring. The third
phase, which is still ongoing, includes designing repairs, developing planning
documents, obtaining the necessary permits and implementing the lessons learned
at Kingston at TVA’s other facilities. As a part of this effort, an
ongoing monitoring program with third party oversight will be developed and TVA
employees will receive additional training in dam safety and
monitoring.
TVA
is also evaluating its strategy for storing coal combustion by-products,
including gypsum. A change in how TVA stores coal combustion
by-products, whether as a result of regulation or a change in strategy, could
cause TVA to incur significant capital expenditures.
2. Summary
of Significant Accounting Policies
General
TVA is a wholly-owned corporate agency
and instrumentality of the United States. TVA was created by the U.S.
Congress in 1933 by virtue of the TVA Act. TVA was created to improve
navigation on the Tennessee River, reduce flood damage, provide agricultural and
industrial development, and provide electric power to the Tennessee Valley
region. TVA manages the Tennessee River and its tributaries for
multiple river-system purposes, such as navigation; flood damage reduction;
power generation; environmental stewardship; shoreline use; and water supply for
power plant operations, consumer use, recreation, and industry.
Substantially all of TVA’s revenues and
assets are attributable to the power program. TVA provides power in
most of Tennessee, northern Alabama, northeastern Mississippi, and southwestern
Kentucky, and in portions of northern Georgia, western North Carolina, and
southwestern Virginia to a population of nearly nine million
people. The power program has historically been separate and distinct
from the stewardship programs. TVA is required to be self-supporting
from power revenues and proceeds from power financings, such as proceeds from
the issuance of bonds, notes, and other evidences of indebtedness
(“Bonds”). Although TVA does not currently receive congressional
appropriations, it is required to make annual payments to the U.S. Treasury in
repayment of, and as a return on, the government’s appropriation investment in
TVA power facilities (the “Power Facility Appropriation
Investment”). In the 1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act, Congress directed TVA to fund essential stewardship activities related to
its management of the Tennessee River system and related properties with power
funds in the event that there were insufficient appropriations or other
available funds to pay for such activities in any fiscal
year. Congress has not provided any appropriations to TVA to fund
such activities since 1999. Consequently, during 2000, TVA began
paying for essential stewardship activities primarily with power revenues, with
the remainder funded with user fees and other forms of revenues derived in
connection with those activities. These activities related to
stewardship properties do not meet the criteria of an operating segment pursuant
to Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 131, “Disclosures About Segments of an
Enterprise and Related Information” (“SFAS No.
131”). Accordingly, these assets and properties are included as part
of the power program, TVA’s only operating segment.
Power rates are established by the TVA
Board of Directors (“TVA Board”) as authorized by the TVA Act. The
TVA Act requires TVA to charge rates for power that will produce gross revenues
sufficient to provide funds for operation, maintenance, and administration of
its power system; payments to states and counties in lieu of taxes; debt
service on outstanding indebtedness; payments to the U.S. Treasury in repayment
of and as a return on the Power Facility Appropriation Investment; and such
additional margin as the TVA Board may consider desirable for investment in
power system assets, retirement of outstanding Bonds in advance of maturity,
additional reduction of the Power Facility Appropriation Investment, and other
purposes connected with TVA’s power business. In setting TVA’s rates,
the TVA Board is charged by the TVA Act to have due regard for the primary
objectives of the TVA Act, including the objective that power shall be sold at
rates as low as are feasible. Rates set by the TVA Board are not
subject to review or approval by any state or federal regulatory
body.
Basis
of Presentation
TVA prepares its interim financial
statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States (“GAAP”) for interim financial
information. Accordingly, TVA’s interim financial statements do not
include all of the information and notes required by GAAP for complete financial
statements. Because the accompanying interim financial statements do
not include all of the information and footnotes required by GAAP for complete
financial statements, they should be read in conjunction with the audited
financial statements for the year ended September 30, 2008, and the notes
thereto, which are contained in TVA’s Annual Report. In the opinion
of management, all adjustments (consisting of items of a normal recurring
nature) considered necessary for fair presentation are included.
Use
of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements
requires TVA to estimate the effects of various matters that are inherently
uncertain as of the date of the financial statements. Although the
financial statements are prepared in
conformity
with GAAP, management is required to make estimates and assumptions that affect
the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent
assets and liabilities, and the amounts of revenues and expenses reported during
the reporting period. Each of these estimates varies in regard to the
level of judgment involved and its potential impact on TVA’s financial
results. Estimates are deemed critical either when a different
estimate could have reasonably been used, or where changes in the estimate are
reasonably likely to occur from period to period, and such use or change would
materially impact TVA’s financial condition, changes in financial position, or
results of operations. TVA’s critical accounting policies are also
discussed in Note 1 — Summary
of Significant Accounting Policies in the Annual Report.
Fiscal
Year
TVA’s fiscal year ends September
30. Unless otherwise indicated, years (2009, 2008, etc.) refer to
TVA’s fiscal years.
|
|
Impact
of New Accounting Standards and
Interpretations
|
The following accounting standards
and interpretations became effective for TVA during 2009.
Fair Value
Measurements. In September 2006, FASB issued SFAS No. 157,
“Fair Value
Measurements” (“SFAS No. 157”). SFAS No. 157 provides guidance
for using fair value to measure assets and liabilities that currently require
fair value measurement. SFAS No. 157 also responds to investors’
requests for expanded information about the extent to which companies measure
assets and liabilities at fair value, the information used to measure fair
value, and the effect of fair value measurements on earnings. SFAS No. 157
applies whenever other standards require (or permit) assets or liabilities to be
measured at fair value but does not expand the use of fair value in any new
circumstances. SFAS No. 157 establishes a fair value hierarchy that
prioritizes the information used to develop measurement
assumptions. SFAS No. 157 became effective for TVA on October 1,
2008. See Note 12 for additional
information.
In February 2008, FASB issued FASB
Staff Position (“FSP”) FAS No. 157-2, “Effective Date of FASB Statement No.
157” (“FSP FAS No. 157-2”), which delays the effective date of SFAS No.
157 for
nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities except for items that are
recognized or disclosed at fair value in the financial statements on a recurring
basis. This FSP delays the effective date of SFAS No. 157 to fiscal
years beginning after November 15, 2008, and interim periods within those fiscal
years for items within the scope of this FSP. TVA has utilized the
deferral portion of FSP FAS No. 157-2 for all nonfinancial assets and
liabilities within its scope and is currently evaluating the future related
impact.
In October 2008, FASB issued FSP FAS
No.157-3, “Determining the
Fair Value of a Financial Asset When the Market for That Asset Is Not
Active” ("FSP FAS No.157-3"). FSP FAS No.157-3 clarifies the
application of SFAS No. 157 in a market that is not active. The
guidance emphasizes that determining fair value in an inactive market depends on
the facts and circumstances and may require the use of significant
judgment. FSP FAS No. 157-3 was effective upon issuance, including
prior periods for which financial statements have not been issued, and became
effective for TVA upon its implementation of SFAS No. 157 on October 1,
2008. The adoption of FSP FAS No. 157-3 did not materially impact
TVA’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.
Fair Value Option.
In February 2007, FASB issued SFAS No. 159, “The Fair Value Option for Financial
Assets and Financial Liabilities — including an amendment of FASB Statement No.
115” (“SFAS No. 159”).
This statement permits an entity to choose to measure many financial
instruments and certain other items at fair value. The fair value
option established by SFAS No.159 permits all entities to choose to measure
eligible items at fair value at specified election dates. A business
entity will report unrealized gains and losses on items for which the fair value
option has been elected in earnings at each subsequent reporting
date. Most of the provisions in SFAS No. 159 are elective. SFAS
No. 159 became effective for TVA on October 1, 2008. As allowed by
the standard, TVA did not elect the fair value option for the measurement of any
eligible assets or liabilities. As a result, the adoption of SFAS No.
159 did not materially impact TVA’s financial condition, results of operations,
or cash flows.
Offsetting
Amounts. In April 2007, FASB issued FSP FIN No. 39-1, “Amendment of FASB Interpretation No.
39” which addresses certain modifications to FASB Interpretation (“FIN”)
No. 39, “Offsetting of Amounts
Related to Certain Contracts.” This FSP replaces the
terms “conditional contracts” and “exchange contracts” with the term “derivative
instruments” as defined in SFAS No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities,” as amended (“SFAS No.
133”). The FSP also permits a reporting entity to offset fair value
amounts recognized for the right to reclaim cash collateral (a receivable) or
the obligation to return cash collateral (a payable) against fair value amounts
recognized for derivative instruments executed with the same counterparty under
the same master netting arrangement. The guidance in this FSP became
effective for TVA as of October 1, 2008.
The
adoption of this FSP did not materially impact TVA’s financial position, results
of operations, or cash flows.
Disclosures by Public
Entities (Enterprises) about Transfers of Financial Assets and Interests in
Variable Interest Entities. In December 2008, FASB issued FSP
FAS No. 140-4 and FIN No. 46(R)-8, “Disclosures by Public Entities
(Enterprises) about Transfers of Financial Assets and Interests in Variable
Interest Entities.” This FSP requires
public entities to provide additional disclosures about transfers of financial
assets. It also amends FASB Interpretation No. 46 (revised December
2003), “Consolidation of
Variable Interest Entities,” to require public
enterprises, including sponsors that have a variable interest in a variable
interest entity, to provide additional disclosures about their involvement with
variable interest entities. Additionally, this FSP requires certain
disclosures to be provided by a public enterprise that is (1) the sponsor of a
qualifying special purpose entity (“SPE”) that holds a variable interest in the
qualifying SPE but was not the transferor (“nontransferor”) of financial assets
to the qualifying SPE and (2) a servicer of a qualifying SPE that holds a
significant variable interest in the qualifying SPE but was not the transferor
(nontransferor) of financial assets to the qualifying SPE. The
disclosures required by this FSP are intended to provide greater transparency to
financial statement users about a transferor’s continuing involvement with
transferred financial assets and an enterprise’s involvement with variable
interest entities and qualifying SPEs. The disclosure provisions of
this FSP became effective for TVA as of October 1, 2008.
Employers’ Disclosures about
Postretirement Benefit Plan Assets. In December 2008, FASB
issued FSP FAS No.132(R)-1, “Employers’ Disclosures about
Postretirement Benefit Plan Assets,” to require that an employer disclose
the following information about the plan assets: 1) information regarding how
investment allocation decisions are made; 2) the major categories of plan
assets; 3) information about the inputs and valuation techniques used to measure
fair value of the plan assets; 4) the effect of fair value measurements using
significant unobservable inputs on changes in plan assets for the period; and 5)
significant concentrations of risk within plan assets. This FSP also
includes a technical amendment to require the disclosure of net periodic benefit
cost recognized. This technical amendment was effective for TVA upon
its issuance on December 30, 2008. The remaining portions of this FSP
will be effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2009, with early
application permitted. At initial adoption, application of the
remaining portions of this FSP would not be required for earlier periods that
are presented for comparative purposes. TVA is currently evaluating
the potential impact of adopting the remaining portions of this FSP on its
disclosures in the financial statements.
Derivative Instruments and
Hedging Activities. In March 2008, FASB issued SFAS No. 161,
“Disclosures about Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities — an amendment of FASB Statement No.
133” (“SFAS No.
161”), which establishes, among other things, the disclosure requirements for
derivative instruments and hedging activities. SFAS No. 161 amends
and expands the disclosure requirements of SFAS No. 133. The disclosure
provisions of SFAS No. 161 became effective for TVA as of January 1,
2009.
The following accounting standards have
been issued, but as of March 31, 2009, were not effective and had not been
adopted by TVA.
Business
Combinations. In December 2007, FASB issued SFAS No. 141(R),
“Business Combinations”
(“SFAS No. 141(R)”). This statement establishes principles and
requirements for determining how an enterprise recognizes and measures the fair
value of certain assets and liabilities acquired in a business combination,
including non-controlling interests, contingent consideration, and certain
acquired contingencies. SFAS No. 141(R) also requires
acquisition-related transaction expenses and restructuring costs to be expensed
as incurred rather than capitalized as a component of the business
combination. In April 2009, FASB issued FSP FAS No. 141(R)-1, “Accounting for Assets Acquired and
Liabilities Assumed in a Business Combination That Arise from
Contingencies” (“FSP FAS 141(R)-1”), to amend and clarify
the initial recognition and measurement, subsequent measurement and accounting,
and related disclosures arising from contingencies in a business combination
under SFAS No. 141(R). The provisions of SFAS No. 141(R) and FSP FAS
141(R)-1 are effective as of the beginning of an entity’s first fiscal year that
begins on or after December 15, 2008. Early adoption is
prohibited. SFAS No. 141(R) and FSP FAS 141(R)-1 will become
effective for TVA as of October 1, 2009. TVA expects that SFAS No.
141(R) and FSP FAS 141(R)-1 could impact the accounting for any businesses
acquired after the effective date of these pronouncements.
Fair Value
Measurements. In April 2009, FASB issued FSP FAS No. 157-4,
“Determining Fair Value When
the Volume and Level Activity for the Asset or Liability Have Significantly
Decreased and Identifying Transactions That Are Not Orderly” (“FSP FAS No.
157-4”). FSP FAS No. 157-4 clarifies the application of SFAS No. 157
in inactive markets and distressed or forced transactions, issues guidance on
identifying circumstances
that
indicate a transaction is not orderly, and changes certain disclosure
requirements regarding fair value measurements. The guidance
of FSP FAS No. 157-4 is effective for interim and annual reporting periods
ending after June 15, 2009. FSP FAS No. 157-4 became effective for
TVA as of April 1, 2009. The implementation of FSP FAS 157-4 is not
expected to have a material impact on TVA’s financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows.
In April 2009, FASB issued FSP FAS No.
107-1 and APB 28-1, “Interim
Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial
Instruments.” This FSP requires summarized disclosures about
fair value of financial instruments for interim reporting periods of publicly
traded companies as well as in annual financial statements. The
guidance of this FSP is effective for interim and annual reporting periods
ending after June 15, 2009. At initial adoption, application of the
FSP is not required for earlier periods that are presented for comparative
purposes. The disclosure provisions of this FSP became effective for
TVA as of April 1, 2009.
|
3. Restricted Cash and
Investments
|
As of September 30, 2008, TVA had $106
million in Restricted cash and investments on its Balance Sheets primarily
related to collateral posted with TVA by a swap counterparty in accordance with
certain credit terms included in the swap agreement, which resulted in the funds
being reported in Restricted cash and investments. Due to the
changing economic environment and the terms of the swap agreement, previously
posted funds were returned to the counterparty during the quarter ended December
31, 2008. At March 31, 2009, TVA had no Restricted cash and
investments on its Balance Sheet.
4. Accounts
Receivable
Accounts receivable primarily consist
of amounts due from customers for power sales. The table below
summarizes the types and amounts of receivables:
Accounts
Receivable
|
||||||||
At
March 31, 2009
|
At
September 30, 2008
|
|||||||
Power
receivables billed
|
$ | 294 | $ | 357 | ||||
Power
receivables unbilled
|
886 | 1,000 | ||||||
Fuel
cost adjustment – current
|
— | 24 | ||||||
Total
power receivables
|
1,180 | 1,381 | ||||||
Other
receivables
|
22 | 26 | ||||||
Allowance
for uncollectible accounts
|
(2 | ) | (2 | ) | ||||
Net
accounts receivable
|
$ | 1,200 | $ | 1,405 |
5. Inventories
Certain Fuel, Materials, and
Supplies. Coal, oil, limestone, tire-based fuel inventories,
and materials and supplies inventories are valued using an average unit cost
method. For materials and supplies inventory, a new
average
cost is computed after each transaction, while the average cost is computed
monthly for fuel inventories. Inventory issuances are priced at the
latest moving weighted average unit cost. At March 31, 2009, and
September 30, 2008, TVA had $353 million and $347 million, respectively, in
materials and supplies inventories and $600 million and $381 million,
respectively, in fuel inventories. The $219 million increase in
fuel inventories is primarily due to a larger volume of coal on hand
resulting from lower than planned demand for electricity during
2009.
Allowance for Inventory
Obsolescence. TVA reviews supply and material inventories by
category and usage on a periodic basis. Each category is assigned a
probability of becoming obsolete based on the type of material and historical
usage data. Based on the estimated value of the inventory, TVA
adjusts its allowance for inventory obsolescence. The allowance for
surplus and obsolete inventory was $48 million and $47 million at March 31,
2009, and September 30, 2008, respectively.
Emission
Allowances. TVA has emission allowances for sulfur dioxide
(“SO2”) and
nitrogen oxides (“NOx”) which
are accounted for as inventory. The average cost of allowances used
each month is charged to operating expense based on tons of SO2 and
NOx
emitted. Allowances granted to TVA by the EPA are recorded at zero
cost.
|
6. Cost-Based
Regulation
|
Regulatory
assets capitalized under the provisions of SFAS No. 71, “Accounting for the Effects of
Certain Types of Regulation” (“SFAS No. 71”), are included in Accounts
receivable, Deferred nuclear generating units and Other regulatory assets on the
March 31, 2009, and September 30, 2008, Balance Sheets. Components of
Other
regulatory assets and Regulatory liabilities are summarized in the table
below. All regulatory assets are deemed probable of recovery in
future revenues.
Regulatory
Assets and Liabilities
|
||||||||
At
March 31, 2009
|
At
September 30, 2008
|
|||||||
Regulatory
Assets:
|
||||||||
Deferred
other postretirement benefits costs
|
$ | 151 | $ | 157 | ||||
Deferred
pension costs
|
2,136 | 2,120 | ||||||
Nuclear
decommissioning costs
|
1,058 | 764 | ||||||
Non-nuclear
decommissioning costs
|
351 | 349 | ||||||
Debt
reacquisition costs
|
198 | 209 | ||||||
Unrealized
losses relating to TVA’s Financial
Trading Program
|
318 | 146 | ||||||
Unrealized
losses on coal purchase contracts
|
152 | — | ||||||
Unrealized
losses on certain swap and swaption contracts
|
775 | 226 | ||||||
Deferred
outage costs
|
122 | 139 | ||||||
Deferred
capital lease asset costs
|
46 | 52 | ||||||
Fuel
cost adjustment receivable: long-term
|
— | 4 | ||||||
Subtotal
|
5,307 | 4,166 | ||||||
Deferred
nuclear generating units
|
2,543 | 2,738 | ||||||
Subtotal
|
7,850 | 6,904 | ||||||
Fuel
cost adjustment receivable: short-term
|
— | 24 | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 7,850 | $ | 6,928 | ||||
Regulatory
Liabilities:
|
||||||||
Unrealized
gains on coal purchase contracts
|
$ | 305 | $ | 813 | ||||
Capital
lease liabilities
|
37 | 47 | ||||||
Unrealized
gains relating to TVA’s Financial Trading Program
|
1 | — | ||||||
Fuel
cost adjustment liability: long-term
|
81 | — | ||||||
Subtotal
|
424 | 860 | ||||||
Reserve
for future generation
|
69 | 70 | ||||||
Accrued
tax equivalents related to fuel cost adjustment
|
77 | 40 | ||||||
Fuel
cost adjustment liability: short-term
|
569 | — | ||||||
Total
|
$ | 1,139 | $ | 970 |
The
short-term portion of the fuel cost adjustment (“FCA”) liability is included in
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities on the balance sheet at March 31,
2009.
Fuel
Cost Adjustment
The FCA provides a mechanism to
regularly alter rates to reflect changing fuel and purchased power
costs. There is typically a lag between the occurrence of a change in
fuel and purchased power costs and the reflection of the change in
rates. As of March 31, 2009, TVA had recognized a short-term
regulatory liability of $569 million and a long-term regulatory liability of $81
million related to the FCA. These balances represent excess revenues
collected to offset fuel and purchased power costs. The excess
revenue is driven by market commodity prices being lower than
those forecasted. At September 30, 2008, TVA recognized a regulatory
asset related to the FCA, which reflected a net under-recovery of fuel and
purchased power costs.
|
|
7. Other
Long-Term Assets
|
The table below summarizes the types
and amounts of TVA’s Other long-term assets:
Other
Long-Term Assets
|
||||||||
At
March 31, 2009
|
At
September 30, 2008
|
|||||||
Loans
and long-term receivables, net
|
$ | 79 | $ | 81 | ||||
Currency
swap assets
|
— | 101 | ||||||
Coal
contracts with volume options assets
|
305 | 813 | ||||||
Collateral
receivable
|
260 | — | ||||||
Total
other long-term assets
|
$ | 644 | $ | 995 |
In connection with a swaption
agreement, TVA posted collateral with a custodian for the benefit of the
counterparty. As a result, TVA established a collateral
receivable on its Balance Sheet for the counterparty funds.
|
|
8. Other
Long-Term Liabilities
|
Other long-term liabilities consist
primarily of estimated amounts due for postretirement and
postemployment
benefits and liabilities related to the terms of certain derivative
agreements. The table below summarizes the types and amounts of
liabilities:
Other
Long-Term Liabilities
|
||||||||
At
March 31, 2009
|
At
September 30, 2008
|
|||||||
Currency
swap liabilities
|
$ | 222 | $ | — | ||||
Swaption
liability
|
773 | 416 | ||||||
Interest
rate swap liabilities
|
385 | 195 | ||||||
Coal
contracts with volume options liabilities
|
153 | — | ||||||
Post
retirement and post-employment benefit obligations
|
2,834 | 2,736 | ||||||
Other
long-term liability obligations
|
156 | 167 | ||||||
Total
other long-term liabilities
|
$ | 4,523 | $ | 3,514 |
The currency swaps held as assets at
September 30, 2008, were moved to liabilities during 2009, due primarily to
changes in exchange rates. In addition, the liabilities related to
the swaption and interest rate swap liabilities increased during 2009 due
primarily to a decrease in interest rates.
|
9. Asset
Retirement Obligations
|
During the second quarter of 2009,
TVA’s total asset retirement obligation (“ARO”) liability increased $32 million
due to accretion. The nuclear accretion expense of $24 million and
the $8 million of accretion expense related to coal-fired and gas/oil combustion
turbine plants, asbestos, and polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) were deferred
and charged to a regulatory asset in accordance with SFAS No.
71. However, as amounts approximately equal to
the non-nuclear accretion and depreciation were collected in rates during 2009,
non-nuclear accretion and depreciation were expensed. During the
second quarter of 2008, TVA’s total ARO liability increased $30 million due to
accretion. The nuclear accretion expense of $23 million was deferred
and charged to a regulatory asset in accordance with SFAS No. 71. The
remaining accretion expense of $7 million, related to coal-fired and gas/oil
combustion turbine plants, asbestos, and PCBs, was expensed during the second
quarter of 2008. See discussions of the change in accounting for
non-nuclear decommissioning cost in the paragraph following the table
below.
Reconciliation
of Asset Retirement Obligation Liability
|
||||||||||||||||
Three
Months Ended March 31
|
Six
Months Ended March 31
|
|||||||||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
|||||||||||||
Balance
at beginning of period
|
$ | 2,350 | $ | 2,219 | $ | 2,318 | $ | 2,189 | ||||||||
Nuclear
accretion (recorded as a regulatory asset)
|
24 | 23 | 48 | 46 | ||||||||||||
Non-nuclear
accretion (recorded as expense)
|
8 | 7 | 16 | 14 | ||||||||||||
32 | 30 | 64 | 60 | |||||||||||||
Balance
at end of period
|
$ | 2,382 | $ | 2,249 | $ | 2,382 | $ | 2,249 |
Non-Nuclear
Decommissioning Costs
In August 2008, the TVA Board approved
deferring costs related to the future closure and retirement of TVA's
non-nuclear long-lived assets under various legal requirements as recognized by
SFAS No. 143, “Accounting for Asset Retirement
Obligations” (“SFAS No. 143”) and FIN No. 47, “Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement
Obligations, an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 143” (“FIN No.
47”). These costs had previously been included in rates as the ARO
was accreted and the asset was depreciated. In accordance with Emerging Issues
Task Force (“EITF”) No. 93-4, “Accounting for Regulatory
Assets” (“EITF No. 93-4”), these costs did not previously meet the asset
recognition criteria in paragraph nine of SFAS No. 71 at the date the costs were
incurred. Because of the establishment of the asset retirement trust
(“ART”) and the approval of the funding of the costs for the ART in 2009 rates
as part of the TVA Board’s budget and ratemaking process, these costs currently
meet asset recognition criteria. Therefore, all cumulative costs
incurred since 2003, when SFAS No. 143 was adopted, were recaptured as a
regulatory asset as of September 30, 2008. However, as amounts
approximately equal to the non-nuclear accretion and depreciation were collected
in rates during 2009, non-nuclear accretion and depreciation were
expensed.
|
10. Other
Income (Expense), Net
|
Other
income (expense), net is comprised of the following:
Other
Income (Expense), Net
|
||||||||||||||||
Three
Months Ended March 31
|
Six
Months Ended March 31
|
|||||||||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
|||||||||||||
Interest
income
|
$ | 2 | $ | 4 | $ | 5 | $ | 7 | ||||||||
Losses
on investments
|
(3 | ) | (11 | ) | (16 | ) | (20 | ) | ||||||||
External
services
|
12 | 4 | 12 | 5 | ||||||||||||
Claims
settlement
|
— | — | — | 8 | ||||||||||||
Miscellaneous
|
9 | 1 | 10 | 1 | ||||||||||||
Total
other income (expense), net
|
$ | 20 | $ | (2 | ) | $ | 11 | $ | 1 |
11. Risk
Management Activities and Derivative Transactions
SFAS No. 133 requires a company to
recognize all of its derivative instruments as either assets or liabilities on
its balance sheet at fair value. The accounting for changes in the
fair value of these instruments depends on (1) whether the derivative instrument
has been designated and qualifies for hedge accounting treatment and (2) if so,
the type of hedge relationship (e.g. cash flow hedge).
TVA is exposed to various market
risks. These market risks include risks related to commodity prices,
investment prices, interest rates, currency exchange rates, inflation, and
counterparty credit risk. To help manage certain of these risks, TVA
has entered into various derivative transactions, principally commodity option
contracts, forward contracts, swaps, swaptions, futures, and options on
futures. It is TVA’s policy to enter into these derivative
transactions solely for hedging purposes and not for speculative
purposes.
Overview of Accounting
Treatment
The following tables summarize the
accounting treatment that certain of TVA’s financial derivative transactions
receive.
Summary
of Derivative Instruments That Receive Hedge Accounting Treatment (part
1)
|
||||||||||||||||||
Derivatives
in SFAS No. 133 Cash Flow Hedging Relationship
|
Objective
of Hedge Transaction
|
Accounting
for Derivative Hedging Instrument
|
Amount
of Mark-to-Market Gain (Loss)
Recognized
in Other
Comprehensive Loss
(“OCL”)
Three
Months Ended March 31
|
Amount
of Mark-to-Market
(Loss)
Recognized
in OCL
Six
Months Ended March
31
|
||||||||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
|||||||||||||||
Currency
Swaps
|
To
protect against changes in cash flows caused by
changes
in foreign currency exchange rates (“exchange
rate
risk”)
|
Cumulative
unrealized gains & losses are recorded in Other comprehensive loss
& reclassified to interest expense to the extent they are offset by
cumulative gains & losses on the hedged transaction
|
$ | 41 | $ | (45 | ) | $ | (323 | ) | $ | (85 | ) |
Summary
of Derivative Instruments That Receive Hedge Accounting Treatment
(part 2)
|
||||||||||||||||
Derivatives
in SFAS No. 133 Cash Flow Hedging Relationship
|
Amount
of Exchange Gain Reclassified from OCL to Interest Expense
Three
Months Ended
March
31 (a)
|
Amount
of Exchange Gain Reclassified from OCL to
Interest
Expense
Six
Months Ended
March
31 (a)
|
||||||||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
|||||||||||||
Currency
Swaps
|
$ | 15 | $ | 1 | $ | 206 | $ | 37 | ||||||||
Note
(a)
There were no ineffective portions or amounts excluded from effectiveness
testing for any of the periods presented.
See
also Note 13
|
Summary
of Derivative Instruments That Do Not Receive Hedge Accounting
Treatment
|
||||||||||||||||||
Derivative
Type
|
Objective
of Derivative
|
Accounting
for Derivative Instrument
|
Amount
of Gain (Loss)
Recognized
in Income
on Derivatives
Three
Months Ended
March
31 (a)
|
Amount
of (Loss)
Recognized
in Income on Derivatives
Six
Months Ended
March
31 (a)
|
||||||||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
|||||||||||||||
Swaption
|
To
protect against decreases in value of the embedded call (“interest rate
risk”)
|
Gains
and losses are recorded as regulatory assets or liabilities until
settlement, at which time the gains/losses (if any) are recognized in
gain/loss on derivative contracts.
|
$ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | ||||||||
Interest
Rate Swaps
|
To
fix short-term debt variable rate to a fixed rate (“interest rate
risk”)
|
Gains
and losses are recorded as regulatory assets or liabilities until
settlement, at which time the gains/losses (if any) are recognized in
gain/loss on derivative contracts.
|
— | — | — | — | ||||||||||||
Coal
Contracts with Volume Options
|
To
protect against fluctuations in market prices of purchased coal (“price
risk”)
|
Gains
and losses are recorded as regulatory assets or liabilities until
settlement at which time they are recognized in fuel and purchased power
expense.
|
— | — | — | — | ||||||||||||
Commodity
Derivatives
under
Financial Trading Program
|
To
protect against fluctuations in market prices of purchased commodities
(“price risk”)
|
Realized
gains and losses are recorded in earnings as fuel and purchased power
expense; unrealized gains and losses are recorded as a regulatory
asset/liability.
|
(89 | ) | 1 | (159 | ) | (5 | ) | |||||||||
Note
(a) All of
TVA’s derivative instruments that do not receive hedge accounting
treatment have gains (losses) that would otherwise be recognized in
income but instead are deferred as regulatory assets and
liabilities. As such, there was no related
gain (loss) recognized in income for these gains (losses) for the three
and six month periods. See Note 6.
|
TVA has
recorded the following amounts for its derivative financial instruments
described in the tables above:
MARK-TO-MARKET
VALUES OF TVA DERIVATIVES
|
||||||||||
At
March 31, 2009
|
At
September 30, 2008
|
|||||||||
Derivatives in SFAS No. 133 Cash Flow Hedging
Relationship:
|
||||||||||
Balance
|
Balance
Sheet Presentation
|
Balance
|
Balance
Sheet Presentation
|
|||||||
Currency
swaps:
|
||||||||||
£200
million Sterling
|
$ | (81 | ) |
Other
long-term liabilities
|
$ | 2 |
Other
long-term assets
|
|||
£250
million Sterling
|
(71 | ) |
Other
long-term liabilities
|
72 |
Other
long-term assets
|
|||||
£150
million Sterling
|
(70 | ) |
Other
long-term liabilities
|
27 |
Other
long-term assets
|
|||||
Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments
under SFAS No. 133:
|
||||||||||
Balance
|
Balance
Sheet Presentation
|
Balance
|
Balance
Sheet Presentation
|
|||||||
Swaption
|
||||||||||
$1
billion notional
|
$ | (773 | ) |
Other
long-term liabilities
|
$ | (416 | ) |
Other
long-term liabilities
|
||
Interest
rate swaps:
|
||||||||||
$476
million notional
|
(370 | ) |
Other
long-term liabilities
|
(188 | ) |
Other
long-term liabilities
|
||||
$28
million notional
|
(10 | ) |
Other
long-term liabilities
|
(5 | ) |
Other
long-term liabilities
|
||||
$14
million notional
|
(5 | ) |
Other
long-term liabilities
|
(2 | ) |
Other
long-term liabilities
|
||||
Coal
contracts with volume options
|
152 |
Other
long-term assets ($305),
Other
long-term liabilities ($153)
|
813 |
Other
long-term assets
|
||||||
Commodity
derivatives under Financial Trading Program:
|
||||||||||
Margin
cash account*
|
20 |
Inventories
and other, net
|
25 |
Inventories
and other, net
|
||||||
Unrealized
losses, net
|
(317 | ) |
Other
regulatory assets ($318), Regulatory liabilities
($1)
|
(146 | ) |
Other
regulatory assets
|
||||
Note
(*) In
accordance with certain credit terms, TVA used leveraging to trade
financial instruments under the Financial Trading Program.
Therefore, the margin cash account balance does not represent 100
percent of the net market value of the derivative positions
outstanding
as shown in the Commodity Derivatives under Financial Trading
Program.
|
|
Cash
Flow Hedging Strategy for Currency
Swaps
|
To protect against the exchange rate
risk related to three sterling denominated Bond transactions, TVA entered
into foreign currency hedges at the time the Bond transactions
occurred. At March 31, 2009, TVA had three outstanding currency swap
contracts entered into during 2003, 2001, and 1999 to hedge TVA Bond issues with
currency exposure of £150 million, £250 million, and £200 million,
respectively. The overall effective cost to TVA of these Bonds and
the associated swaps was 4.96 percent, 6.59 percent, and 5.81 percent,
respectively. When the dollar strengthens against the British pound
sterling, the exchange gain on the Bond liability is offset by an exchange loss
on the swap contract. Conversely, when the dollar weakens, the
exchange loss on the Bond liability is offset by an exchange gain on the swap
contract. For the three and six months ended March 31, 2009, the
currency transactions resulted in net exchange gains of $15 million and $206
million, respectively. For the three and six months ended March 31,
2008, the currency transactions resulted in net exchange gains of $1 million and
$37 million, respectively. All such exchange gains are included in
Long-term debt, net. The offsetting exchange losses on the swap
contracts are recognized in Accumulated other comprehensive loss. If
any loss (gain) were to be incurred as a result of the early termination of the
foreign currency swap contract, any resulting charge (income) would be amortized
over the remaining life of the associated Bond as a component of interest
expense.
|
Derivatives
Not Designated as Hedging Instruments under SFAS No.
133
|
Swaption
and Interest Rate Swaps
TVA has entered into four swaption
transactions to monetize the value of call provisions on certain of its Bond
issues. A swaption grants a third party the right to enter into a
swap agreement with TVA under which TVA receives a floating rate of interest and
pays the third party a fixed rate of interest equal to the interest rate on the
Bond issue for which the call provision has been monetized by TVA.
|
•
|
In
2003, TVA monetized the call provisions on a $1 billion Bond issue by
entering into a swaption agreement with a third party in exchange for $175
million (the “2003A Swaption”).
|
|
•
|
In
2003, TVA also monetized the call provisions on a $476 million Bond issue
by entering into a swaption agreement with a third party in exchange for
$81 million (the “2003B Swaption”).
|
|
•
|
In
2005, TVA monetized the call provisions on two electronotes®
issues ($42 million total par value) by entering into swaption agreements
with a third party in exchange for $5 million (the “2005
Swaptions”).
|
In February 2004, the counterparty to
the 2003B Swaption exercised its option to enter into an interest rate swap with
TVA, effective April 10, 2004, requiring TVA to make fixed rate payments to the
counterparty of 6.875 percent and the counterparty to make floating payments to
TVA based on the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”). These
payments are based on the notional principal amount of $476 million, and the
parties began making these payments on June 15, 2004.
In February 2008, the counterparty to
the 2005 Swaptions exercised its options to enter into interest rate swaps with
TVA, effective March 11, 2008. Under the swaps, TVA is required to
make fixed rate payments to the counterparty at 6.125 percent and the
counterparty is required to make floating payments to TVA based on
LIBOR. These payments are based on a combined notional amount of $42
million and began on April 15, 2008.
On October 1, 2007, TVA began using
regulatory accounting treatment to defer the mark-to-market gains and losses on
these swap and swaption agreements to reflect that the gain or loss is included
in the ratemaking formula when these transactions settle. The values
of the swap and swaption agreements and related deferred unrealized gains and
losses are recorded on TVA’s balance sheet with realized gains or losses, if
any, recorded on TVA’s income statement.
For the three and six months ended
March 31, 2009, the changes in market value resulted in deferred unrealized
gains (losses) on the value of interest rate swaps and swaptions of $206 million
and $(549) million, respectively. For the three and six months ended
March 31, 2008, the changes in market value resulted in deferred unrealized
losses on the value of interest rate swaps and swaptions of $(99) million and
$(199) million, respectively. All deferred unrealized
losses were reclassified as regulatory assets on the balance
sheets.
Coal
Contracts with Volume Options
TVA enters into certain coal supply
contracts that require delivery of fixed quantities of coal (base tons) at fixed
prices. Certain coal contracts also contain options that permit TVA
to either increase or reduce the amounts of coal delivered within specified
guidelines. Essentially, the option to take more or less coal
represents a purchased option that is combined with the forward coal contract in
a single supply contract. TVA marks to market the value of these
contracts on a quarterly basis in accordance with SFAS No. 133.
At March 31, 2009, and September 30,
2008, TVA’s contracts which contained volume optionality had approximate net
market values of $152 million and $813 million, respectively, which TVA deferred
as regulatory assets/liabilities. TVA will continue to defer all
unrealized gains or losses related to the exercise of these options and record
only realized gains or losses as fossil fuel expense at the time the coal is
consumed. The decrease in the value of coal contracts with volume
options is primarily a result of the decline in the market price for coal from
September 30, 2008, to March 31, 2009. In addition, as TVA exercises its
options or contracts expire, the contracts are no longer derivatives and are
removed from the derivative market value.
Coal
Contracts with Volume Options
|
||||||||||||||||||
At
March 31, 2009
|
At
September 30, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||
Number
of
Contracts
|
Notional
Amount
(in
Tons)
|
Fair
Value (MtM)
(in
millions)
|
Number
of Contracts
|
Notional
Amount
(in
Tons)
|
Fair
Value (MtM)
(in
millions)
|
|||||||||||||
Coal
Contracts with Volume Options
|
9 |
32
million
|
$ | 152 | 10 |
37
million
|
$ | 813 |
Commodity
Derivatives Under Financial Trading Program
In 2005, the TVA Board approved a
Financial Trading Program under which TVA can purchase and sell swaps, options
on swaps, futures, and options on futures to hedge TVA’s exposure to natural gas
and fuel oil prices. In 2007, the TVA Board expanded the Financial
Trading Program, among other things, (1) to permit financial trading for
the purpose of hedging or otherwise limiting the economic risks associated with
the price of electricity, coal, emission allowances, nuclear fuel, and other
commodities included in TVA’s FCA calculation, such as ammonia and limestone, as
well as the price of natural gas and fuel oil, (2) to authorize the use of
futures, swaps, options, and combinations of these instruments as long as these
instruments are standard in the industry, (3) to authorize the use of the
IntercontinentalExchange as well as the New York Mercantile Exchange to trade
financial instruments, and (4) to increase the aggregate transaction limit
to $130 million (based on one-day Value at Risk). In 2009, the
TVA Board further expanded the Financial Trading Program to permit financial
trading for the purpose of hedging or otherwise limiting the economic risks
associated with the price of construction materials. The maximum
hedge volume for these transactions is 75 percent of the underlying net notional
volume of the material that TVA anticipates using in approved TVA projects, and
the market value of all outstanding hedging transactions involving construction
materials is limited to $100 million at the execution of any new
transaction. Under the Financial Trading Program, TVA is prohibited
from trading financial instruments for speculative purposes.
Commodity
Derivatives
|
||||||||||||||||
At
March 31, 2009
|
At
September 30, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||
Notional
Amount
|
Fair
Value (MtM)
(in
millions)
|
Notional
Amount
|
Fair
Value (MtM)
(in
millions)
|
|||||||||||||
Natural
Gas (in mmBtu)
|
||||||||||||||||
Futures
contracts
|
||||||||||||||||
Fixed
positions
|
— | $ | (4 | ) | — | $ | — | |||||||||
Open
positions at end of period
|
29,160,000 | (65 | ) | 20,900,000 | (12 | ) | ||||||||||
Net
position at end of period
|
29,160,000 | (69 | ) | 20,900,000 | (12 | ) | ||||||||||
Swap
contracts
|
||||||||||||||||
Fixed
positions
|
— | (17 | ) | — | — | |||||||||||
Open
positions at end of period
|
71,670,000 | (232 | ) | 70,510,000 | (126 | ) | ||||||||||
Net
position at end of period
|
71,670,000 | (249 | ) | 70,510,000 | (126 | ) | ||||||||||
Option
contracts open at end of period
|
— | — | (1,600,000 | ) | (8 | ) | ||||||||||
Natural
Gas financial positions
at
end of period, net
|
100,830,000 | $ | (318 | ) | 89,810,000 | $ | (146 | ) | ||||||||
Fuel
oil (in barrels)
|
||||||||||||||||
Futures
contracts open at end of period
|
145,000 | $ | — | — | $ | — | ||||||||||
Swap
contracts open at end of period
|
785,000 | 1 | — | — | ||||||||||||
Option
contracts open at end of period
|
657,000 | — | — | — | ||||||||||||
Fuel
oil financial positions at end of
period,
net
|
1,587,000 | $ | 1 | — | $ | — |
TVA defers all Financial Trading
Program unrealized gains (losses) as regulatory liabilities (assets) and records
only realized gains or losses to match the delivery period of the underlying
commodity product.
Natural Gas
At March 31, 2009, TVA had natural gas
hedges with notional volumes equivalent to 100,830,000 (in mmBtu), the market
value of which was a loss of $318 million. For the three and six
months ended March 31, 2009, TVA recognized realized losses on natural gas
hedges of $87 million and $157 million, respectively. For the three
and six months ended March 31, 2008, TVA recognized a realized gain on natural
gas hedges of $1 million and a realized loss of $5 million,
respectively. All realized losses (gains) were recorded as an
increase (decrease) to purchased power expense. The unrealized loss
of $318 million at March 31, 2009, was deferred as a regulatory
asset.
At September 30, 2008, TVA had natural
gas hedges with notional volumes equivalent to 89,810,000 (in mmBtu), the market
value of which was a loss of $146 million. For the year ended
September 30, 2008, TVA recognized realized gains of $11 million, which were
recorded as a decrease to purchased power expense. The unrealized
loss of $146 million at September 30, 2008, was deferred as a regulatory
asset.
Fuel Oil
At March 31, 2009, TVA had notional
volumes of heating oil hedges equivalent to 1,587,000 (in barrels), the market
value of which was a gain of $1 million. For the three and six months
ended March 31, 2009, TVA recognized realized losses on heating oil hedges of $2
million and $2 million, respectively. All realized losses were
recorded as an increase to fossil fuel expense. The unrealized gain
of $1 million at March 31, 2009, was deferred as a regulatory
liability.
TVA did not have fuel oil hedges as of
September 30, 2008.
Other
Derivative Instruments
|
Other
Commodity Derivatives
|
TVA enters into forward contracts that
hedge cash flow exposures to market fluctuations in the price and delivery of
certain commodities including coal, natural gas, fuel oil, electricity, uranium,
and construction commodities. TVA expects to take or make delivery,
as appropriate, under these forward contracts. Accordingly, these
contracts qualify for normal purchases and normal sales accounting under SFAS
No. 133. As of March 31, 2009, and September 30, 2008, TVA did not
have derivative contracts related to the purchase of electricity, uranium, or
construction commodities.
Investment Fund
Derivatives
Investment funds consist primarily of
funds held in trusts designed to fund nuclear decommissioning requirements,
asset retirement obligations, and the Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan
(“SERP”). Nuclear decommissioning funds and SERP funds, which are
classified as trading, are invested in portfolios of securities generally
designed to earn returns in line with broad equity market
performance. Asset retirement funds, which are classified as trading,
are invested primarily in commingled funds designed to earn returns in line with
fixed-income market performance. See Note 12 for discussion of the
types of investments included in the various trusts. Derivative
instruments in these trusts include swaps, futures, options, and other
instruments. As of March 31, 2009, and September 30, 2008, the fair
value of derivative instruments in these trusts was an asset of $1 million and a
liability of $1 million, respectively.
Contingent
Features
TVA’s interest rate swaps, two of its
currency swaps, and its swaption contain provisions that require the
counterparties to post collateral under certain circumstances. Such
provisions typically require a party to post collateral when the party’s
liability balance under the agreement exceeds a certain
threshold. For TVA liabilities, such thresholds are predetermined
under contractual arrangements. As of March 31, 2009, the aggregate
fair value of all derivative instruments with credit-risk related contingent
features in a liability position was $1,380 million. TVA’s collateral
obligation as of March 31, 2009, under these arrangements was $274 million, of
which $260 million had been posted. For all of its derivative
instruments with credit-risk related contingent features:
|
•
|
If
TVA remains a majority-owned U.S. government entity but experiences a
downgrade in its credit rating to AA+/Aa1 per Standard & Poor’s
(“S&P”) or Moody’s Investor Services (“Moody’s”), TVA would be
required to post an additional $466 million of collateral;
and
|
|
•
|
If
TVA ceases to be majority-owned by the U.S. government, its credit rating
would likely change and TVA would be required to post additional
collateral.
|
12. Fair
Value Measurements
Effective October 1, 2008, TVA adopted
SFAS No. 157 for all financial instruments and non-financial instruments
accounted for at fair value on a recurring basis. SFAS No. 157
establishes a new framework for measuring fair value and expands related
disclosures. Broadly, the SFAS No. 157 framework requires fair value
to be determined based on the exchange price that would be received for an asset
or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in TVA’s principal market, or in
the absence of a principal market, the most advantageous market for the asset or
liability in an orderly transaction between market participants. SFAS
No. 157 establishes market or observable inputs as the preferred source of
values, followed by assumptions based on hypothetical transactions in the
absence of market inputs.
Valuation
Techniques
SFAS No. 157 describes three
main approaches to measuring the fair value of assets and liabilities:
1) the market approach; 2) the income approach; and 3) the cost
approach. The market approach uses prices and other relevant
information generated from market transactions involving identical or comparable
assets or liabilities. The income approach uses valuation techniques
to convert future amounts to a single present value amount. The
measurement is based on the value indicated by current market expectations about
those future amounts of income. The cost approach is based on the amount that
would currently be required to replace an asset. TVA utilizes the
market approach and the income approach in its fair value
measurements.
The valuation techniques required by
SFAS No. 157 are based upon observable and unobservable inputs. Observable
inputs reflect market data obtained from independent sources, while unobservable
inputs reflect TVA’s market assumptions. These two types of inputs
create the following fair value hierarchy:
Level
1
|
—
|
Unadjusted
quoted prices in active markets accessible by the reporting entity for
identical assets or liabilities. Active markets
are
those in
which
transactions for the asset or liability occur with sufficient frequency
and volume to provide pricing.
|
|
Level
2
|
—
|
Pricing
inputs other than quoted market prices included in Level 1 that are
based on
observable
market data and that are directly or indirectly observable for
substantially the
full
term of the asset or liability. These include quoted market
prices for similar assets or
liabilities,
quoted market prices for identical or similar assets in markets that are
not
active,
adjusted quoted market prices, inputs from observable data such as
interest rate
and
yield curves, volatilities and default rates observable at commonly quoted
intervals,
and
inputs derived from observable market data by correlation or other
means.
|
|
Level
3
|
—
|
Pricing
inputs that are unobservable, or less observable, from objective
sources.
Unobservable
inputs should only be used to the extent observable inputs are
not
available. These
inputs maintain the concept of an exit price from the perspective of
a
market
participant and should reflect assumptions of other market
participants. An entity
should
consider all market participant assumptions that are available
without
unreasonable
cost and effort. These are given the lowest priority and are
generally used
in
internally developed methodologies to generate management's best estimate
of the fair
value
when no observable market data is available.
|
A financial instrument's level within
the fair value hierarchy is based on the lowest level of input significant to
the fair value measurement, where Level 1 is the highest and Level 3
is the lowest.
Nonperformance
Risk
The impact of nonperformance risk,
which includes credit risk, considers changes in current market conditions,
readily available information on nonperformance risk, letters of credit,
collateral, other arrangements available, and the nature of master netting
arrangements. TVA is a counterparty to currency swaps, a swaption,
interest
rate swaps, commodity contracts, and other derivatives which subject TVA to
nonperformance risk. Nonperformance risk on the majority of investments and
certain exchange traded instruments held by TVA is incorporated into the exit
price that is derived from quoted market data that is used to mark the
investment to market.
Nonperformance risk for most of TVA’s
derivative instruments is an adjustment to the initial asset/liability fair
value. TVA adjusts for nonperformance risk, both of the reporting
entity (for liabilities) and the counterparty (for assets) by applying a credit
valuation adjustment (“CVA”). TVA determines an appropriate CVA for
each applicable financial instrument based on the term of the instrument and the
reporting entity’s or counterparty’s credit rating as
obtained
from Moody’s. For companies that do not have an observable credit
rating, TVA uses internal analysis to assign a comparable rating to the
company. TVA discounts each financial instrument using the historical
default rate (as reported by Moody’s for the years 1983-2008) for companies with
a similar credit rating over a time period consistent with the remaining term of
the contract.
The following sections describe the
valuation methodologies TVA uses to measure different financial instruments at
fair value. All changes in fair value of assets and liabilities
associated with the adoption of SFAS No. 157 have been reflected as changes in
regulatory assets, regulatory liabilities, or accumulated other comprehensive
loss on TVA’s balance sheets and statements of changes in proprietary capital as
of March 31, 2009. There has been no impact to the statements of
operations or the statements of cash flows related to the adoption of SFAS No.
157.
Nuclear
Decommissioning Trust
TVA maintains a nuclear decommissioning
trust (“NDT”) to provide funding for the ultimate decommissioning of its nuclear
power plants. The fund is invested in securities generally designed
to achieve a return in line with broad equity market performance. The
trust is comprised of U.S. equities, international equities, real estate
investment trusts (“REITs”), fixed-income investments, high-yield fixed-income
investments, U.S. Treasury inflation-protected securities, commodities,
currencies, derivative instruments, and other investments. Most U.S.
and international equities, Treasury inflation-protected securities, REITs, and
certain derivative instruments are exchanged traded and are classified as Level
1 valuations. Fixed-income investments, high-yield fixed-income
investments, currencies, and most derivative instruments are classified as Level
2 valuations. These measurements are based on market and income
approaches. The adoption of SFAS No. 157 did not materially impact
the fair value of NDT assets at March 31, 2009.
Other
Investments
Asset Retirement
Trust. TVA maintains an ART to more effectively segregate,
manage, and invest funds to help meet future asset retirement
obligations. The purpose of the ART is to hold funds for the
contemplated future retirement of TVA’s long-lived assets and to comply with any
order relating to the retirement of long-lived assets. The ART is
presently invested to achieve a return in line with fixed income market
performance. The assets of the trust are invested in fixed-income
securities directly and indirectly through commingled funds. Among
those investments are cash securities classified as Level 1 valuations, and
other fixed-income securities and funds classified as Level 2
valuations. These measurements are based on market and income
approaches. The adoption of SFAS No. 157 did not materially impact
the fair value of ART assets at March 31, 2009.
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan. TVA established
a SERP for certain executives in critical positions to provide supplemental
pension benefits tied to compensation that is not creditable under the qualified
pension plan. TVA has historically funded the annual calculated
expense. The SERP is presently invested to achieve a return in line
with broad equity market performance. The assets of the SERP are
invested in fixed-income securities and certain derivative instruments
indirectly through commingled funds. Among those investments are certain equity
and fixed income funds classified as Level 2 valuations. These
measurements are based on market and income approaches. The adoption
of SFAS No. 157 did not materially impact the fair value of SERP assets at March
31, 2009.
Currency
Swaps, Swaption, and Interest Rate Swaps
See Note 11 – Cash Flow Hedging Strategy for
Currency Swaps and Derivatives Not Designated as
Hedging Instruments under SFAS No. 133 for discussion of the nature,
purpose, and contingent features of TVA’s currency swaps, swaption, and interest
rate swaps.
The currency swaps are classified as
Level 2 valuations and are valued based on income approaches. The
swaption is classified as a Level 3 valuation and is valued based on an income
approach. The valuation is computed using a broker-provided lattice
pricing model utilizing LIBOR rates and volatility rates. Volatility
for TVA’s American swaption is generally unobservable. Therefore, the
valuation is derived from an observable European swaption matrix with
adjustments. The interest rate swaps are classified as Level 2
valuations and are valued based on income approaches. The adoption of
SFAS No. 157 resulted in a decrease of $2 million in the total fair values of
the currency swap liabilities, swaption liability, and interest rate swap
liabilities at March 31, 2009, due to the application of CVAs.
Coal
Contracts with Volume Options and Commodity Derivatives Under TVA’s Financial
Trading Program
See Note 11 – Derivatives Not
Designated as Hedging Instruments Under SFAS No. 133 – Coal Contracts with
Volume Options and Commodity Derivatives Under
Financial Trading Program for discussion of the nature and purpose
of coal contracts with volume options and commodity derivatives under
TVA’s Financial Trading Program.
|
Coal Contracts with Volume
Options.
These contracts are classified as Level 3 valuations and are valued based on
income approaches. TVA develops an overall coal price forecast using
widely-used short-term market data from brokers, long-term price forecasts
developed with the assistance of a third-party valuation service, and other
internal estimates. To value the option component of the contract,
TVA uses a Black-Scholes pricing model which includes inputs from the overall
coal price forecast, contract-specific terms, and other market
inputs. The adoption of SFAS No. 157 resulted in a decrease of $17
million in the fair value of applicable coal contracts in an asset position at
March 31, 2009, due to the application of CVAs and did not materially affect the
fair value of applicable coal contracts in a liability position at March 31,
2009.
Commodity Derivatives Under
Financial Trading Program. These contracts
are valued based on market approaches which utilize New York Mercantile Exchange
(“NYMEX”) quoted prices. Contracts settled on the NYMEX (e.g.,
futures and options) are classified as Level 1 valuations. Contracts
where nonperformance risk exists outside of the exit price (e.g., swaps and
over-the-counter options) are measured with the incorporation of CVAs and are
classified as Level 2 valuations. The adoption of SFAS No. 157 did
not materially affect the fair value of these assets and liabilities at March
31, 2009.
The following table sets forth by
level, within the fair value hierarchy, TVA's financial assets and liabilities
that were measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of March 31, 2009, in
accordance with SFAS No. 157. Financial assets and liabilities
have been classified in their entirety based on the lowest level of input that
is significant to the fair value measurement. TVA's assessment of the
significance of a particular input to the fair value measurement requires
judgment and may affect the determination of the fair value of the assets and
liabilities and their classification in the fair value hierarchy
levels.
Fair
Value Measurements as of Reporting Date
|
||||||||||||||||
Fair
Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using
|
||||||||||||||||
Assets
|
Quoted
Prices in
Active
Markets for
Identical
Assets
(Level
1)
|
Significant
Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level
2)
|
Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level
3)
|
|||||||||||||
Description
|
At
March 31, 2009
|
|||||||||||||||
Nuclear
decommissioning trust
|
$ | 605 | $ | 94 | $ | 511 | $ | — | ||||||||
Other
investments
|
91 | — | 91 | — | ||||||||||||
Coal
contracts with volume options
|
305 | — | — | 305 | ||||||||||||
Commodity
derivatives under Financial Trading Program
|
1 | — | 1 | — | ||||||||||||
Fair
Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using
|
||||||||||||||||
Liabilities
|
Quoted
Prices in
Active
Markets for
Identical
Liabilities
(Level
1)
|
Significant
Other
Observable
Inputs
(Level
2)
|
Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level
3)
|
|||||||||||||
Description
|
At
March 31, 2009
|
|||||||||||||||
Currency
swaps
|
$ | 222 | $ | — | $ | 222 | $ | — | ||||||||
Interest
rate swaps
|
385 | — | 385 | — | ||||||||||||
Swaption
|
773 | — | — | 773 | ||||||||||||
Coal
contracts with volume options
|
153 | — | — | 153 | ||||||||||||
Commodity
derivatives under Financial Trading Program
|
297 | 65 | 232 | — |
The following table presents a
reconciliation of all assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a
recurring basis using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3) for the
three and six months ended March 31, 2009:
Fair
Value Measurements Using Significant Unobservable Inputs
|
||||||||||||||||
For
the Three Months
Ended
March 31, 2009
|
For
the Six Months
Ended
March 31, 2009
|
|||||||||||||||
Coal
Contracts with Volume Options
|
Swaption
|
Coal
Contracts with Volume Options
|
Swaption
|
|||||||||||||
Balances
at beginning of period
|
$ | 383 | $ | (919 | ) | $ | 813 | $ | (416 | ) | ||||||
Total
unrealized gains (losses) deferred as regulatory assets or
liabilities
|
(166 | ) | 146 | (555 | ) | (357 | ) | |||||||||
Purchases,
issuances, and settlements
|
(65 | ) | — | (106 | ) | — | ||||||||||
Balances
at end of period
|
$ | 152 | $ | (773 | ) | $ | 152 | $ | (773 | ) |
There were no realized gains or losses
to the instruments measured at fair value using significant unobservable
inputs. All unrealized gains and losses related to these instruments
have been reflected as increases or decreases in regulatory assets and
liabilities. See Note 6.
13. Accumulated
Other Comprehensive Loss
SFAS No. 130, “Reporting Comprehensive
Income,” requires the disclosure of other comprehensive income or
loss to reflect changes in capital that result from transactions and
economic events from non-owner sources. The decrease (increase) in
Other comprehensive loss for the three and six months ended March 31, 2009, and
2008, were due to unrealized gains (losses) related to mark-to-market valuation
adjustments for certain derivative instruments.
Total
Other Comprehensive Loss Activity
|
||||||||||||||||
For
the Three Months Ended March 31
|
For
the Six Months Ended March 31
|
|||||||||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
|||||||||||||
Accumulated
other comprehensive loss at beginning
of period
|
$ | (210 | ) | $ | (23 | ) | $ | (37 | ) | $ | (19 | ) | ||||
Mark-to-market
gain (loss) on currency swaps
|
41 | (45 | ) | (323 | ) | (85 | ) | |||||||||
Reclassification
into expense to offset exchange gain on bonds
|
15 | 1 | 206 | 37 | ||||||||||||
Accumulated
other comprehensive loss at end
of period
|
$ | (154 | ) | $ | (67 | ) | $ | (154 | ) | $ | (67 | ) |
TVA records exchange rate gains and
losses on debt in interest expense and marks its currency swap assets to market
through other comprehensive loss. TVA then reclassifies an amount out
of other comprehensive loss into interest expense, offsetting the earnings gain
(loss) from recording the exchange gain (loss) on the debt. These
reclassifications, coupled with the recording of the exchange gain (loss) on the
debt, resulted in a net effect on net income of zero for 2009 and
2008. Due to the number of variables affecting the future gains
(losses) on these instruments, TVA is unable to reasonably estimate the amount
to be reclassified from other comprehensive loss to interest expense in future
years. See also Note 11 — Cash Flow Hedging Strategy for
Currency Swaps.
14. Debt
Securities
Debt
Outstanding
The TVA Act authorizes TVA to issue
Bonds in an amount not to exceed $30 billion at any time. Debt
outstanding at March 31, 2009, and September 30, 2008, including translation
gain at March 31, 2009, of $68 million and a translation loss of $138 million at
September 30, 2008, related to Bonds denominated in foreign currencies,
consisted of the following:
Debt
Outstanding
|
||||||||
At
March 31, 2009
|
At
September 30, 2008
|
|||||||
Short-term
debt
|
||||||||
Discount
notes (net of discount)
|
$ | 1,621 | $ | 185 | ||||
Current
maturities of long-term debt
|
401 | 2,030 | ||||||
Total
short-term debt, net
|
2,022 | 2,215 | ||||||
Long-term
debt
|
||||||||
Long-term
|
20,088 | 20,603 | ||||||
Unamortized
discount
|
(203 | ) | (199 | ) | ||||
Total
long-term debt, net
|
19,885 | 20,404 | ||||||
Total
outstanding debt
|
$ | 21,907 | $ | 22,619 |
Debt
Securities Activity
The table below summarizes TVA’s
long-term Bond activity for the period from October 1, 2008, to March 31,
2009.
Date
|
Amount
|
Interest
Rate
|
|||||||
Issuances
|
|||||||||
electronotes®
|
First
Quarter 2009
|
$ | 39 | 5.04 | % | ||||
Second
Quarter 2009
|
89 | 3.88 | % | ||||||
2009
Series A
|
February
2009
|
22 | 2.25 | % | |||||
2009
Series B
|
February
2009
|
469 | 3.77 | % | |||||
$ | 619 | ||||||||
Redemptions/Maturities:
|
|||||||||
1998
Series G
|
November
2008
|
$ | 2,000 | 5.38 | % | ||||
electronotes®
|
Second
Quarter 2009
|
558 | 4.99 | % | |||||
$ | 2,558 |
As of March 31, 2009, the 2009 reset
rates on the 1998 Series D Putable Automatic Rate Reset Securities (“1998 Series
D Bonds”) and the 1999 Series A Putable Automatic Rate Reset Securites (“1999
Series A Bonds”) were expected to be lower than the current rates on those
issues. The entire principal amount of $350 million of the 1998
Series D Bonds and $25 million of the 1999 Series A Bonds outstanding as of
March 31, 2009, have been classified as current maturities of long-term
debt. It was determined on April 1, 2009, that the interest rate on
the 1999 Series A Bonds will be reset from 5.174 percent to 4.50 percent on May
1, 2009. In conjunction with the reset, $25
million of the principal amount of 1999 Series A Bonds was redeemed as of May 1,
2009. It was determined on April 29, 2009, that the interest rate on
the 1998 Series D Bonds will be reset from 5.46 percent to 4.728 percent on June
1, 2009.
15. Variable
Interest Entities
In February 1997, TVA entered into a
purchase power agreement with Choctaw Generation, Inc. (subsequently assigned to
Choctaw Generation Limited Partnership (“Choctaw”)) to purchase all the power
generated from its facility located in Choctaw County,
Mississippi. The facility had a committed capacity of 440 megawatts
and the term of the agreement was 30 years. Under the accounting
guidance provided by FIN No. 46, “Consolidation of Variable Interest
Entities,” as amended by FIN No. 46R (as amended, “FIN No. 46R”), TVA
believes its contractual interest is a variable interest that changes with
changes in the fair value of the net assets of Choctaw because the purchase
power agreement provides substantially all of Choctaw’s operating cash
flow. TVA believes that Choctaw qualifies as a variable interest
entity because the entity is designed (or redesigned) so that substantially all
of its activities either involve or are conducted on behalf of
TVA. Furthermore, Choctaw may lack the obligation to absorb its
expected losses because of the effective guaranteed return provided by TVA
through the 30-year purchase power agreement. TVA may be deemed to be
the primary beneficiary under the contract; however, TVA does not have access to
the financial records of Choctaw. As a result, TVA was unable to
determine whether FIN No. 46R would require TVA to consolidate Choctaw’s balance
sheet, results of operations, and cash flows for the quarter ended March 31,
2009. Because of the lack of financial information, TVA is unable to
obtain complete information regarding debt, equity, and other contractual
interests in Choctaw. As of March 31, 2009, Choctaw had issued senior
secured bonds of $236 million and $95 million due in June 2030 and June 2023,
respectively. Choctaw’s credit ratings as issued by S&P and
Moody’s were BB and Ba3, respectively, with negative outlooks. TVA
has no direct debt or equity investment in Choctaw. The purchase
power agreement is accounted for based on the normal purchases and normal sales
exemption of SFAS No. 133; therefore, no amounts are recorded in TVA’s financial
statements with respect to TVA’s variable interest. Power purchases
for the three and six months ended March 31, 2009, under the agreement amounted
to $34 million and $52 million, respectively, and the remaining financial
commitment under this agreement is $6.6 billion. TVA has no
additional financial commitments beyond the purchase power agreement with
respect to the facility.
The terms
of the purchase power agreement specify that Choctaw must reimburse TVA for any
additional costs incurred due to Choctaw’s failure to deliver power as specified
under the contract. TVA is the beneficiary of a third-party credit
enhancement in the form of a $5 million letter of credit with a financial
institution. Under the terms of the letter of credit, TVA may draw
any amount necessary up to $5 million to reimburse any incremental costs
incurred due to Choctaw’s failure to perform under the
contract. Also, Choctaw must replenish the letter of credit in full
within 20 days
after TVA draws on the letter of credit or TVA is relieved of its obligations
under the purchase power agreement. Because of the terms of the
letter of credit arrangement and TVA’s experience with Choctaw, TVA does not
believe that any material exposure to loss existed as of March 31,
2009. TVA also believes that in addition to the explicit variable
interest in Choctaw through the purchase power agreement, TVA may have an
implicit variable interest in Choctaw due to the purchase power agreement being
viewed as a credit enhancement to secured creditors and
bondholders. TVA does not believe that it has any additional exposure
with respect to this potential implicit
variable interest. Also, because the purchase power agreement grants
TVA the right, but not the obligation, to purchase power, TVA does not believe
that its maximum exposure to loss in the arrangement can be quantified due to
the uncertainty of future power demand.
16. Benefit
Plans
TVA sponsors a qualified defined
benefit pension plan that covers most of its full-time employees, a qualified
defined contribution plan that covers most of its full-time employees, an
unfunded postretirement health care plan that provides for non-vested
contributions toward the cost of certain retirees’ medical coverage, and a
SERP.
The following table provides the
components of net periodic benefit cost for the plans for the three and six
months ended March 31, 2009, and 2008.
TVA
Benefit Plan
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Three
Months Ended March 31
|
Six
Months Ended March 31
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pension
Benefits
|
Other
Benefits
|
Pension
Benefits
|
Other
Benefits
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Service
cost
|
$ | 21 | $ | 27 | $ | 2 | $ | 2 | $ | 43 | $ | 55 | $ | 4 | $ | 3 | ||||||||||||||||
Interest
cost
|
145 | 130 | 9 | 7 | 291 | 261 | 18 | 14 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expected
return on plan assets
|
(136 | ) | (152 | ) | – | – | (272 | ) | (304 | ) | – | – | ||||||||||||||||||||
Amortization
of prior service cost
|
9 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 18 | 19 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Recognized
net actuarial loss
|
4 | 11 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 21 | 4 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net
periodic benefit cost as actuarially determined
|
43 | 26 | 14 | 11 | 88 | 52 | 28 | 22 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amount
capitalized due to actions of
regulator
|
(20 | ) | – | – | – | (41 | ) | – | – | – | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Net
periodic benefit cost recognized
|
$ | 23 | $ | 26 | $ | 14 | $ | 11 | $ | 47 | $ | 52 | $ | 28 | $ | 22 |
During the six months ended March 31,
2009, TVA did not make contributions to its pension plans. TVA does
not separately set aside assets to fund other benefit costs, but rather funds
such costs on an as-paid basis. TVA provided approximately $13
million and $11 million for other benefit costs during the six months ended
March 31, 2009, and 2008, respectively.
Financial markets have experienced
significant uncertainty since September 30, 2008, due to deteriorating economic
conditions. The uncertainty has resulted in significantly lower
market valuations for many investments.
The
impact of these events on TVA’s pension system is reflected in changes in the
asset portfolio values from $6.2 billion at September 30, 2008, to $4.7 billion
at March 31, 2009. TVA has not determined at this time whether
additional contributions will be made to the pension plans in 2009.
17. Seven
States Power Corporation Obligation
On September 30, 2008, Seven States
Power Corporation (“SSPC”) exercised an option to purchase from TVA a portion of
a three-unit, 792-megawatt summer net capability combined cycle combustion
turbine facility in Southaven, Mississippi formerly owned by Southaven Power,
LLC (“Southaven Power”). SSPC bought this portion through its
subsidiary, Seven States Southaven, LLC (“SSSL”). SSSL paid TVA
approximately $325 million and purchased an undivided 69.69 percent interest in
the facility. On April 17, 2009, SSSL acquired an additional
20.31 percent interest in the facility for approximately $95 million, which
increased its undivided ownership to 90 percent. SSSL and TVA have
entered into a lease under which TVA leases SSSL’s undivided 90 percent interest
in the facility and operates the entire facility through April 30,
2010.
As part of the transaction, SSSL has
the right at any time and for any reason to require TVA to buy back SSSL’s
interest in the facility at SSSL’s original purchase price (plus the cost of
SSSL’s share of any capital improvements) minus amortization costs that TVA pays
under the lease. As part of any such buy-back, TVA would pay off the
remaining balance on SSSL’s loan, with that amount being credited against the
buy-back price that TVA would pay to SSSL. A buy-back may also be
triggered under certain circumstances including, among other things, a default
by SSSL. Finally, TVA will buy back SSSL’s interest in the facility
if long-term operational and power sales arrangements for the facility among
TVA, SSSL, and SSPC are not in place by April 30, 2010. TVA’s
buy-back obligation will terminate if such long-term arrangements are in place
by that date. In the event of a buy-back, TVA would re-acquire SSSL’s
interest in the facility and the related assets. While TVA does not
plan to liquidate the assets to cover the payments in the event of a buy-back,
TVA believes its recourse in obtaining full interest in the assets is sufficient
to cover its obligation. Because of TVA’s continued ownership
interest in the facility as well as the buy-back provisions, the transaction did
not qualify as a sale and, accordingly, has been recorded as a leaseback
obligation. As of March 31, 2009, the carrying amount of the
obligation was approximately $319 million. TVA has recognized the
buy-back obligation as a Current portion of leaseback obligations of $13 million
and a long-term Leaseback obligations of $306 million on its March 31, 2009
Balance Sheet.
18. Legal
Proceedings
TVA is subject to various legal
proceedings and claims that have arisen in the ordinary course of
business. These proceedings and claims include the matters discussed
below which provide updates to the legal proceedings and claims discussed in the
Annual Report. In accordance with SFAS No. 5, “Accounting for
Contingencies,” TVA had accrued approximately $17 million as of March 31,
2009, with respect to the proceedings described in its Annual Report as updated
below, as well as approximately $4 million with respect to other proceedings
that have arisen in the normal course of TVA’s business. 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. See Item 3, Legal Proceedings in the
Annual Report.
Legal Proceedings Related to
Kingston Ash Pond Spill. See Note 1.
Case Brought by North
Carolina Alleging Public Nuisance. On January 30, 2006, North
Carolina filed suit against TVA in the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina alleging that TVA’s operation of its
coal-fired power plants in the States of Tennessee, Alabama, and Kentucky
constitute public nuisances. North Carolina asked the court to impose
caps on emissions of certain pollutants from TVA’s coal-fired plants that North
Carolina considers to be equivalent to caps on emissions imposed by North
Carolina law on North Carolina’s two largest electric utilities. On
January 13, 2009, the court held that emissions from the Bull Run Fossil Plant
(“Bull Run”), Kingston, the John Sevier Fossil Plant (“John Sevier”), and the
Widows Creek Fossil Plant (“Widows Creek”) constitute a public
nuisance. The first three plants are located in Tennessee, and Widows
Creek is located in Alabama. The court declined to order any relief
as to the remainder of TVA’s coal-fired plants, holding that their emissions did
not significantly impact North Carolina.
The court ordered that:
• The
flue gas desulfurization system (“scrubbers”) and selective catalytic reduction
systems(“SCRs”) currently operating at Bull Run be properly maintained and
operated year round.
• The scrubbers
under construction at Kingston be completed by December 31, 2010, and
thatKingston’s scrubbers and SCRs be properly maintained and operated
year-round.
• Scrubbers and
SCRs be installed and in operation for all four units at John Sevier by December
31, 2011.
• TVA complete
its plan to modernize the two existing scrubbers at Widows Creek, and
installscrubbers and SCRs at Widows Creek Units 1-6 by December 31,
2013.
Additionally, the court
required units at the named plants to meet specified emission rates
and annual tonnage caps for NOx and
SO2
after the applicable operation dates for the scrubbers. Finally, the court
required TVA’s Chief Executive Officer to make semi-annual reports to the court
of TVA’s progress in complying with the order, beginning in July
2009.
TVA was already in the process of
performing or planning to perform some of the actions ordered by the
court. For example, the court’s instructions with respect to Bull Run
and Kingston are consistent with TVA’s current operating procedures and
construction schedule, and the modernization of the two existing Widows Creek
scrubbers is nearly complete. The court’s order will require TVA to
accelerate its schedule in some cases, such as by adding scrubbers and SCRs at
John Sevier by December 31, 2011, when the previous schedule called for
completing the scrubbers in mid-2012 and completing the SCRs by
2015. The court-ordered scrubbers and SCRs at Widows Creek Unit 1-6
were not in TVA’s previous Clean Air plan. Advancing the construction
schedule or taking additional actions will increase TVA’s expenses or cause TVA
to change the way it operates these facilities.
TVA currently estimates that the total
cost of taking all of the actions required by the court would be approximately
$1.7 billion in fiscal years 2009 through 2014. Of this amount, TVA
was already planning to spend approximately $0.8 billion before the court issued
its order. There could be other cost impacts, including fuel,
variable operation and maintenance (“O&M”), and fixed O&M, and those
costs are under evaluation.
On January 28, 2009, TVA asked the
court to clarify one aspect of its order dealing with the schedule at John
Sevier. On April 2, 2009, the court denied TVA’s request, thus
leaving the court’s schedule of John Sevier in place. TVA is
currently reviewing the decision and considering its options.
Case Involving Opacity at
Colbert Fossil Plant. On September 16, 2002, the Sierra Club
and the Alabama Environmental Council filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama alleging that TVA violated
Clean Air Act (“CAA”) opacity limits applicable to Colbert Fossil Plant
(“Colbert”) between July 1, 1997, and June 30, 2002. The plaintiffs
seek a court order that could require TVA to incur substantial additional costs
for environmental controls and pay civil penalties of up to approximately $250
million. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that the
challenged emissions were within Alabama’s two percent de minimis rule, which
provided a safe harbor if nonexempt opacity monitor readings over 20 percent did
not occur more than two percent of the time each quarter. On November
22, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (“Eleventh
Circuit”) affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the claims for civil
penalties but held that the Alabama de minimis rule was not applicable because
Alabama had not yet obtained the EPA’s approval of that rule. The
case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The
district court held that TVA had exceeded the 20 percent opacity limit (measured
in six minute intervals), at various times between January 3, 2000, and
September 30, 2002. The EPA has since approved the rule, which is
being challenged in separate litigation before the Eleventh
Circuit. On January 6, 2009, the district court dismissed the case,
finding that the plaintiffs had not established that a permanent injunction
against TVA was justified, and that the case was moot. The EPA has
agreed to reconsider the rule.
Case Involving Alleged
Violations of the New Source Review Regulations at Bull Run Fossil
Plant. The National Parks Conservation Association, Inc.
(“NPCA”), and the Sierra Club, Inc. (“Sierra Club”) filed suit against TVA on
February 13, 2001, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee, alleging that TVA did not comply with the new source review
(“NSR”) requirements of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) when TVA repaired Bull Run, a
coal-fired electric generating facility located in Anderson County,
Tennessee. Trial was scheduled for September 2, 2008, but the trial
was postponed, and the district court instead heard oral arguments on the
parties’ motions for summary judgment on that date. The trial has
been reset for June 1, 2009. TVA is already installing or has
installed the control equipment that the plaintiffs seek to require TVA to
install in this case, and it is unlikely that an adverse decision will result in
substantial additional costs to TVA at Bull Run. An adverse decision,
however, could lead to additional litigation and could cause TVA to install
additional emission control systems such as scrubbers and SCRs on units where
they are not currently installed, under construction, or planned to be
installed. It is uncertain whether there would be significant
increased costs to TVA.
Case Involving AREVA Fuel
Fabrication. On April 19, 2007, AREVA filed suit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, alleging that a
contract with TVA and AREVA’s predecessor required
TVA to
purchase certain amounts of fuel fabrication services for TVA’s Bellefonte
Nuclear Plant and/or to pay a cancellation fee. AREVA subsequently
claimed it was entitled to $48 million. Trial on the question of
liability was scheduled to begin on September 22, 2008, but was
postponed. On February 12, 2009, the TVA Board approved a settlement
agreement between TVA and AREVA. The settlement provides that TVA
will pay AREVA $18 million in six annual installments of $3 million, ending
in 2013. If AREVA, or any affiliate, performs work for TVA
during this period and the invoiced amount is $20 million or more
above amounts set forth in the agreement, TVA’s annual payment will be
reduced by $1 million for each such $20 million. The case was
dismissed on February 17, 2009.
Case Involving the General
Waste Products Sites. In July 2008, a third-party complaint
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(“CERCLA”) was filed against TVA in the District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana, alleging that TVA and several other defendants disposed of
hazardous
materials at the General Waste Products sites in Evansville,
Indiana. TVA was named in the complaint based on allegations that TVA
arranged for the disposal of contaminated materials at the sites. The
complaint also includes a claim under state law for the release of hazardous
materials. The other third-party defendants are General Waste
Products, General Electric Company, Indianapolis Power and Light, National Tire
and Battery, Old Ben Coal Co., Solar Sources Inc., Whirlpool, White County Coal,
PSI, Tell City Electric Department, Frontier Kemper, Speed Queen, Allan Trockman
(the former operator of the site), and the City of Evansville. This
action was brought by the Evansville Greenway PRP Group, a group of entities who
are currently being sued in the underlying case for disposing of hazardous
materials at the sites, in order to require the third-party defendants to
contribute to, or pay for, the remediation of the sites. As of
February 2009, the total remediation cost for both sites was expected to exceed
$10 million. While the complaint does not specify the exact types of
hazardous substances at issue, a subpoena sent to TVA in
2003 by the owner of the sites reflects that the primary issues involved lead
from batteries and PCBs from transformers. TVA has found no records
indicating that it arranged for disposal of these types of hazardous substances
at the sites.
Administrative Proceeding
Regarding Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Units 3 and 4. TVA
submitted its combined license application (“COLA”) to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (“NRC”) for Bellefonte Nuclear Plant (“Bellefonte”) Units 3 and 4 in
October 2007. If approved, the license to build and operate the plant
would be issued to TVA. Obtaining the necessary license would give
TVA more certainty about the cost and schedule of a nuclear option for future
decisions. The COLA for two AP1000 reactors at Bellefonte was
docketed by the NRC on January 18, 2008, indicating the NRC found it complete
and technically sufficient to support the NRC’s more detailed
reviews.
On June 6, 2008, a joint petition for
intervention and a request for a hearing was submitted to the NRC by the
Bellefonte Efficiency and Sustainability Team, the Blue Ridge Environmental
Defense League, and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. The
petition raised 19 potential contentions with respect to TVA’s
COLA. Both TVA and the NRC staff opposed the admission of the
petitioners’ proposed contentions, and, thus the admission of the petitioners as
parties to the proceeding as well. Additionally, TVA opposed the
admission of one of the petitioners to the proceeding on the grounds that it
lacked standing. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board presiding over
the proceeding subsequently denied standing to one of the petitioners and
accepted four of the 19 contentions submitted by the remaining two
petitioners. The admitted contentions involved questions about the
estimated costs of the new nuclear plant, the storage of low-level radioactive
waste, and the impact of the facility’s operations, in particular the plant
intake, on aquatic species. In February 2009, the NRC dismissed the
contentions related to low-level radioactive waste. A hearing on the
remaining contentions will be conducted in the future. Other COLA
applicants have received similar petitions raising similar potential
contentions.
The TVA Board has not made a decision
to construct a new plant at the Bellefonte site, and TVA continues to evaluate
all nuclear generation options at the site.
Information Request from the
EPA. On April 25, 2008, TVA received a request from the EPA
under section 114 of the CAA requesting extensive information about projects at
and the operations of 14 of TVA’s 59 coal-fired units. These 14 units
are located in the States of Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee. This
request for information is similar to but broader than section 114 requests
that other companies have received during the EPA’s New Source Review (“NSR”)
enforcement initiative. TVA has responded to this request. The
EPA’s request could be the first step in an administrative proceeding against
TVA that could then result in litigation in the courts.
Employment
Proceedings. TVA is engaged in various administrative and
legal proceedings arising from employment disputes. These matters are
governed by federal law and involve issues typical of those encountered
in
the
ordinary course of business of a utility. They may include
allegations of discrimination or retaliation (including retaliation for raising
nuclear safety or environmental concerns), wrongful termination, and failure to
pay overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Adverse outcomes in
these proceedings would not normally be material to TVA’s results of operations,
liquidity, and financial condition, although it is possible that some outcomes
could require TVA to change how it handles certain personnel matters or operates
its plants.
19. Subsequent
Events
In April 2009, TVA issued $52 million
of electronotes® with
an interest rate of 4.35 percent which mature in 2029 and are callable beginning
in 2013.
ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
(Dollars
in millions except where noted)
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations (“MD&A”) explains the results
of operations and general financial condition of TVA. The MD&A
should be read in conjunction with the accompanying financial statements and
TVA’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2008
(the “Annual Report”).
During
the six months ended March 31, 2009, three events at TVA’s fossil plants and
hydro facilities were reportable to federal, state, and local environmental and
emergency response agencies.
Kingston
Fossil Plant
During the first quarter of 2009, an
event occurred at Tennessee Valley Authority’s (“TVA”) Kingston Fossil Plant
(“Kingston”), which is located near Kingston, Tennessee, and which TVA operates
pursuant to the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§
831-831ee 2006 (as amended, the “TVA Act”) that was reportable to federal,
state, and local environmental and emergency response agencies.
The Event. On December 22, 2008, a
dike failed at Kingston, allowing approximately five million cubic yards of
water and coal fly ash to flow out onto approximately 300 acres, primarily Watts
Bar Reservoir and shoreline property owned by the United States and managed by
TVA. TVA had originally estimated that 50 acres of property not
managed by TVA had been affected by the spill. However, more detailed
examinations determined that only eight acres of property not managed by TVA had
been directly impacted by the ash.
At this time, the cause of the event is
not known. TVA has retained an independent engineering firm to
perform a root-cause analysis. Additionally, TVA’s Office of
Inspector General is performing an independent assessment of the cause of the
event. The firm retained to investigate the root cause of the event
is coordinating its investigation with representatives of the Office of
Inspector General, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
(“TDEC”), and the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”).
Kingston is one of the larger fossil
plants operated by TVA. It generates 10 billion kilowatt-hours of
electricity a year, enough to supply the needs of about 700,000 homes in the
Tennessee Valley. While TVA has been conservatively operating the
plant since the event, TVA’s ability to operate the plant itself was not
affected by the ash release, although constraints associated with the
containment of fly ash produced by operations have somewhat limited the plant’s
availability.
Response and
Cleanup. Fly ash is a by-product of a coal-fired
plant. It is a gray material with a consistency similar
to flour. It is made up mostly of silica, similar to
sand. Though the ash itself is inert, it may contain trace amounts of
other substances that occur naturally in coal, such as arsenic, cadmium, lead,
mercury, and selenium. It is used in building products such as
cement, mortar, stucco, and grout. It also is used in some potting soils and as
a soil conditioner. TVA has sold fly ash commercially. At
Kingston, fly ash is placed in wet ash containment areas. The
involved containment area covered approximately 84 acres. The depth
of the containment area was approximately 60 feet. The event resulted
in about 60 acres of contained wet ash being displaced.
Cleanup and recovery efforts are being
conducted in coordination with federal and state agencies. Starting
on the day of the event, TVA put equipment and personnel in place to install
floating booms to minimize the movement of cenospheres (inert hollow spheres of
sand-like material created in the coal-fired boiler) along the river surface and
to prepare for cleanup of the floating material. Progress has been
made in removing the ash from two
local
roads. The two roads have reopened to local traffic - one in late
March and one in mid-April. The rail spur near Kingston has been
cleared, and the plant has resumed receiving shipments of coal by
rail.
TVA has constructed structures in the
waterway, one weir and one dike, as part of the recovery. The weir is
under water and the dike is above water. The weir allows water flow
to continue while inhibiting the ash material from flowing
downstream. The dike is used to keep additional ash located in an
embayment area from moving into the river. The coal ash in the Emory
River and the temporary weir have raised the flood elevations from Kingston
through Harriman (approximately 11 miles). Until the ash and the weir
are removed, there is an increased risk of flooding for some river-front
properties upstream of the weir and ash spill. The change in the
flood elevation
is only a
temporary one until TVA removes the ash and underwater weir from the
river. TVA has informed residents that it will assume financial
responsibility for flooding damage that would not have occurred in the absence
of the ash and weir. After the ash and weir are removed, the flood
elevations will return to levels established before the spill. TVA’s
financial responsibility related to flood damages will also end at this
time.
TVA has recognized a charge of $675
million for the six months ended March 31, 2009, in connection with the current
expected cleanup costs related to the event. Costs incurred through
March 31, 2009, totaled $77 million. The $675 million expense
currently includes, among other things, a reasonable estimate of costs to
contain the cenospheres, perform sampling and analysis, construct the weir and
dike, and the low end of a range of estimates to remove an estimated 5 million
cubic yards of ash. The cost of the removal of the ash is in large
part dependent on the final disposal plan which has not yet been approved by
regulatory authorities.
During the three months ended March 31,
2009, TVA revised its estimate and increased the expense recorded by $150
million. The estimate changed because TVA obtained better information
as the work has progressed. The revised estimate reflects an increase
in the number of cubic yards of ash that will need to be transported offsite
versus what could be stored on site. Additionally, the revised
estimate reflects higher transportation rates, and the evaluation of different
modes of transportation. As work progresses, TVA will continue to
revise its estimates as more information is available. TVA currently
believes the recovery process will take several years. As
such, TVA has accrued a portion of the estimate in current liabilities, with the
remaining portion shown as a long-term liability on TVA’s March 31, 2009 Balance
Sheet.
On March 2, 2009, TVA submitted its
Corrective Action Plan (“CAP”) to TDEC and the EPA for the recovery efforts at
Kingston. The CAP outlines how TVA will proceed with planning and
implementing work needed to restore the site of the ash spill while maintaining
public health and safety. TVA met with State of Tennessee and EPA
officials to discuss the plan on March 19, 2009, and TVA is awaiting a formal
response from TDEC and the EPA on the plan. In conjunction with this
plan, TVA and local, state, and federal agencies are to serve as a source of
information, a coordinating mechanism to ensure rapid communication of
information among agencies, and a
professional
review group to provide advice and review on documents and analyses prepared
during the recovery effort. On February 5, 2009, TVA submitted its
proposed Phase I Dredging Plan to the EPA and TDEC for approval and to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers for review. On March 19, 2009, after TDEC and
EPA approved the Phase I Plan dredging operations commenced. During
Phase I, TVA plans to partially clear the river channel to restore flow without
disturbing legacy or natural river sediments. Future work to remove
the remaining ash in the river channel will be addressed in the second phase of
dredging.
Due to the uncertainty at this time of
the final methods of remediation, a range of reasonable estimates has been
developed and the low end of the range has been recorded. The range
of estimated cost varies from approximately $675 million to approximately $975
million. This range could change significantly depending on the
method of containment or the amount of ash. This range can also be
impacted if new coal ash laws and regulations are implemented at the state or
federal level.
No amounts are included in the
estimates above for regulatory actions, litigation, fines or penalties that may
be assessed, final remediation activities, or other settlements because TVA
cannot estimate these at this time. Also, all of the regulatory
requirements for the final closure of the site, the continued ground water
monitoring requirements, and any ongoing environmental impact studies that may
be required are not known at this time and are not included in the
estimate. As ash removal continues, it is possible that other
environmentally sensitive material potentially in the river sediment before the
ash spill may be uncovered. If other materials are identified,
additional remediation not included in the above estimates may be
required.
TVA will also be working with state and
federal agencies to determine the extent of the environmental impact of the ash
release and the steps necessary to monitor and restore the environment over the
long term. At this time, TVA does not know the extent of the damage
or the remedies that will be required for restoration.
Post-Spill
Testing. The EPA and TDEC began water quality testing shortly
after the event. TDEC reports that samples received to date show that
municipal water supplies have met drinking water standards. Samples
taken of raw water in the river also have met drinking water standards except
for a few instances for arsenic immediate to the site. A sample right
after the spill and samples after a large rain event showed total arsenic in the
water to be
above drinking water standards, but still below fish and aquatic life
standards. All the EPA, TDEC, and TVA water treatment facility
sampling results from Rockwood, Harriman, Cumberland, and Kingston, Tennessee,
indicate that
the
municipal drinking water, which is filtered and treated by municipal treatment
facilities, continues to meet water quality standards.
Both
municipal drinking water and the water sampled from private groundwater wells
continue to meet the state standards for drinking water. The EPA and
TDEC began water quality testing within hours of the event. TDEC
tests show the water is safe in that it meets the quality standards set by the
state for drinking water. TDEC is also testing private groundwater
wells, and those results show these water sources meet standards as
well. Each agency does its own sampling, and the analyses are done by
certified, independent labs. To date, more than 1,050 utility and
surface water samples and more than 100 well and spring water samples taken from
within a four-mile radius of the spill site have been collected. The
City of Kingston has also conducted more than 140 tests on utility drinking
water.
To date, more than 30,000 mobile air
monitoring samples have been collected offsite and in residential
areas. All sample results have been within the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter.
The EPA soil testing reports indicate
that, except for arsenic, concentrations of metals in the spilled ash are well
below the EPA Region 4 Removal Action Levels (“RALs”). Some
concentrations of arsenic were above the residential RALs but below the
industrial RALs. The concentrations are well below levels found in
well-fertilized soils and many naturally occurring soils in
Tennessee. In addition, the levels were significantly below the
limits to be
classified
as a hazardous waste. To date, more than 120 ash, soil and sediment
samples have been collected.
Other groups have also sponsored other
testing of sediment in the vicinity of Kingston. In some cases, these
tests have been reported in the media as finding levels of radium and arsenic
that differ significantly from those found by TVA, TDEC, the EPA, and
independent labs.
Insurance. TVA
has property and excess liability insurance programs in place which may cover
some of the costs. The insurers for each of these programs have been
notified of the event. Although two of the insurers that provide
liability insurance have denied coverage, TVA is working with its insurers to
provide information, as it becomes available, on the event and its cause, to
determine applicable coverage. As a result, no estimate for potential
insurance recovery has been accrued at this time.
CERCLA
Designation. On April 1, 2009, TVA’s President and Chief
Executive Officer (“CEO”) directed the Senior Vice President, Office of
Environment and Research, to oversee environmental response actions for the
Kingston ash spill in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA") and to take such actions as necessary
to protect the public health or welfare consistent with the National
Contingency Plan. By utilizing CERCLA, TVA will restore the area in a
manner that protects public health and the environment. CERCLA processes
are intended to be rigorous and transparent, and include opportunities for
public input. CERCLA also prohibits legal actions by third parties
challenging how the site is being cleaned-up while TVA is remediating the site.
Although coal ash is not a hazardous waste, it does contain some materials
that are CERCLA hazardous substances when they appear in certain compound
forms. CERCLA processes can be used to clean up the spilled
ash.
Claims and
Litigation. Seven lawsuits have been filed, all of which are
currently pending before the same judge in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville. A discovery and
briefing order was entered in these cases on April 9, 2009. On April
17, 2009, TVA filed motions in each of these cases asking that the tort claims
and the claims for punitive damages be dismissed.
Three
lawsuits have been filed by individual plaintiffs for damages allegedly caused
to their real or personal property by the Kingston ash spill.
|
•
|
Raymond v. TVA – This
lawsuit was filed on December 30, 2008, by four individual property owners
in Roane County, Tennessee, against TVA and certain TVA
officers. The complaint alleges causes of action based in tort
– negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, trespass, nuisance, and
strict liability – and inverse condemnation. The plaintiffs
seek $165 million dollars ($15 million in compensatory damages and $150
million in punitive damages) for the damage to their
property.
|
|
•
|
Auchard v. TVA – Two
hundred seventy-six individuals who allegedly own property and/or reside
in the vicinity of the Kingston ash spill on behalf of themselves and
eighteen minors filed suit against TVA on February 18,
2009. The complaint alleges causes of action based in tort –
public nuisance, statutory public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass,
negligence, gross negligence, negligence per se, negligent infliction of
emotional
|
|
distress,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, strict liability for ultra –
hazardous activity, and increased risk of future harm. The
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and
injunctive relief relating to spill remediation, including an order
directing TVA to fund medical
monitoring.
|
|
•
|
Scofield v. TVA – Five
Roane County residents filed suit against TVA on February 20, 2009,
seeking damages in excess of $75,000 and other
relief.
|
Four lawsuits seeking class action
status for individuals allegedly damaged by the Kingston ash spill have also
been filed.
|
•
|
Mays v. TVA – A
landowner in Roane County, Tennessee, filed suit on January 7, 2009,
against TVA. The plaintiff is seeking class action status on
behalf of all similarly situated landowners. The complaint
alleges that the ash spill constitutes a private nuisance which has
interfered with the use and value of the property of the proposed class
members, and seeks compensatory damages in excess of $5
million.
|
|
•
|
Blanchard v. TVA – Nine
individual landowners in Roane County, Tennessee, filed suit on January 9,
2009, against TVA. The plaintiffs are seeking class action
status on behalf of all similarly situated persons. The
complaint alleges causes of action based in tort – negligence, negligence
per se, gross negligence, and trespass, among other things – and inverse
condemnation, – and seeks compensatory damages in excess of $5
million.
|
|
•
|
Giltnane v. TVA – Six
individual landowners in Roane County, Tennessee, and one local business
filed suit on January 9, 2009. The plaintiffs are seeking class
action status on behalf of all entities (including individuals and
businesses) located within a 25-mile radius of Kingston. The
complaint alleges, among other things, gross negligence, strict liability,
nuisance per se, and violation of various state and federal environmental
statutes. The plaintiffs seek, among other forms of relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, and an injunction requiring TVA to
perform immediate medical and environmental testing, to abate the
nuisance, and to remediate
|
|
the
environmental damage.
|
|
•
|
Long v. TVA –
Forty-three individuals in Roane County, Tennessee, filed suit on March
17, 2009, against TVA, four TVA employees, and certain TVA
contractors. The plaintiffs are seeking class action status on
behalf of all entities (including all individuals and businesses) within a
10-mile radius of Kingston. As to TVA, the complaint alleges
causes of action based in tort – negligence, gross negligence,
recklessness, willful misconduct, wanton misconduct, negligence per se,
trespass, nuisance, ultra hazardous activity, misrepresentation/fraud,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of
emotional distress – and also alleges National Environmental Policy Act
(“NEPA”) claims under the Administrative Procedures
Act. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, and
injunctive relief relating to spill remediation, including an order
|
|
directing
TVA to fund medical monitoring. As to the four TVA employees,
the complaint alleges constitutional tort claims in addition to state-law
tort claims.
|
TVA has received several notices of
intent to sue, including one from a coalition of environmental groups (including
the Sierra Club) alleging violations of federal laws related to
Kingston. TVA has also received notices of intent to sue from
attorneys representing the owners of 46 properties in the vicinity of
Kingston.
As of
April 22, 2009, TVA has settled claims with owners of 71 tracts of land and also
settled 30 personal property claims. TVA acquired these 71 tracts and
paid over $40 million in connection with these settlements. A portion
of this amount has been recorded as property, plant, and equipment and a portion
has been charged to expense. In addition, TVA has received
substantial other claims from private individuals and companies allegedly
affected by the ash spill, and it expects to receive additional
claims.
TDEC
Order. On January 12, 2009, TDEC issued an administrative
order in connection with the Kingston ash spill. The order is based
on a finding of an emergency requiring immediate action to protect the public
health, safety, or welfare, or the health of animals, fish, or aquatic life, or
a public water supply, or recreational, commercial, industrial, agricultural, or
other reasonable uses. The order assesses no penalties, addressing
just the corrective action for the emergency situation. TDEC reserves
the right to issue further orders. Among other things, the order
requires
TVA to:
|
•
|
Continue
to implement actions to prevent the movement and migration of sediment
contaminated with ash further
downstream,
|
|
•
|
Provide
support for TDEC’s comprehensive review of all TVA coal ash impoundments
located within Tennessee,
|
|
•
|
Submit
to TDEC all existing studies, reports, and memoranda that are potentially
relevant to explaining or analyzing the failure of the Kingston
containment structures,
|
|
•
|
Provide
support for TDEC’s initial assessment of the impact of the ash release on
all waters of the state, including wetlands and
groundwaters,
|
• Submit
to TDEC a CAP that includes a plan for:
|
–
|
Remediating
impacted segments of the environment and restoration of all natural
resource damages,
|
– Monitoring
air and water,
– Providing
protection of public and private drinking water supplies,
– Managing
on a short-term and long-term basis coal ash at Kingston, and
– Addressing
any health and safety hazards,
• Implement
the CAP upon its approval by TDEC,
|
•
|
Assist
TDEC in the evaluation to determine the need for further remedial action
or monitoring beyond that
|
|
already
conducted under the CAP, and if additional actions are determined by TDEC
to be necessary,
|
submit
plans for and implement the additional activities, and
• Pay
all costs associated with TDEC’s investigation of the ash release.
TVA has provided information on the
containment structure at Kingston, and submitted the required CAP as described
above.
In a letter to TVA dated February
5, 2009, the EPA and TDEC expressed their commitment to work collaboratively in
their oversight of cleanup activities associated with the ash spill at
Kingston. The commitment by the EPA and TDEC will help ensure that the
reviews and approvals by the two regulatory agencies will be conducted in an
efficient and expeditious manner. Also, the EPA and TDEC informed TVA that
they concluded that the Kingston ash spill was in violation of the Clean Water
Act ("CWA") and have requested that TVA provide duplicate copies of all plans,
reports, work proposals and other submittals to the EPA and TDEC
simultaneously. The EPA and TDEC, in turn, agreed they will
coordinate their reviews and approvals.
Fly Ash
Storage. At Kingston, fly ash is collected in wet ash ponds.
Six of the eleven fossil plants operated by TVA use wet fly ash collection
ponds. The other five plants use a dry collection
method. TVA’s ash collection sites follow the permit requirements for
the states in which they are constructed. They are surrounded by
dikes and incorporate drain systems and water runoff controls. TVA’s
ash collection areas undergo daily visual inspections, quarterly state
inspections, and annual detailed engineering inspections which include an
assessment report. In addition, TVA has retained an independent
engineering firm to perform by-product facility assessments at TVA’s eleven
active and one closed fossil plants, and the assessment work is
underway. The root cause analysis firm hired to investigate the
Kingston event is sharing information with the assessment
contractor.
TVA is unable to predict at this time
whether any regulatory actions may be taken, or what the outcome or impact of
any such regulations could be. As a result of the incident at
Kingston and other recent incidents involving coal combustion waste disposal
facilities, there has been a significant increase in the potential for new
regulations related to coal combustion waste disposal. Currently,
coal combustion by-products, including fly ash, are not regulated as hazardous
waste. TVA, along with others in the utility industry, have responded
to information requests from the EPA and from Congress related to by – product
storage practices and facilities, and TVA expects that additional regulation of
coal combustion by – product is likely over the next few months or years -
possibly at both the state and federal level. Until the form and
timing of any such legislation or regulation are better defined, the impacts on
TVA cannot be determined.
After the
Kingston incident, TVA undertook a third party safety evaluation to determine
the overall stability and safety of existing embankments associated with ash
storage facilities across the system. The first phase of the
evaluation was completed on January 30, 2009, and involved a “walk-down” of all
facilities, a review of recent and historical inspection reports, and a
determination of any immediate actions necessary to reduce risks. The second
phase built on the results of the first phase and developed action plans
including geotechnical investigations, studies and risk mitigation steps such as
performance monitoring. The third phase, which is still ongoing,
includes designing repairs, developing planning documents, obtaining the
necessary permits and implementing the lessons learned at Kingston at TVA’s
other facilities. As a part of this effort, an ongoing monitoring
program with third party oversight will be developed and TVA employees will
receive additional training in dam safety and monitoring.
TVA is also evaluating its strategy for
storing coal combustion by-products, including gypsum. A change in
how TVA stores coal combustion by-products, whether as a result of regulation or
a change in strategy, could cause TVA to incur significant capital
expenditures.
Widows
Creek Gypsum Pond
A discharge from the gypsum containment
pond at Widows Creek Fossil Plant in Stevenson, Alabama, was discovered January
9, 2009, by contractors who were conducting a routine inspection. The
discharge stopped the same day it was discovered when the level of the pond
reached the level of the exposed weir. TVA determined that a cap had
dislodged from an unused 36-inch standpipe in the gypsum pond which allowed
water and gypsum to bypass the existing weir system and drain into the adjacent
settling pond, filling it to capacity and causing it to overflow. TVA
notified appropriate federal and state authorities. TVA filled the
unused pipe with 120 cubic yards of grout.
The containment ponds hold gypsum,
which is a byproduct of the limestone used in TVA’s scrubbers that clean sulfur
dioxide (“SO2”) from
coal-plant emissions. Although the gypsum from the Widows Creek
Fossil Plant is not sold commercially, gypsum contains calcium sulfate, which is
commonly used in drywall for construction applications. The released
material contained water and a mixture of predominantly gypsum and some fly
ash.
TVA is working with the EPA and the
Alabama Department of Environmental Management (“ADEM”) to continue to sample
the water. TVA also notified local water companies following the
release. The EPA and TVA are working from a formal testing plan,
approved by the ADEM, that includes taking water samples on the Tennessee River
and Widows Creek. The levels of metals, solids, and nutrients
detected from the Tennessee River are below the national primary drinking water
standards that apply to public water systems for treated water.
Dredging of Widows Creek began on April
18, 2009. The dredging will take place in the area of Widows Creek
nearest to the stilling pond known as the “triangle”. The dredge plan
has been approved by the ADEM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
(“FWS”). The plan includes considerations to ensure that material is
removed from Widows Creek using environmentally acceptable
methods. ADEM and FWS are currently evaluating any additional work
that may be required. All additional plans will be reviewed
internally and will be approved concurrently with the NEPA Environmental
Assessment.
On April 3, 2009, ADEM issued a Notice
of Violation and a Proposed Consent Order for several alleged violations of the
Alabama Water Pollution Control Act at Widows Creek Fossil Plant, including the
January 9, 2009, gypsum pond discharge. ADEM made a preliminary
determination that the alleged violations warrant an enforcement action with a
civil penalty, and also determined that the alleged violations were appropriate
for resolution by Consent Order, a mechanism whereby TVA may agree to certain
terms and conditions to resolve the violations without the need for more
aggressive enforcement and litigation. The Proposed Consent Order
would require payment of a $25,000 civil penalty and submission of engineering
reports related to storage impoundments at both Widows Creek and other TVA
facilities in Alabama on a schedule defined in the Proposed Consent
Order. TVA has responded to the Proposed Consent Order and requested
an opportunity to meet with ADEM to discuss the ongoing activities at the plant
and the provisions of the Proposed Consent Order.
Ocoee
Hydro Plant
On January 3, 2009, TVA opened the
Ocoee No. 3 sluice gates to lower the reservoir elevation to prepare for work on
Ocoee No. 2 Dam. Large amounts of sediment were released downstream
above Ocoee No. 2 and around the Olympic Course, and a number of fish were
killed. On January 9, 2009, TDEC issued a Notice of Violation for the
release of sediments, instructing TVA to cease sluicing operations from Ocoee
No. 3 Dam and to restore the affected area of the Ocoee River to pre-event
status.
On January 12, 2009, TDEC issued a
Director’s Order, replacing the Notice of Violation. The order
required TVA to cease all sluicing operations, submit a restoration plan for the
section of river between Ocoee No. 3 Dam and Ocoee No. 3 Powerhouse, and submit
a Best Management Practices plan. TVA complied with the order and
ceased sluicing. On January 22, 2009, TVA submitted a plan for
restoration and a Best Management Practices plan.
On April 3, 2009, TDEC approved the
operation of the sluice gate at Ocoee No. 3 Dam for flood risk management and
recreational releases provided certain conditions are met regarding minimum pool
elevation during sluicing, upstream operations, duration of releases, and onsite
observation of the first two releases.
Financial
Overview
Three Month
Results. Net income for the three months ended March 31, 2009,
was $133 million compared to net income of $135 million for the three months
ended March 31, 2008. This decrease was primarily due to
a
$462
million increase in operating expenses and was partially offset by an increase
of $415 million in operating revenues.
Six Month
Results. Net loss for the six months ended March 31, 2009, was
$172 million compared to net income of $143 million for the six months ended
March 31, 2008. The $315 million decrease in net income was primarily
due to an increase of $720 million in fuel and purchased power expense and $675
million in expense related to the
Kingston fly ash spill in the first six months of 2009. The increase
in expense was partially offset by a $1.1 billion increase in operating
revenue.
Although
operating revenue increased approximately 16.5 percent and 23.2 percent for the
three and six months ended March 31, 2009, as compared to the same periods of
2008, sales decreased approximately 9.4 percent and 5.6 percent,
respectively. The increase in revenue was primarily due to an
increase in the fuel cost adjustment (“FCA”) due to higher fuel and purchased
power costs which provided $824 million and base rate increases effective April 1, 2008,
and October 1, 2008, which accounted for $533 million in additional revenues for
the six months ended March 31, 2009, as compared to March 31,
2008. See Results
of Operations.
Financial
Outlook
For the remainder of 2009 and perhaps
beyond, TVA is facing several financial pressures, including the
following:
Rates and Electricity
Sales. On April 1, 2009, TVA reduced its FCA for the second
time this year. Combined with a previous six percent drop on January
1, 2009, this latest seven percent decrease rolls back much of the 17 percent
increase in the FCA from October 2008. The FCA is applied to the
bills of the majority of TVA’s customers to compensate for TVA's costs
associated with fuel, purchased power, and emissions allowances. The
two decreases are due to lower than forecasted fuel and purchased power
costs.
The effects of the economic downturn
are resulting in less demand for electric power. Sales of electricity
are about six percent below 2008 levels and could decline further if commercial
and industrial employers continue to reduce production in response to the
downturn. Through March 2009, directly served industrial sales are
down approximately 14.9 percent, while municipal and cooperative sales have
experienced a 3.1 percent decline compared to the prior year.
Kingston Ash
Spill. TVA continues with clean up efforts at Kingston as
previously described. The final costs are currently estimated to be
approximately $675 million to $975 million. See Note
1.
North Carolina
Lawsuit. TVA is involved in a lawsuit filed by the State of
North Carolina in connection with emissions from several of TVA’s coal-fired
power plants. TVA already has spent money to decrease emissions from
the facilities, but the court has ordered a significant additional
investment. TVA’s current estimate of costs that could be incurred as
a result of the court order is $1.7 billion.
Investments. The
performance of debt, equity, and other markets in 2008 negatively impacted the
asset values of investments held in TVA’s pension system and nuclear
decommissioning trust (“NDT”). During the period September 30, 2008,
through March 31, 2009, the change in the Standard & Poor’s (“S&P”) 500
benchmark index was a decrease of 31 percent.
Pending
Legislation. There is currently pending federal legislation in
Washington involving clean or renewable energy, and depending on the bill that
gets approved, TVA might have to ensure that anywhere from four percent to 25
percent of the energy it sells is produced by clean or renewable
sources.
The factors outlined here, as well as
other factors, may have significant impacts on TVA’s strategy, financial
outlook, planning, policies and financial results in the coming
years. The extent to which TVA is impacted will depend to some degree
on actual expenditures made by TVA over the next several years related to these
items, as well as the policies of the TVA Board in recovering costs through
power rates.
Financial Market
Performance
During
the three and six month periods ended March 31, 2009, net pension system assets,
including benefit payments, decreased by $396 million and $1.5 billion,
respectively. TVA is evaluating its options to address the volatility
in market conditions, which may include a significant contribution. TVA has not
determined at this time whether additional contributions will be made to the
pension system in 2009.
During the three and six month periods
ended March 31, 2009, the NDT portfolio declined in value $56 million and $240
million, respectively. TVA submitted its biennial NDT funding status
report to the NRC on March 31, 2009. The report is based on the
status of the funding requirement as of December 31, 2008, at which time TVA’s
NDT funding was 79 percent of the estimated present value of the funding
requirements established by Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(“NRC”). TVA does not anticipate making significant changes in its
basic investment policies as a result of current market
conditions. See Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Risk Management Activities —
Investment Price Risk in TVA’s Annual Report.
Weather Conditions
Rainfall in the eastern Tennessee
Valley was 86 percent of normal and runoff was 66 percent of normal for the six
month period ended March 31, 2009, which resulted in an increase in
hydroelectric generation during the six month period ended March 31, 2009, as
compared to the same period of 2008. Hydroelectric generation was 5.3
billion kilowatt-hours during the six month period ended March 31, 2009, which
was nearly 2 billion kilowatt-hours higher than the same period of
2008. This increase is a result of greater hydroelectric generation
of one billion kilowatt-hours during each of the three month periods ended March
31, 2009, and December 31, 2008, as compared to the same periods of the prior
year.
Lower Commodity Prices and Effects on
Fuel Cost Adjustment
Due to falling commodity prices across
domestic and international markets, TVA experienced lower-than-expected costs in
short-term markets for natural gas, fuel oil, and electricity during the second
quarter of 2009. The average market prices for these commodities for
the six months ended March 31, 2009, were 47 percent, 52 percent, and 41 percent
lower, respectively, as compared to average market prices for the six months
ended March 31, 2008. While coal prices also began to fall, markets
have reacted more slowly than other fuel markets and remain well above the
previous year’s levels. Average market prices for coal for the six
months ended March 31, 2009, increased 15 percent as compared to average market
prices for the six months ended March 31, 2008. Average market prices
for these commodities for the six months ended March 31, 2009, and 2008, are
shown in the table below.
Commodity
Pricing Table
For
the Six Months Ended March 31
|
||||||||||||
Prices
|
||||||||||||
Commodity
|
2009
|
2008
|
Percent
Change
|
|||||||||
Henry
Hub Natural Gas ($/mmBtu)
|
$ | 4.59 | $ | 8.59 | (47 | %) | ||||||
Gulf
Coast Fuel Oil ($/mmBtu)
|
9.17 | 19.29 | (52 | %) | ||||||||
Composite
Coal (FOB mine $/ton) weighted average from FY budget
plan
|
45.41 | 39.63 | 15 | % | ||||||||
Into
TVA Electricity ($/MWh)
|
||||||||||||
On
Peak (5 days x 16 hours)
|
39.52 | 67.51 | (41 | %) | ||||||||
Off-Peak
(5 days x 8 hours)
|
32.16 | 48.18 | (33 | %) |
Although the FCA provides a mechanism
to regularly alter rates to reflect changing fuel and purchased power costs,
there is a lag between the occurrence of a change in fuel and purchased power
costs and the reflection of the change in rates. As a result, TVA’s
cash flows can be positively or negatively affected by the FCA. As of
March 31, 2009, TVA had collected excess revenues to offset fuel and purchased
power costs. The excess revenue was driven by market commodity prices
being lower than those forecasted. At March 31, 2009, TVA recognized
a short-term regulatory liability of $569 million and a long-term regulatory
liability of $81 million because of the change in market
conditions. At September 30, 2008, TVA recognized a regulatory asset
related to the FCA, which reflected a net under-recovery of fuel and purchased
power costs. See Rates and Electricity
Sales.
New Generation
In September 2005, NuStart Energy
Development LLC (“NuStart”) selected the site of TVA’s Bellefonte Nuclear Plant
(“Bellefonte”) as one of the two sites in the country to demonstrate the new NRC
licensing process for a new advanced design nuclear plant. NuStart is
an industry consortium comprised of 10 utilities and two reactor vendors whose
purpose is to satisfactorily demonstrate the new NRC licensing
process. Using the Bellefonte site, NuStart intends to demonstrate
the process for obtaining a combined construction and operating license for the
new Advanced Passive 1000 reactor design by Westinghouse Electric
Co. As the license applicant, TVA submitted its combined license
application to NRC for Bellefonte Units 3 and 4 in October 2007, and it was
accepted for detailed review by the NRC on January 18, 2008. If
approved, the license to build and operate the plant would be issued to
TVA. The Bellefonte license application is one of several Advanced
Passive 1000 standardized plant applications. Other applications have
announced construction schedules that would require their license reviews to be
completed prior to the Bellefonte license application review. As a
result, TVA has entered into discussions with NuStart on how best to transition
the NuStart support to another application. In the event this occurs,
TVA intends to continue to support the review of the Bellefonte application and
does not expect this transition, by itself, to impact the current license
issuance date. The TVA Board has not made a decision to construct a
new plant at the Bellefonte site, and TVA continues to evaluate all nuclear
generation options at the site.
As part of this evaluation, TVA asked
the NRC in August 2008, to reinstate the construction permits for its two
unfinished nuclear units at the Bellefonte site. On March 9, 2009,
NRC issued an order to TVA reinstating the construction permits for Bellefonte
Units 1 and 2 and returning the plant to a terminated
status. Reinstating the construction permits would allow TVA to place
the units in a deferred status again with the NRC approval and would help TVA
clarify the regulatory requirements and continue to evaluate the feasibility of
using Bellefonte Units 1 and 2 to meet future base-load power
demand. The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (“BREDL”) filed a
petition on March 30, 2009, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit asking the court to review NRC’s decision to
reinstate the construction permits.
Renewables and Clean
Energy
TVA
is working towards obtaining 50 percent of its power supply from clean (low or
zero carbon) or renewable sources by 2020. It is possible that
legislation may be passed in the near future requiring utilities to supply a
certain amount of energy from renewable sources. Currently, there is
a great deal of activity related to proposed legislation in the U.S. Congress
involving carbon reduction or renewable sources. Depending on
the
legislation
that gets approved, TVA might have to ensure that anywhere from four percent to
25 percent of the energy it sells is produced by clean or renewable sources, or
make alternative compliance payments to the Department of Energy for any
deficiency.
In December 2008, TVA issued a request
for proposal (“RFP”) seeking proposals which may result in TVA obtaining both
dispatchable capacity and as-available energy from renewable energy sources of
up to a total of 2,000 megawatts of generation. TVA received over 60
responses to the RFP which included wind (most coming from mid-western
and plains states), biomass, and solar to be delivered by
2011. Bringing power from distant locations raises transmission
issues and costs, and the “intermittent” nature of wind, solar, and other
intermittent sources can result in TVA needing backups for those sources or
mechanisms. TVA completed an initial evaluation of the responses and
has notified certain respondents that TVA wishes to conduct a more in-depth
evaluation of their proposals. Based on these more detailed
evaluations, TVA may elect to contact additional respondents for
consideration. On April 2, 2009, the TVA Board authorized management
to approve power purchase agreements for up to 20 years for renewable and/or
clean energy for those resources within certain specified criteria and
limitations.
TVA’s clean energy portfolio is defined
as energy that has a near-zero carbon emission rate such as nuclear and
renewables (energy production that is sustainable and often naturally
replenished), or energy efficiency improvements including demand reduction, or
waste heat recovery. In 2008, TVA produced over 58,000 GWH of clean
and renewable energy. However, less than one percent of that would likely
qualify for renewable credits under the language in most of the proposed
renewable portfolio standard legislation.
On January 30, 2009, TVA issued an RFP
concerning the future use and operation of the turbine wind farm on
Buffalo Mountain about 10 miles north of Oliver Springs, Tennessee,
near Knoxville. TVA will consider a variety of options for using the
three turbines and other opportunities at the site. Proposals
involving contractors providing operation and maintenance services, technical
research and development partnerships, transfer of ownership with a power
purchase agreement, or other innovative arrangements will be
considered. The three turbines, with a capacity of 660 kilowatts
each, were installed in 2000, establishing the first successful wind farm in the
Southeast. TVA received eight responses to the RFP covering the range
of options identified above. The proposals are currently undergoing
evaluation by TVA staff.
Sources
of Liquidity
To meet short-term cash needs and
contingencies, TVA depends on various sources of liquidity. TVA’s
primary sources of liquidity are cash from operations and proceeds from the
issuance of short-term and long-term debt. TVA’s current liabilities
exceed current assets because of continued use of short-term debt to fund
short-term cash needs, including posting collateral as necessary in connection
with a call monetization transaction (as discussed below) and meeting scheduled
maturities of long-term debt.
Financial markets experienced extreme
volatility in 2008, and have continued to experience extreme volatility into
2009 amid negative developments in housing and mortgage-related activities,
weakness of major financial institutions, government actions, and negative
economic developments. These conditions have resulted in disruptions
in credit and lending activities, particularly in the short-term credit markets
through which corporate institutions borrow and lend to each
other. Disruptions in the short-term credit markets have the
potential to impact TVA
because TVA uses short-term debt to meet working capital needs, and because it
typically invests its cash holdings in the short-term debt securities of other
institutions.
TVA has not experienced difficulty in
issuing short-term debt, or in refunding maturing debt, despite the disruptions
in the credit markets. Throughout the period of market volatility,
TVA has experienced strong demand for its short-term discount notes, and has
been able to issue discount notes at competitive rates.
Despite the conditions in the credit
markets, TVA issued $491 million of long-term debt and $89 million of
electronotes® in the
second quarter of 2009. TVA believes it would be able to issue
additional long-term debt if needed.
Management expects continued demand for
TVA short-term debt securities. Along with the short-term debt
program, management expects operating cash flows, cash on hand, and access to
credit facilities to continue to provide more than adequate liquidity for TVA
for the foreseeable future.
Management is not able to anticipate
the long-term impacts of recent financial market turmoil on TVA, the financial
markets in which TVA participates, or the economy of the Tennessee
Valley. In addition, management is not able to anticipate the
long-term impacts of recent environmental-related events on
TVA. Management closely monitors conditions in the markets in which
TVA conducts business and the financial health of companies with which it does
business, and will continue to monitor these conditions in the future in an
effort to be proactive in maintaining financial health. TVA may need
to seek additional funding should any of these conditions warrant additional
cash resources. TVA’s options for additional funding include, but are
not limited to, an increase in rates, additional borrowing, evaluation of
capital projects, and/or other financial arrangements. Certain
options for additional funding may require approval of the TVA
Board.
The majority of TVA’s balance of cash
on hand is typically invested in short-term investments. The daily
balance of cash and cash equivalents maintained is based on near-term
expectations for cash expenditures and funding needs.
In addition to cash from operations,
and proceeds from the issuance of short-term and long-term debt, TVA’s sources
of liquidity include a $150 million credit facility with the U.S. Treasury, two
credit facilities totaling $2.25 billion with a national bank, and occasional
proceeds from other financing arrangements including call monetization
transactions, sales of assets, and sales of receivables and
loans. Certain sources of liquidity are discussed below.
Summary Cash
Flows. A major source of TVA’s liquidity is operating cash
flows resulting from the generation and sale of
electricity. A summary of cash flow components for the six months
ended March 31, 2009, and 2008, follows:
Summary
Cash Flows
For
the Six Months Ended March 31
|
||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
|||||||
Cash
provided by (used in):
|
||||||||
Operating
activities
|
$ | 1,990 | $ | 959 | ||||
Investing
activities
|
(1,433 | ) | (834 | ) | ||||
Financing
activities
|
(559 | ) | 470 | |||||
Net
(decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents
|
$ | (2 | ) | $ | 595 |
Issuance of
Debt. TVA issues power bonds primarily to refinance
previously-issued power bonds as they mature. During the six months
ended March 31, 2009, TVA issued $619 million of power bonds with an interest
rate of 3.81 percent. See Note 14 — Debt
Securities for more information related to TVA’s debt
activities.
Credit Facility
Agreements. TVA’s $150 million note with the U.S. Treasury
expired at the end of 2008. In December 2008, TVA and the U.S.
Treasury replaced the $150 million note with a memorandum of understanding under
which the U.S. Treasury provides TVA with a $150 million credit
facility. TVA plans to use the U.S. Treasury credit facility as a
source of liquidity, but not as a primary source of liquidity, in
2009. The interest rate on any borrowing under this facility is based
on the average rate on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States
with maturities from date of issue of one year or less. There were no
outstanding borrowings under the facility at March 31, 2009.
On March 26, 2009, TVA entered into two
new credit facilities with a national bank. These new credit
facilities are a $1.25 billion facility that matures on May 13, 2009, and a $1
billion facility that matures on November 9, 2009. These credit
facilities replace TVA’s previous $1.25 billion and $1 billion
facilities. The new credit facilities accommodate the issuance of
letters of credit. The interest rate on any borrowing and fees on any
letter of credit under these facilities are variable based on market factors and
the rating of TVA’s senior unsecured long-term non-credit
enhanced debt. TVA is required to pay an unused facility fee on the
portion of the total $2.25 billion against which TVA has not borrowed or
committed under letters of credit. The fee may fluctuate depending on
the non-enhanced credit ratings on TVA’s senior unsecured long-term
debt. There were no outstanding borrowings or letters
of credit
under the facilities at March 31, 2009. TVA anticipates renewing each
credit facility as it matures. TVA anticipates that when it renews
the second credit facility in May 2009, the amount of this facility will be
reduced.
Call Monetization
Transactions. From time to time TVA has entered into swaption
transactions to monetize the value of call provisions on certain of its Bond
issues. A swaption grants a third party the right to enter into a
swap agreement with TVA under which TVA receives a floating rate of interest and
pays the third party a fixed rate of interest equal to the interest rate on the
Bond issue whose call provision TVA monetized. As a result of an
unprecedented inversion of the swap yield curve and volatility in global
financial markets, coupled with a decrease in swap rates to historically low
rates, beginning December 1, 2008, TVA was required to post collateral
with a counterparty under the terms of a swaption agreement ($1 billion
notional). At March 31, 2009, the value of the swaption was such that
TVA posted $260 million with a custodian for benefit of the
counterparty.
Sale of Interest in TVA
Generating Facility. On September 30, 2008, Seven States Power
Corporation (“SSPC”) exercised an option to purchase from TVA a portion of a
three-unit, 792-megawatt summer net capability combined cycle combustion turbine
facility in Southaven, Mississippi formerly owned by Southaven Power, LLC
(“Southaven Power”). SSPC bought this portion through its subsidiary,
Seven States Southaven, LLC (“SSSL”). SSSL paid TVA approximately
$325 million and purchased an undivided 69.69 percent interest in the
facility. On April 17, 2009, SSSL acquired an additional
20.31 percent interest in the facility for approximately $95 million, which
increased its undivided ownership to 90 percent. SSSL and TVA have
entered into a lease under which TVA leases SSSL’s undivided 90 percent interest
in the facility through April 30, 2010.
Comparative
Cash Flow Analysis
Net cash provided by operating
activities increased $1,031 million from $959 million to $1,990 million for the
six months ended March 31, 2008, and 2009, respectively. This
increase resulted primarily from an increase in operating revenues of $1,132
million and a decrease in cash paid for interest of $35
million. Operating revenues increased primarily from increases in
revenue from municipalities and cooperatives, primarily due to the FCA, which
provided $737 million in additional revenues and base rate increases effective
April 1, 2008, and October 1, 2008, which provided $470 million in additional
revenue, partially offset by a decline in sales volume of 3.1 percent, which
reduced revenues by $114 million. These operating revenues were
partially offset by an increase in cash used by changes in working capital of
$42 million, an increase in cash outlays for routine and recurring operating
costs of $72 million, and an increase in cash paid for fuel and purchased power
of $13 million. Working capital changed primarily due to a smaller
decrease in accounts receivable of $96 million, a reduction in interest payable
of $30 million for the six months ended March 31, 2009, as compared to an
increase in interest payable of $21 million for the same period in 2008, and a
larger increase in inventories and other of $240 million, partially offset by an
increase in accounts payable of $92 million for the six months ended March 31,
2009, as compared to a decrease in accounts payable of $253 million for the same
period in 2008.
Net cash used in investing activities
increased $599 million from $834 million to $1,433 million for the six months
ended March 31, 2008, and 2009, respectively. The increase is
primarily due to collateral posted with a
custodian
for the benefit of a counterparty under the terms of a swaption agreement of
$260 million, an increase in construction expenditures for capital projects of
$173 million due to an increase in capacity expansion spending of $230 million
partially offset by reductions in base capital projects of $84 million, an
increase in cash used for restricted cash and investments of $17 million for the
six months ended March 31, 2009, as compared to an increase in cash provided of
$43 million for the same period in 2008, and an increase in expenditures for the
enrichment and fabrication of nuclear fuel of $107 million related to higher
prices paid for enriched uranium and the normal year to year variability
resulting from the timing of refueling outages at the nuclear
plants.
Net cash provided by financing
activities was $470 million for the six months ended March 31, 2008, as compared
to net cash used by financing activities of $559 million for the same period in
2009. The $1,029 million change was primarily due to an increase of
$2.3 billion in redemptions and repurchases of long-term debt and a decrease of
$983 million in issues of long-term debt. This was partially offset
by net issuances of short-term debt of $1.4 billion during the six months ended
March 31, 2009, as compared with net redemptions of short-term debt of $854
million for the same period in 2008.
Cash
Requirements and Contractual Obligations
The estimated cash requirements and
contractual obligations for TVA as of March 31, 2009, are detailed in the
following table.
Commitments
and Contingencies
Payments
due in the year ending September 30
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
20091 |
2010
|
2011
|
2012
|
2013
|
Thereafter
|
Total
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Debt2
|
$ | 1,643 | $ | 8 | $ | 1,008 | $ | 1,523 | $ | 2,387 | $ | 15,609 | $ | 22,178 | ||||||||||||||
Interest
payments relating to debt
|
605 | 1,180 | 1,152 | 1,123 | 978 | 15,992 | 21,030 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Lease
obligations
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capital
|
47 | 474 | 51 | 4 | – | – | 576 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Non-cancelable
operating
|
30 | 53 | 44 | 37 | 34 | 206 | 404 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Purchase
obligations
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Power
|
138 | 282 | 302 | 232 | 177 | 6,092 | 7,223 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Fuel
|
1,302 | 1,278 | 836 | 539 | 563 | 1,290 | 5,808 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Other
|
41 | 46 | 44 | 31 | 24 | 160 | 346 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Expenditures
for emission control commitments
|
197 | 369 | 307 | 426 | 319 | 115 | 1,733 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Payments
on other financings
|
33 | 89 | 94 | 98 | 99 | 919 | 1,332 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Payment
to U.S. Treasury
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Return
of Power Facilities
Appropriation
Investment
|
20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 10 | 110 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Return
on Power Facilities
Appropriation
Investment
|
14 | 21 | 20 | 19 | 17 | 155 | 246 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total
|
$ | 4,070 | $ | 3,820 | $ | 3,878 | $ | 4,052 | $ | 4,618 | $ | 40,548 | $ | 60,986 | ||||||||||||||
Note
(1) Period
April 1 - September 30, 2009
(2) Does
not include noncash items of foreign currency valuation gain of $68
million and net discount on sale of Bonds of $203 million.
|
Expenditures for emission control
commitments represent TVA’s current estimate of costs that may be incurred as a
result of the court order in the case brought by North Carolina alleging public
nuisance. Management is
evaluating
alternatives which could change these amounts in the future. See Note
18 — Case Brought by North
Carolina Alleging Public Nuisance.
During 2008, TVA executed certain
contracts related to the resumption of construction activities at Watts Bar Unit
2 that are not reflected in this table. As of March 31, 2009,
expenditures against these contracts are forecasted to be approximately $1.1
billion through 2012.
In addition to the cash requirements
above, TVA has contractual obligations in the form of revenue discounts related
to energy prepayments.
Energy
Prepayment Obligations
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2009
|
2010
|
2011
|
2012
|
2013
|
Thereafter
|
Total
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Energy
Prepayment Obligations
|
$ | 53 | $ | 105 | $ | 105 | $ | 105 | $ | 102 | $ | 510 | $ | 980 |
Sales
of Electricity
The following table compares TVA’s
energy sales statistics for the three and six months ended March 31, 2009, and
2008:
Sales
of Electricity
(Millions
of kWh)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Three
Months Ended March 31
|
Six
Months Ended March 31
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
Percent
Change
|
2009
|
2008
|
Percent
Change
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Sales
of electricity
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Municipalities
and cooperatives
|
33,407 | 35,582 | (6.1 | %) | 65,981 | 68,058 | (3.1 | %) | ||||||||||||||||
Industries
directly served
|
7,638 | 9,660 | (20.9 | %) | 16,585 | 19,478 | (14.9 | %) | ||||||||||||||||
Federal
agencies and other
|
481 | 581 | (17.2 | %) | 1,022 | 1,022 | 0.0 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Total
sales of electricity
|
41,526 | 45,823 | (9.4 | %) | 83,588 | 88,558 | (5.6 | %) | ||||||||||||||||
Heating
degree days
|
1,776 | 1,828 | (2.8 | %) | 3,165 | 2,886 | 9.7 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Cooling
degree days
|
11 | 11 | 0.0 | % | 82 | 161 | (49.1 | %) | ||||||||||||||||
Combined
degree days
|
1,787 | 1,839 | (2.8 | %) | 3,247 | 3,047 | 6.6 | % |
Items contributing to the 4,297 million
kilowatt-hour decrease in electricity sales for the three months ended March 31,
2009, compared to the same period in 2008 include a 2,175 million
kilowatt-hour decrease in sales to Municipalities and Cooperatives, a
2,022 million kilowatt-hour decrease in sales to Industries Directly
Served, and a 100
million kilowatt-hour decrease in sales to Federal Agencies and
Other.
The decrease in sales to municipalities
and cooperatives for the three months ended March 31, 2009, compared
to the same period in 2008 was largely due to a decrease in demand among
commercial and industrial customers as a result of the downturn in the
economy. Several of TVA’s distributor-served commercial and
industrial customers have experienced less demand as a result of layoffs and
decreased production.
The decrease in sales to Industries
Directly Served for the three months ended March 31, 2009, compared to the same
period in 2008 was mainly attributable to decreased demand among several of
TVA’s directly served industrial customers as a result of lower production
levels at their facilities. The decrease in demand is primarily due
to a downturn in the economy. Several of TVA’s directly served
customers have shut down plants or curtailed production as a result of the
downturn in the economy.
The
decrease in Federal Agencies and Other for the three months ended March 31,
2009, compared to the same period in 2008 was primarily due to a 101 million
kilowatt-hour decrease in off-system sales due to less excess generation for
sale. Sales to federal agencies increased slightly over the same
period of 2008.
Significant items contributing to the
4,970 million kilowatt-hour decrease in electricity sales for the six months
ended March 31, 2009, compared to the same period in 2008 include a
2,893 million kilowatt-hour decrease in sales to Industries Directly Served
and a 2,077 million kilowatt-hour decrease in sales to Municipalities and
Cooperatives.
The decrease in sales volume was not as
severe for the six months ended March 31, 2009, as it was for the three months
then ended because TVA did not see the dramatic changes in commercial and
industrial demand until late in the first quarter. Additionally, the
significant decrease in sales to commercial and industrial customers was
partially offset by an increase in sales to residential customers primarily due
to colder weather in the first quarter of 2009.
Financial Results
The following table compares operating
results for the three and six months ended March 31, 2009, and
2008:
Summary
Statements of Operations
|
||||||||||||||||
Three
Months Ended March 31
|
Six
Months Ended March 31
|
|||||||||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
|||||||||||||
Operating
revenues
|
$ | 2,933 | $ | 2,518 | $ | 6,010 | $ | 4,878 | ||||||||
Operating
expenses
|
(2,503 | ) | (2,041 | ) | (5,545 | ) | (4,053 | ) | ||||||||
Operating
income
|
430 | 477 | 465 | 825 | ||||||||||||
Other
income (expense), net
|
20 | (2 | ) | 11 | 1 | |||||||||||
Interest
expense, net
|
(317 | ) | (340 | ) | (648 | ) | (683 | ) | ||||||||
Net
income (loss)
|
$ | 133 | $ | 135 | $ | (172 | ) | $ | 143 |
Net income for the three months ended
March 31, 2009, was $133 million compared to net income of $135 million for the
same period in 2008. The $2 million change in net income was
primarily attributable to a $462 million increase in operating
expenses. This item was partially offset by a $415 million increase
in operating revenues, a $23 million decrease in net interest expense, and a $22
million change in other income (expense).
Net loss
for the six months ended March 31, 2009, was $172 million compared to net income
of $143 million for the same period in 2008. The $315 million change
in net income was primarily attributable to a $1,492 million increase in
operating expenses. This increase was partially offset by a $1,132
million increase in operating revenues, a $35 million decrease in net interest
expense, and a $10 million increase in other income (expense).
Operating
revenues increased $415 million or 16.5 percent for the three months ended March
31, 2009, compared to the same period in 2008, and $1,132 million or 23.2
percent for the six month period ended March 31, 2009, compared to the same
period in 2008, due to the following:
Three
Month Change
|
Six
Month Change
|
|||||||
Base
rate changes
|
$ | 276 | $ | 533 | ||||
FCA
rate changes
|
342 | 824 | ||||||
Volume
|
(195 | ) | (217 | ) | ||||
Off
system sales
|
(7 | ) | (5 | ) | ||||
Other
revenue
|
(1 | ) | (3 | ) | ||||
Total
|
$ | 415 | $ | 1,132 |
Operating
Revenues. Operating revenues for the three and six months
ended March 31, 2009, and 2008, consisted of the following:
Operating
Revenues
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Three
Months Ended March 31
|
Six
Months Ended March 31
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
Percent
Change
|
2009
|
2008
|
Percent
Change
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Sales
of Electricity
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Municipalities
and cooperatives
|
$ | 2,509 | $ | 2,072 | 21.1 | % | $ | 5,078 | $ | 3,985 | 27.4 | % | ||||||||||||
Industries
directly served
|
362 | 382 | (5.2 | %) | 804 | 774 | 3.9 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Federal
agencies and other
|
32 | 33 | (3.0 | %) | 70 | 58 | 20.7 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Other
revenue
|
30 | 31 | (3.2 | %) | 58 | 61 | (4.9 | %) | ||||||||||||||||
Total
|
$ | 2,933 | $ | 2,518 | 16.5 | % | $ | 6,010 | $ | 4,878 | 23.2 | % |
Significant
items contributing to the $415 million increase in operating revenues for the
three months ended March 31, 2009, compared to the same period in 2008 included
the following:
A $437 million increase in revenue from
Municipalities and Cooperatives is primarily due to FCA rate increases, which
provided $311 million in additional revenues. Average base rates
increased 13.2 percent primarily due to base rate increases effective April 1,
2008, and October 1, 2008, and provided $246 million in additional
revenue. These increases were partially offset by a decline in sales
volume of 6.1 percent, which reduced revenues by $120 million.
A $20 million decrease in revenue from
Industries Directly Served primarily attributable to a $75 million decline in
revenue due to a decrease in sales volume of 20.9 percent. This
decrease was partially offset by an increase in average base rates of 10.0
percent and FCA rate increases, which yielded $28 million and $27 million,
respectively, in additional revenue.
A $1
million decrease in revenue to Federal Agencies and Other as a result of a $7
million decrease in off-system sales which was partially offset by an increase
in revenues from federal agencies directly served of $6 million.
FCA rate
increases and an increase in average base rates of 5.3 percent provided $4
million and $2 million in additional revenues, respectively.
Significant
items contributing to the $1,132 million increase in operating revenues for the
six months ended March 31, 2009, compared to the same period in 2008 included
the following:
A $1,093
million increase in revenue from Municipalities and Cooperatives primarily due
to FCA rate increases, which provided $737 million in additional
revenues. Average base rates increased 12.9 percent primarily due to
base rate increases effective April 1, 2008, and October 1, 2008, and provided
$470 million in additional revenue. These increases were partially
offset by a decline in sales volume of 3.1 percent, which reduced revenues by
$114 million.
A $30
million increase in revenue from Industries Directly Served is primarily
attributable to FCA rate increases and an increase in average base rates of 9.8
percent, which yielded $77 million and $60 million, respectively, in additional
revenue. These increases were partially offset by a $107 million
decline in revenue due to decreased sales volume of 14.9 percent.
A $12
million increase in revenue from Federal Agencies and Other due to an increase
in revenues from federal agencies directly served of $17 million due to FCA rate
increases, increased sales volume of 8.0 percent, and an increase in average
base rates of 7.1 percent, which provided $10 million, $4 million, and $3
million in additional revenues, respectively. This increase was
partially offset by a decrease in off-system sales of $5 million.
These
items were partially offset by a $3 million dollar decrease in Other Revenue
mainly attributable to decreased transmission revenues from wheeling
activity.
Operating Expenses.
Operating expenses for the three and six months ended March 31, 2009, and
2008, consisted of the following:
Operating
Expenses
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Three
Months Ended March 31
|
Six
Months Ended March 31
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
Percent
Change
|
2009
|
2008
|
Percent
Change
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Fuel
and purchased power
|
$ | 1,232 | $ | 973 | 26.6 | % | $ | 2,615 | $ | 1,895 | 38.0 | % | ||||||||||||
Operating
and maintenance
|
586 | 559 | 4.8 | % | 1,176 | 1,139 | 3.2 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Depreciation,
amortization, and accretion
|
398 | 392 | 1.5 | % | 794 | 782 | 1.5 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Tax
equivalents
|
137 | 117 | 17.1 | % | 285 | 237 | 20.3 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Environmental
clean up costs - Kingston ash spill
|
150 | — | — | 675 | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||
Total
operating expenses
|
$ | 2,503 | $ | 2,041 | 22.6 | % | $ | 5,545 | $ | 4,053 | 36.8 | % |
Significant drivers contributing to the
$462 million increase in total operating expenses for the three months ended
March 31, 2009, compared to the same period in 2008 included:
Fuel
and purchased power expense increased $259 million due to:
|
•
|
A
$224 million increase in fuel expense resulting from an increase in the
aggregate fuel cost per kilowatt-hour net thermal generation of 11.4
percent primarily due to higher fuel cost for coal-fired and nuclear
generation, partially offset by decreased costs for natural gas and fuel
oil used for combustion turbine generation. The higher cost of
fuel increased expense by $65 million and the FCA net deferral and
amortization for fuel expense increased expense an additional $225
million. These increases were partially offset by a decrease in
net generation of 10.4 percent, which reduced fuel expense by $66
million.
|
|
•
|
A
$35 million increase in purchased power expense primarily due to the FCA
net deferral and amortization for purchased power expense which increased
expense $103 million and an increase in realized losses related to natural
gas derivatives which added an additional $88 million in
expense. These increases in purchased power expense were
partially offset by a decrease in the average purchase price of 28.0
percent and a 17.8 percent decline in the volume of purchased power
resulting in a decrease of $88 million and $68 million, respectively, in
purchased power expense. The decreases in volume of purchased
power and net generation were primarily due to an increase in
hydro-generation of 36.1 percent compared to the second quarter of 2008
and a 9.4 percent decline in sales.
|
Operating and maintenance expense
increased $27 million due to:
|
•
|
Increased
operating and maintenance expense at nuclear plants of $19 million due to
an increase in forced maintenance outages in the second quarter of 2009
and an increase in amortization of
deferred
nuclear
outage costs;
|
|
•
|
Increased
outage and operating and maintenance costs of $17 million at coal-fired
and combustion turbine plants largely due to an increase in planned
outages during the second quarter of
2009
|
|
compared
to the same period in 2008 and expenditures in the second quarter of 2009
related to the discharge event at Widows Creek Fossil
Plant;
|
|
•
|
Increased
costs for reagents of $6 million largely due to increased volume as a
result of additional selective catalytic reduction (“SCR”) capacity online
in the second quarter of 2009; and
|
|
•
|
Increased
costs of $5 million primarily due to studies related to future uses of the
Bellefonte Nuclear Plant.
|
These
increases were partially offset by a decrease of $23 million in workers’
compensation expense primarily as a result of a revision in the discount rate
effective in the second quarter of 2008 which significantly increased workers’
compensation expense in the second quarter 2008.
Depreciation, amortization, and
accretion expense increased $6 million primarily attributable to an increase in
net plant additions.
Tax equivalent payments increased $20
million reflecting increased gross revenues from the sale of power (excluding
sales or deliveries to other federal agencies and off-system sales with other
utilities) during 2008 compared to 2007. Tax equivalent payments are
based on prior year’s electricity revenues.
Environmental clean up cost – Kingston
ash spill expenses recognized for the three months ended March 31, 2009, were
$150 million. (See Executive Summary – Kingston Fossil Plant for
details.)
Significant
drivers contributing to the $1,492 million increase in total operating expenses
for the six month period ended March 31, 2009 compared to the same period in
2008 included:
Fuel
and purchased power expense increased $720 million due to:
|
•
|
A
$608 million increase in fuel expense resulting from an increase in the
aggregate fuel cost per kilowatt-hour net thermal generation of 16.3
percent primarily due to higher fuel cost for coal-fired and nuclear
generation, partially offset by decreased costs for natural gas and fuel
oil used for combustion turbine generation. The higher cost of
fuel increased expense by $186 million and the FCA net deferral and
amortization
|
|
for
fuel expense increased expense an additional $484
million. These increases were partially offset by a decrease in
net generation of 5.1 percent, which reduced fuel expense by $62
million.
|
|
•
|
A
$112 million increase in purchased power expense primarily due to the FCA
net deferral and amortization for purchased power expense which increased
expense $201 million and an increase in realized losses related to natural
gas derivatives which added an additional $152 million in
expense. These increases in purchased power expense were
partially offset by a decrease in the average purchase price of 14.0
percent and a 23.7 percent decline in the volume of purchased power
resulting in a decrease of $75 million and $166 million, respectively, in
purchased power expense. The
decreases
|
in volume
of purchased power and net generation were primarily due to an increase in
hydro-generation of 57.2 percent compared to the first two quarters of 2008 and
a 5.6 percent decline in sales.
Operating and maintenance expense
increased $37 million due to:
|
•
|
Increased
operating and maintenance expense at nuclear plants of $22 million due to
an increase in forced maintenance outages in the first six months of 2009
and an increase in amortization of deferred nuclear outage
costs;
|
|
•
|
Increased
costs for reagents of $13 million largely due to increased volume as a
result of additional SCR capacity online in
2009;
|
|
•
|
Increased
costs of $10 million primarily due to increased expenses to support new
information technology implemented in the third quarter of 2008;
and
|
|
•
|
Increased
costs of $7 million primarily due to studies related to future uses of the
Bellefonte Nuclear Plant.
|
These
increases were partially offset by a decrease of $23 million in workers’
compensation expense primarily as a result of a revision in the discount rate
effective in the second quarter of 2008.
Depreciation, amortization, and
accretion expense increased $12 million primarily attributable to an increase in
net plant additions.
Tax equivalent payments increased $48
million reflecting increased gross revenues from the sale of power (excluding
sales or deliveries to other federal agencies and off-system sales with other
utilities) during 2008 compared to 2007. Tax equivalent payments are
based on prior year’s electricity revenues.
Environmental clean up cost – Kingston
ash spill expenses recognized through March 31, 2009, were $675
million. (See Executive Summary – Kingston Fossil Plant for
details.)
Other Income (Expense),
Net. The $22 million change in Other income (expense), net for
the three months ended March 31, 2009, compared to the same period in
2008, was largely due to a decrease in realized and unrealized losses of $9
million on TVA’s Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (“SERP”) funds and
restricted investments related to the collateral held by TVA. TVA
also recognized increased income on external business services and a write-off
of prior year payables which increased income by $15 million. These
items were partially offset by a slight decrease in interest income from
short-term investments.
The $10
million change in Other income (expense), net for the six month period ended
March 31, 2009, compared
to the same period in 2008 was primarily attributable to the same items
identified above for the quarter and was partially offset by a payment of $8
million received in connection with a False Claims Act suit in the first quarter
of 2008 not present in the first quarter of 2009.
Interest
Expense. Interest expense and interest rates for the three
months and six months ended March 31, 2009, and 2008, consisted of the
following:
Interest
Expense
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Three
Months Ended March 31
|
Six
Months Ended March 31
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
Percent
Change
|
2009
|
2008
|
Percent
Change
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Interest
on debt and leaseback obligations
|
$ | 321 | $ | 340 | (5.6 | )% | $ | 655 | $ | 681 | (3.8 | %) | ||||||||||||
Amortization
of debt discount, issue, and
reacquisition
costs, net
|
5 | 5 | 0.0 | % | 10 | 10 | 0.0 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Allowance
for funds used during construction & nuclear fuel
expenditures
|
(9 | ) | (5 | ) | 80.0 | % | (17 | ) | (8 | ) | 112.5 | % | ||||||||||||
Net
interest expense
|
$ | 317 | $ | 340 | (6.8 | %) | $ | 648 | $ | 683 | (5.1 | %) | ||||||||||||
(Percent)
|
(Percent)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Interest
rates (average)
|
2009
|
2008
|
Percent
Change
|
2009
|
2008
|
Percent
Change
|
||||||||||||||||||
Long-term
|
6.04 | 5.87 | 2.9 | % | 5.85 | 5.82 | 0.5 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Discount
notes
|
0.11 | 3.64 | (97.0 | %) | 0.46 | 4.19 | (89.0 | %) | ||||||||||||||||
Blended
|
5.56 | 5.77 | (3.6 | %) | 5.40 | 5.74 | (5.9 | %) |
Significant
items contributing to the $23 million decrease in net interest expense for the
three months ended March 31, 2009, compared to
the same period in 2008, included a $4 million increase in an allowance for
funds used during construction (“AFUDC”) and nuclear fuel expenditures primarily
due to an increase in the construction work in progress base used to calculate
AFUDC in 2009. Interest on debt decreased $22 million primarily due
to a significant decrease in the average discount notes interest rate from 3.64
percent during the three month period ended March 31, 2008, to 0.11 percent
during the same period in 2009. These decreases in interest expense
were partially offset by an increase in interest on leaseback obligations of $3
million.
Significant items contributing to the
$35 million decrease in net interest expense for the six month period ended
March 31, 2009, compared to
the same period in 2008 included a $9 million increase in AFUDC and nuclear fuel
expenditures primarily due to an increase in the construction work in progress
base used to calculate AFUDC in 2009. Interest
on debt decreased $32 million primarily due to a significant decrease in the
average discount notes interest rate from 4.19 percent during the six month
period ended March 31, 2008, to 0.46 percent during the same period in
2009. These decreases in interest expense were partially offset by an
increase in interest on leaseback obligations of $6 million.
In
February 1997, TVA entered into a purchase power agreement with Choctaw
Generation, Inc. (subsequently assigned to Choctaw Generation Limited
Partnership (“Choctaw”)) to purchase all the power generated from its facility
located in Choctaw County, Mississippi. The facility had a committed
capacity of 440 megawatts and the term of the agreement was 30
years. Under the accounting guidance provided by FIN No. 46, “Consolidation of Variable Interest
Entities,” as amended by FIN No. 46R (as amended, “FIN No. 46R”), TVA
believes its contractual interest is a variable interest that changes with
changes in the fair value of the net assets of Choctaw because the purchase
power agreement provides substantially all of Choctaw’s operating cash
flow. TVA believes that Choctaw qualifies as a variable interest
entity because the entity is designed (or redesigned) so that substantially all
of its activities either involve or are conducted on behalf of
TVA. Furthermore, Choctaw may lack the obligation to absorb its
expected losses because of the effective guaranteed return provided by TVA
through the 30-year purchase power agreement. TVA may be deemed to be
the primary beneficiary under the contract; however, TVA does not have access to
the financial records of Choctaw. As a result, TVA was unable to
determine whether FIN No. 46R would require TVA to consolidate Choctaw’s balance
sheet, results of operations, and cash flows for the quarter ended March 31,
2009. Because of the lack of financial information, TVA is unable to
obtain complete information regarding debt, equity, and other contractual
interests in Choctaw. As of March 31, 2009, Choctaw had issued senior
secured bonds of $236 million and $95 million due in June 2030 and June 2023,
respectively. Choctaw’s credit ratings as issued by Standard and
Poor’s and Moody’s were BB and Ba3, respectively, with negative
outlooks. TVA has no direct debt or equity investment in
Choctaw. The purchase power agreement is accounted for based on the
normal purchases and normal sales exemption of SFAS No. 133; therefore, no
amounts are recorded in TVA’s financial statements with respect to TVA’s
variable interest. Power purchases for the three and six months ended
March 31,
2009, under the agreement amounted to $34 million and $52 million, respectively,
and the remaining financial commitment under this agreement is $6.6
billion. TVA has no additional financial commitments beyond the
purchase power agreement with respect to the facility.
The terms
of the purchase power agreement specify that Choctaw must reimburse TVA for any
additional costs incurred due to Choctaw’s failure to deliver power as specified
under the contract. TVA is the beneficiary of a third-party credit
enhancement in the form of a $5 million letter of credit with a financial
institution. Under the terms of the letter of credit, TVA may draw
any amount necessary up to $5 million to reimburse any incremental costs
incurred due to Choctaw’s failure to perform under the
contract. Also, Choctaw must replenish the letter of credit in full
within 20 days
after TVA draws on the letter of credit or TVA is relieved of its obligations
under the purchase power agreement. Because of the terms of the
letter of credit arrangement and TVA’s experience with Choctaw, TVA does not
believe that any material exposure to loss existed as of March 31,
2009. TVA also believes that in addition to the explicit variable
interest in Choctaw through the purchase power agreement, TVA may have an
implicit variable interest in Choctaw due to the purchase power agreement being
viewed as a credit enhancement to secured creditors and
bondholders. TVA does not believe that it has any additional exposure
with respect to this potential implicit
variable interest. Also, because the purchase power agreement grants
TVA the right, but not the obligation, to purchase power, TVA does not believe
that its maximum exposure to loss in the arrangement can be quantified due to
the uncertainty of future power demand.
The preparation of financial statements
requires TVA to estimate the effects of various matters that are inherently
uncertain as of the date of the financial statements. Although the
financial statements are prepared in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles (“GAAP”), management is required to make estimates and
assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the
disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities, and the amounts of revenues and
expenses reported during the reporting period. Each of these
estimates varies in regard to the level of judgment involved and its potential
impact on TVA’s financial results. Estimates are deemed critical
either when a different estimate could have reasonably been used, or where
changes in the estimate are
reasonably likely to occur from period to period, and such use or change would
materially impact TVA’s financial condition, changes in financial position, or
results of operations. TVA’s critical accounting policies are also
discussed in Item 7 — Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations — Critical Accounting Policies and
Estimates and Note 1 — Summary of Significant Accounting
Policies in the Annual Report.
TVA power rates are not subject to
regulation through a public service commission or other similar
entity. TVA’s Board is authorized by the TVA Act to set rates for
power sold to its customers. This rate-setting authority meets the
“self-regulated” provisions of SFAS No. 71, “Accounting for the Effects of
Certain Types of Regulation” (“SFAS No. 71”). TVA meets the
remaining criteria of SFAS No. 71 because (1) TVA’s regulated rates are designed
to recover its costs of providing electricity and (2) in view of demand for
electricity and the level of competition, it is reasonable to assume that the
rates, set at levels that will recover TVA’s costs, can be charged and
collected.
Accordingly,
TVA records certain assets and liabilities that result from the regulated
ratemaking process that would not be recorded under GAAP for non-regulated
entities. Regulatory assets generally represent incurred costs that
have been deferred because such costs are probable of future recovery in
customer rates. Regulatory liabilities generally represent
obligations to make refunds to customers for previous collections of costs that
are not likely to be incurred. Management assesses whether the
regulatory assets are probable of future recovery by considering factors such as
applicable regulatory changes, potential legislation, and changes in
technology. Based on these assessments, management believes the
existing regulatory assets are probable of recovery. This
determination reflects the current regulatory and political environment and is
subject to change in the future. If future recovery of regulatory
assets ceases to be probable, TVA would be required to write off these costs
under the provisions of SFAS No. 101, “Regulated Enterprises-Accounting for
the Discontinuation of Application of FASB Statement No.
71.” Any asset write-offs would be required to be recognized
in earnings in the period in which future recoveries cease to be
probable.
In August 2008, the TVA Board approved
the following change in ratemaking, which resulted in a change in accounting for
the type of transaction described below.
The TVA Board approved deferring costs
related to the future closure and retirement of TVA's non-nuclear long-lived
assets under various legal requirements as recognized by SFAS No. 143 and FIN
No. 47. These costs had previously been included in rates as the
asset retirement obligation (“ARO”) was accreted and the asset was depreciated.
In accordance with EITF 93-4, these costs did not previously meet the asset
recognition criteria in paragraph nine of SFAS No. 71 at the date the costs were
incurred. Because of the establishment of the asset retirement trust
(“ART”) and the approval of the funding in 2009 rates as part of the TVA Board’s
budget and
ratemaking
process, these costs currently meet asset recognition
criteria. Therefore, all cumulative costs incurred since 2003, when
SFAS No. 143 was adopted, were recaptured as a regulatory asset as of September
30, 2008. The regulatory asset initially created related to this
adjustment totaled $350 million. The offset to this adjustment was a
one-time decrease to depreciation, amortization, and accretion expense. See Note
9.
Securities Held as Trading
TVA’s investments classified as trading
consist of amounts held in the NDT, the ART, and the SERP. These
assets are generally measured at fair value based on quoted market prices or
other observable market data such as interest rate indices. TVA's
investments are primarily U.S. equities, international equities, real estate
investment trusts (“REITs”), fixed income investments, high-yield fixed income
investments, U.S. Treasury inflation-protected securities, commodities,
currencies, derivative instruments, and other investments. Commingled
funds are used to gain exposure to certain investments. TVA has
classified all of these investments as either Level 1 or Level 2
valuations. At March 31, 2009, the adoption of SFAS No. 157 did not
materially impact the fair value of NDT, ART or SERP assets.
Vendor-provided prices are subjected to
automated tolerance checks by TVA’s investment portfolio trustee to
identify and avoid, where possible, the use of inaccurate prices. Any
questionable prices identified are reported to the vendor which provided the
price. If the prices are validated, the primary pricing source is
used. If not, a secondary source price which has passed the applicable tolerance
check is used (or queried with the vendor if it is out of tolerance), resulting
in either the use of a secondary price, where validated, or the last reported
default price, as in the case of a missing price. For monthly valued
accounts, where secondary price sources are available, an automated inter-source
tolerance report identifies prices with an inter-vendor pricing variance of over
two percent at an asset class level. For daily valued accounts, each
security is assigned, where possible, an indicative major market index, against
which daily price movements are automatically compared. Tolerance
thresholds are established by asset class. Prices found to be outside of the
applicable tolerance threshold are reported and queried with vendors as
described above.
Derivatives
TVA is currently a party to the
following types of derivatives:
|
•
|
Currency
swaps
|
|
•
|
Swaption
|
|
•
|
Interest
rate swaps
|
|
•
|
Coal
contracts with volume options
|
|
•
|
Commodity
derivatives under Financial Trading Program (swaps, futures, options on
futures, and other financial
instruments)
|
Currency swaps and interest rate swaps
are classified as Level 2 valuations. The swaption is classified as a
Level 3 valuation. Coal contracts with volume options are classified as
Level 3 valuations. Commodity derivatives are classified as
Level 1 and Level 2 valuations.
Currency Swaps, Swaption,
and Interest Rate Swaps. TVA has three
cross-currency swaps, one swaption, and three “fixed for floating” interest rate
swaps. The currency swaps and interest rate swaps are classified as
Level 2 valuations as the rate curves and interest rates affecting the fair
value of the contracts are based on observable data. While most of
the fair value measurement is based on observable inputs, the swaption is
classified as a Level 3 valuation as a significant input is
unobservable. The adoption of SFAS No. 157 resulted in a decrease of
$2 million in the total fair values of the currency swap liabilities, swaption
liability, and interest rate swap liabilities at March 31, 2009, due to the
application of credit valuation adjustments (“CVAs”).
Coal Contracts with Volume
Options. The fair value of this derivative portfolio is valued
using internal models. The significant inputs to these models are
price indications such as quoted spot prices and implied forward
prices. The pricing model is based on significant unobservable
inputs, similar products, or products priced in different time
periods. TVA designs price curves and valuation models based on the
best available information and industry accepted practices. As a
result, these valuations are classified as Level 3 valuations.
The adoption of SFAS No. 157 resulted
in a decrease of $17 million in the fair values of coal contracts in an asset
position at March 31, 2009 due to the application of CVAs. These
decreases in fair value were reflected as decreases in regulatory
liabilities.
Commodity Derivatives under
Financial Trading Program. TVA uses quoted
New York Mercantile Exchange (“NYMEX”) prices in its determination of the fair
value of these contracts. Contracts settled on the NYMEX are
classified as Level 1 valuations. These are primarily natural gas
futures, fuel oil futures, and natural gas option
contracts. Contracts where nonperformance risk exists outside of the
exit price are measured with the incorporation of CVAs and are classified
as Level 2 valuations. These are primarily natural gas and fuel oil
swap contracts. The adoption of SFAS No. 157 did not materially
affect the fair value of these assets and liabilities at March 31,
2009.
TVA maintains policies and procedures
to value commodity contracts using the best and most relevant data available. In
addition, TVA uses risk management teams that review valuations and pricing
data. TVA retains independent pricing vendors to assist in valuing
certain instruments without market liquidity.
Fair Value Considerations
In determining the fair value of its
financial instruments, TVA considers the source of observable market data
inputs, liquidity of the instrument, credit risk, and risk of nonperformance of
itself or the counterparty to the contract. The conditions and criteria used to
assess these factors are described below.
Sources of Market
Assumptions.
TVA derives its financial instrument market assumptions from market
data sources (e.g., Bloomberg, S&P). In some cases, where
market data is not readily available, management uses comparable market sources
and empirical evidence to derive market assumptions and determine a financial
instrument's fair value.
Market Liquidity. Market liquidity
is assessed by TVA based on criteria as to whether the financial instrument
participates in an active or inactive market. An active market can be
defined as a spot market/ settlement mechanism environment and also a potential
forward/futures market that is based on the activity in the forward/futures
market. A financial instrument is considered to be in an active
market if the prices are fully transparent to the market participants, the
prices can be measured by market bid and ask quotes, the market has a relatively
large proportion of trading volume as compared to TVA's current trading volume,
and the market has a significant number of market participants that will allow
the market to rapidly absorb the quantity of the assets traded without
significantly affecting the market price. Other factors TVA considers
when determining whether a market is active or inactive include the presence of
government or regulatory control over pricing that could make it difficult to
establish a market based price upon entering into a transaction.
Nonperformance
Risk. In determining
the potential impact of nonperformance risk, which includes credit risk, TVA
considers changes in current market conditions, readily available information on
nonperformance risk, letters of credit, collateral, other arrangements
available, and the nature of master netting arrangements. TVA is a
counterparty to currency swaps, a swaption, interest rate swaps, coal contracts,
commodity derivatives, and other derivatives which subject TVA to nonperformance
risk. Nonperformance risk on the majority of investments and certain
exchange traded instruments held by TVA is incorporated into the exit price that
is derived from quoted market data that is used to mark the investment to
market.
Nonperformance risk for most of TVA’s
derivative instruments is an adjustment to the initial asset/liability fair
value. TVA adjusts for nonperformance risk, both of the reporting
entity (for liabilities) and the counterparty (for assets) by applying a
CVA. TVA determines an appropriate CVA for each applicable financial
instrument based on the term of the instrument and the reporting entity’s or
counterparty’s credit rating as obtained from Moody’s. For companies
that do not have an observable credit rating, TVA uses internal analysis to
assign a comparable rating to the company. TVA discounts each
financial instrument using the historical default rate (as reported by Moody’s
for the years 1983-2008) for companies with a similar credit rating over a time
period consistent with the remaining term of the contract.
All derivative instruments are analyzed
individually and are subject to unique risk exposures. The aggregate
counterparty credit risk adjustments applied to TVA's derivative asset and
liability positions were decreases of $17 million and $2 million at March 31,
2009, respectively.
Collateral. TVA’s interest
rates swaps, two of its currency swaps, and its swaption contain provisions that
require the counterparties to post collateral under certain
circumstances. Such provisions typically require the party to post
collateral when the party’s liability balance under the agreement exceeds a
certain threshold. For TVA liabilities, such thresholds are
predetermined under contractual arrangements. As of March 31, 2009,
the aggregate fair value of all derivative instruments with credit-risk related
contingent features that are in a liability position is $1,380
million. TVA’s collateral obligation as of March 31, 2009, under
these arrangements was $274 million, of which $260 million had been
posted. TVA’s assessment of the risk of its nonperformance includes a
reduction in its
exposure
under the contract as a result of this posted collateral.
Level 3
Information. Unrealized gains
(losses) on contracts classified as Level 3 valuations are included in
regulatory assets (liabilities) until the contracts are settled. TVA
experienced significant unrealized losses on coal contracts with volume options
due to significant declines in coal market prices during the six months ended
March 31, 2009. TVA also experienced unrealized losses on the
swaption liability due to decreases in interest rates during the six months
ended March 31, 2009. Unrealized losses on these instruments did not
have a material effect on liquidity or capital resources. There were
no realized gains (losses) on coal contracts with volume options or the swaption
during the three and six months ended March 31, 2009. At March 31,
2009, Level 3 valuations represent 30 percent of total assets measured at fair
value and 51 percent of total liabilities measured at fair value.
The following accounting standards
and interpretations became effective for TVA during 2009.
Fair Value
Measurements. In September 2006, FASB issued SFAS No. 157,
“Fair Value
Measurements” (“SFAS No. 157”). SFAS No. 157 provides guidance
for using fair value to measure assets and liabilities that currently require
fair value measurement. SFAS No. 157 also responds to investors’
requests for expanded information about the extent to which companies measure
assets and liabilities at fair value, the information used to measure fair
value, and the effect of fair value measurements on earnings. SFAS No. 157
applies whenever other standards require (or permit) assets or liabilities to be
measured at fair value but does not expand the use of fair value in any new
circumstances. SFAS No. 157 establishes a fair value hierarchy that
prioritizes the information used to develop measurement
assumptions. SFAS No. 157 became effective for TVA on October 1,
2008. See Note 12 for additional
information.
In February 2008, FASB issued FASB
Staff Position (“FSP”) FAS No. 157-2, “Effective Date of FASB Statement No.
157” (“FSP FAS No. 157-2”), which delays the effective date of SFAS No.
157 for
nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities except for items that are
recognized or disclosed at fair value in the financial statements on a recurring
basis. This FSP delays the effective date of SFAS No. 157 to fiscal
years beginning after November 15, 2008, and interim periods within those fiscal
years for items within the scope of this FSP. TVA has utilized the
deferral portion of FSP FAS No. 157-2 for all nonfinancial assets and
liabilities within its scope and is currently evaluating the future related
impact.
In October 2008, FASB issued FSP FAS
No.157-3, “Determining the
Fair Value of a Financial Asset When the Market for That Asset Is Not
Active” ("FSP FAS No.157-3"). FSP FAS No.157-3 clarifies the
application of SFAS No. 157 in a market that is not active. The
guidance emphasizes that determining fair value in an inactive market depends on
the facts and circumstances and may require the use of significant
judgment. FSP FAS No. 157-3 was effective upon issuance, including
prior periods for which financial statements have not been issued, and became
effective for TVA upon its implementation of SFAS No. 157 on October 1,
2008. The adoption of FSP FAS No. 157-3 did not materially impact
TVA’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.
Fair Value Option.
In February 2007, FASB issued SFAS No. 159, “The Fair Value Option for Financial
Assets and Financial Liabilities — including an amendment of FASB Statement No.
115” (“SFAS No. 159”).
This statement permits an entity to choose to measure many financial
instruments and certain other items at fair value. The fair value
option established by SFAS No.159 permits all entities to choose to measure
eligible items at fair value at specified election dates. A business
entity will report unrealized gains and losses on items for which the fair value
option has been elected in earnings at each subsequent reporting
date. Most of the provisions in SFAS No. 159 are elective. SFAS
No. 159 became effective for TVA on October 1, 2008. As allowed by
the standard, TVA did not elect the fair value option for the measurement of any
eligible assets or liabilities. As a result, the adoption of SFAS No.
159 did not materially impact TVA’s financial condition, results of operations,
or cash flows.
Offsetting
Amounts. In April 2007, FASB issued FSP FIN No. 39-1, “Amendment of FASB Interpretation No.
39” which addresses certain modifications to FASB Interpretation (“FIN”)
No. 39, “Offsetting of Amounts
Related to Certain Contracts.” This FSP replaces the
terms “conditional contracts” and “exchange contracts” with the term “derivative
instruments” as defined in SFAS No. 133, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments
and Hedging Activities,” as amended (“SFAS No.
133”). The FSP also permits a reporting entity to offset fair value
amounts recognized for the right to reclaim cash collateral (a receivable) or
the obligation to return cash collateral (a payable) against fair value amounts
recognized for derivative instruments executed with the same counterparty under
the same master netting arrangement. The guidance in this FSP became
effective for TVA as of October 1, 2008. The adoption of this FSP did
not materially impact TVA’s financial position, results of operations, or cash
flows.
Disclosures by Public
Entities (Enterprises) about Transfers of Financial Assets and Interests in
Variable Interest Entities. In December 2008, FASB issued FSP
FAS No. 140-4 and FIN No. 46(R)-8, “Disclosures by Public Entities
(Enterprises) about Transfers of Financial Assets and Interests in Variable
Interest Entities.” This FSP requires
public entities to provide additional disclosures about transfers of financial
assets. It also amends FASB Interpretation No. 46 (revised December
2003), “Consolidation of
Variable Interest Entities,” to require public
enterprises, including sponsors that have a variable interest in a variable
interest entity, to provide additional disclosures about their involvement with
variable interest entities. Additionally, this FSP requires certain
disclosures to be provided by a public enterprise that is (1) the sponsor of a
qualifying special purpose entity (“SPE”) that holds a variable interest in the
qualifying SPE but was not the transferor (“nontransferor”) of financial assets
to the qualifying SPE and (2) a servicer of a qualifying SPE that holds a
significant variable interest in the qualifying SPE but was not the transferor
(nontransferor) of financial assets to the qualifying SPE. The
disclosures required by this FSP are intended to provide greater transparency to
financial statement users about a transferor’s continuing involvement with
transferred financial assets and an enterprise’s involvement with variable
interest entities and qualifying SPEs. The disclosure provisions of
this FSP became effective for TVA as of October 1, 2008.
Employers’ Disclosures about
Postretirement Benefit Plan Assets. In December 2008, FASB
issued FSP FAS No.132(R)-1, “Employers’ Disclosures about
Postretirement Benefit Plan Assets,” to require that an employer disclose
the following information about the plan assets: 1) information regarding how
investment allocation decisions are made; 2) the major categories of plan
assets; 3) information about the inputs and valuation techniques used to measure
fair value of the plan assets; 4) the effect of fair value measurements using
significant unobservable inputs on changes in plan assets for the period; and 5)
significant concentrations of risk within plan assets. This FSP also
includes a technical amendment to require the disclosure of net periodic benefit
cost recognized. This technical amendment was effective for TVA upon
its issuance on December 30, 2008. The remaining portions of this FSP
will be effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2009, with early
application permitted. At initial adoption, application of the
remaining portions of this FSP would not be required for earlier periods that
are presented for comparative purposes. TVA is currently evaluating
the potential impact of adopting the remaining portions of this FSP on its
disclosures in the financial statements.
Derivative Instruments and
Hedging Activities. In March 2008, FASB issued SFAS No. 161,
“Disclosures about Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities — an amendment of FASB Statement No.
133” (“SFAS No.
161”), which establishes, among other things, the disclosure requirements for
derivative instruments and hedging activities. SFAS No. 161 amends
and expands the disclosure requirements of SFAS No. 133. The disclosure
provisions of SFAS No. 161 became effective for TVA as of January 1,
2009.
The following accounting standards have
been issued, but as of March 31, 2009, were not effective and had not been
adopted by TVA.
Business
Combinations. In December 2007, FASB issued SFAS No. 141(R),
“Business Combinations”
(“SFAS No. 141(R)”). This statement establishes principles and
requirements for determining how an enterprise recognizes and measures the fair
value of certain assets and liabilities acquired in a business combination,
including non-controlling interests, contingent consideration, and certain
acquired contingencies. SFAS No. 141(R) also requires
acquisition-related transaction expenses and restructuring costs to be expensed
as incurred rather than capitalized as a component of the business
combination. In April 2009, FASB issued FSP FAS No. 141(R)-1, “Accounting for Assets Acquired and
Liabilities Assumed in a Business Combination That Arise from
Contingencies” (“FSP FAS 141(R)-1”), to amend and clarify
the initial recognition and measurement, subsequent measurement and accounting,
and related disclosures arising from contingencies in a business combination
under SFAS No. 141(R). The provisions of SFAS No. 141(R) and FSP FAS
141(R)-1 are effective as of the beginning of an entity’s first
fiscal
year that begins on or after December 15, 2008. Early adoption is
prohibited. SFAS No. 141(R) and FSP FAS 141(R)-1 will become
effective for TVA as of October 1, 2009. TVA expects that SFAS No.
141(R) and FSP FAS 141(R)-1 could impact the accounting for any businesses
acquired after the effective date of these pronouncements.
Fair Value
Measurements. In April 2009, FASB issued FSP FAS No. 157-4,
“Determining Fair Value When
the Volume and Level Activity for the Asset or Liability Have Significantly
Decreased and Identifying Transactions That Are Not Orderly” (“FSP FAS No.
157-4”). FSP FAS No. 157-4 clarifies the application of SFAS No. 157
in inactive markets and distressed or forced transactions, issues guidance on
identifying circumstances that indicate a transaction is not orderly, and
changes certain disclosure requirements regarding fair value
measurements. The guidance
of FSP FAS No. 157-4 is effective for interim and annual reporting periods
ending after June 15, 2009. FSP FAS No. 157-4 became effective for
TVA as of April 1, 2009. The implementation of FSP FAS 157-4 is not
expected to have a material impact on TVA’s financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows.
In April 2009, FASB issued FSP FAS No.
107-1 and APB 28-1, “Interim
Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial
Instruments.” This FSP requires summarized disclosures about
fair value of financial instruments for interim reporting periods of publicly
traded companies as well as in annual financial statements. The
guidance of this FSP is effective for interim and annual reporting periods
ending after June 15, 2009. At initial adoption, application of the
FSP is not required for earlier periods that are presented for comparative
purposes. The disclosure provisions of this FSP became effective for
TVA as of April 1, 2009.
The TVA Board has elected Director Mike
Duncan as Chairman. He will begin serving in this capacity after
Director Bill Sansom’s term as Chairman ends on May 18, 2009.
Although the term of Director Sansom is
set to end on May 18, 2009, he is authorized to remain as director until the
date on which a successor takes office or the end of the current session of
Congress, whichever is earlier.
In a letter dated April 9, 2009,
Director Don DePriest informed the President of the United States that he had
resigned from his position as a Director of the TVA Board effective as of the
preceding day.
President’s
Budget
The President’s proposed budget for
2010 does not contain any requests for appropriations for TVA.
Proposed
Legislation and Regulation
On
January 14, 2009, Representative Nick Rahall from West Virginia introduced a
bill (H.R. 493), which would direct the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate
regulations concerning the storage and disposal of coal ash.
This bill
draws on the regulatory model for impoundments that is used for coal slurry
management under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977. TVA understands that, at this time, further action on this bill
has been postponed awaiting potential regulatory action by the
EPA. Additional regulatory and legislative proposals to regulate coal
ash ponds are possible.
On February 4, 2009, Congressman Edward
Markey introduced a bill (H.R. 890) to establish a Federal Renewable Energy
Standard (“RES”), under which covered retail electric utilities would be
required to meet a qualifying renewable energy percentage of 25 percent by
calendar year 2025. As presently drafted, the bill would apply to TVA with
respect to its sales to its directly-served customers and to the larger
distributors of TVA power. In addition, on February 12, 2009, Senator
Tom Udall introduced an RES bill (S. 433) with somewhat less stringent
requirements, which presently would not apply to TVA or distributors of TVA
power. Furthermore, Chairman Jeff Bingaman of the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee and Chairman Henry Waxman of the House Energy and
Commerce Committee have both circulated discussion drafts of somewhat differing
RES proposals, both of which would apply to TVA and the larger distributors of
TVA power.
The White House has stated that it
hopes Congress will pass legislation establishing a broad greenhouse-gas policy
before the end of calendar year 2009. While TVA cannot
reasonably anticipate what such legislation or policy might be, it is possible
that greenhouse-gases could be regulated in such a way as to require TVA to make
additional capital expenditures, increase TVA’s operating and maintenance costs,
and/or change the way it carries out its activities.
On April 24, 2009,
the EPA published a proposal with two distinct findings regarding
greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The EPA is proposing
to find that the current and projected concentrations of six key greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future
generations. This is referred to as the endangerment
finding. The Administrator is further proposing to find that the
combined emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and
motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of the key
greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of climate change. This is
referred to as the cause or contribute finding. If the EPA proposals
becomes final these findings would allow regulation of carbon dioxide
(“CO2”) and
other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act and would require EPA to
issue emissions limits for greenhouse gases from automobiles and light
trucks. The endangerment finding is similar to findings that trigger
regulation of other sources, including stationary sources such as electricity
generating facilities, and could lead to regulation of greenhouse gas emissions
from electric generating facilities and other
sources.
For
a discussion of additional environmental legislation and regulation, see Challenges During
2009 - Renewables and Clean Energy and Environmental
Matters.
TVA cannot predict with any accuracy
whether the initiatives discussed above will become law in the future and, if
so, in what form and what their impact would be on TVA. Moreover,
given the nature of the legislative process, it is possible that new legislation
or a change to existing legislation that has a significant impact on TVA’s
activities could become law with little or no advance notice. As a
federal entity, the very nature of TVA can be changed by
legislation. For a discussion of the potential impact of legislation
and regulation on TVA, see Item 1A, Risk Factors in the Annual Report and Part
II, Item 1A, Risk Factors in this Quarterly Report.
Air
Quality Control Developments
A federal appeals court on December 23, 2008, temporarily reinstated the EPA’s
Clean Air Interstate Rule (“CAIR”) that would require 28 mostly eastern states –
including those where TVA operates – to reduce emissions of
SO2, nitrogen
oxides (“NOx”) and
particulate matter. The reinstatement will allow the EPA to rewrite
the cap-and-trade portion of the rule to fix the flaws, in accordance with the
court’s July decision in North Carolina v.
EPA that
vacated the cap-and-trade
regulation. The court declined to set a deadline for the EPA to
rewrite the rule. As discussed in the Annual Report, TVA plans to
continue its previously announced emissions reduction program.
These plans were established based on the CAIR
rule.
On December 22, 2008,
the EPA designated areas throughout the U.S. as "non-attainment" and
"unclassifiable/attainment" for the 24-hour national ambient air quality
standard for fine particulate matter (“PM2.5”). Two
hundred eleven counties or parts of counties were designated as non-attainment
based on the recommendations provided by states and tribes, as well as
additional supporting information provided by states, tribes, and the
public. In the Tennessee Valley region, McCracken County and a
portion of Muhlenberg County in Kentucky were designated as
non-attainment. TVA operates coal-fired generating plants in both of
these counties. In Tennessee, Montgomery, Knox, Loudon, Anderson, and
Blount counties, as well as portions of Humphreys, Stewart, and Roane counties
around TVA’s generating plants, were also designated as
non-attainment. When final non-attainment designations become
effective, likely in mid 2009, state and local governments will be required to
take steps to control fine particle pollution in non-attainment
areas. Those steps may include stricter controls on industrial
facilities, including TVA’s generating plants, and additional planning
requirements for transportation-related sources. States
must submit their plans to the EPA within three years after the EPA makes final
designations or by mid 2012. Areas are required to attain the
standard by 2014. The EPA may grant attainment date extensions for up
to five additional years in areas with more severe PM2.5 problems
as well as in areas where emission control measures are not available or
feasible.
In December 2008, TVA
completed construction and began operation of the flue gas desulphurization
system or “scrubber” at the Bull Run Fossil Plant (“Bull Run”). Bull
Run is a single-unit plant with a capacity of 870
megawatts
located near Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This state-of-the-art control
system removes more than 90 percent of the plant’s SO2 emissions,
and is one of the actions required by the court in its decision in the lawsuit
brought by
the State
of North Carolina against TVA. See Note 18 — Case Brought by
North Carolina Alleging Public Nuisance.
Water
Quality Control Developments
As reported in the
Annual Report, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition filed by the Utility
Water Act Group, Entergy Corporation, and PSEG Fossil LLC for review of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit”) remand of the
EPA’s Phase II Rule for cooling water intakes. TVA and the attorneys
general of several states, including Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee, supported
this petition. The Court limited its review to one issue: “Whether
Section 316(b) of the CWA authorizes the EPA to compare costs with benefits in
determining the ’best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental
impact' at cooling water intake structures.” The Department of
Justice and industry petitioners defended the EPA rule supporting the concept
that costs under the rule should be limited to those that are “not significantly
greater than” the benefits to be derived. On April 1, 2009, the
Supreme Court in Entergy Corp. v.
Riverkeeper, Inc, agreed
with the industry petitioners and ruled that the EPA can compare costs with
benefits to determine the technology that must be used at cooling water intake
structures. This decision overturns the Second Circuit ruling that
federal clean water law does not permit the EPA to consider the
cost-benefit
relationship in deciding the best technology available to minimize adverse
environmental impact. The matter now goes back to the Second Circuit
for further proceedings.
Hazardous
Substances
General Waste
Products, a facility located in Evansville, Indiana, was a scrap metal salvage
yard that operated from the 1930s until 1998. The original defendants
in a CERCLA action have filed a third party complaint against TVA and others
seeking cost contribution for cleanup of contamination from lead batteries and
PCB transformers at the facility. There is evidence that TVA sent
scrap metal to the facility, but TVA has not found any records indicating that
it sent batteries or PCB equipment. There are two cleanup sites at
the facility. As of February 2009, the total remediation cost for
both sites was expected to exceed $10 million. No allocation of
shares of clean up costs has been made at this time, so TVA’s share of the costs
is uncertain at this time.
Kingston Ash Spill
— See Note 1.
TVA is subject to
various legal proceedings and claims that have arisen in the ordinary course of
business. These proceedings and claims include the matters discussed
below which provide updates to the legal proceedings and claims discussed in the
Annual Report. In accordance with SFAS No. 5, “Accounting for
Contingencies,” TVA had accrued approximately $17 million as of March 31,
2009, with respect to the proceedings described in its Annual Report as updated
below, as well as approximately $4 million with respect to other proceedings
that have arisen in the normal course of TVA’s business. 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. See Item 3, Legal Proceedings in the
Annual Report.
Legal
Proceedings Related to Kingston Ash Pond Spill. See Note
1.
Case Brought by North Carolina Alleging Public
Nuisance. On January 30, 2006, North Carolina filed suit
against TVA in the United States District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina alleging that TVA’s operation of its coal-fired power plants in
the States of Tennessee, Alabama, and Kentucky constitute public
nuisances. North Carolina asked the court to impose caps on emissions
of certain pollutants from TVA’s coal-fired plants that North Carolina considers
to be equivalent to caps on emissions imposed by North Carolina law on North
Carolina’s two largest electric utilities. On January 13, 2009, the court
held that emissions from the Bull Run Fossil Plant (“Bull Run”), Kingston, the
John Sevier Fossil Plant (“John Sevier”), and the Widows Creek Fossil Plant
(“Widows Creek”) constitute a public nuisance. The first three plants
are located in Tennessee, and Widows Creek is located in Alabama. The
court declined to order any relief as to the remainder of TVA’s coal-fired
plants, holding that their emissions did not significantly impact North
Carolina.
|
The
court ordered that:
|
• The
flue gas desulfurization system (“scrubbers”) and selective catalytic reduction
systems(“SCRs”) currently operating at Bull Run be properly maintained and
operated year round.
• The
scrubbers under construction at Kingston be completed by December 31, 2010, and
thatKingston’s scrubbers and SCRs be properly maintained and operated
year-round.
• Scrubbers
and SCRs be installed and in operation for all four units at John Sevier by
December 31,2011.
• TVA complete
its plan to modernize the two existing scrubbers at Widows Creek, and
installscrubbers and SCRs at Widows Creek Units 1-6 by December 31,
2013.
Additionally, the court
required units at the named plants to meet specified emission rates
and annual tonnage caps for NOx and
SO2
after the applicable operation dates for the scrubbers. Finally, the court
required TVA’s Chief Executive Officer to make semi-annual reports to the court
of TVA’s progress in complying with the order, beginning in July
2009.
TVA was already in the process of
performing or planning to perform some of the actions ordered by the
court. For example, the court’s instructions with respect to Bull Run
and Kingston are consistent with TVA’s current operating procedures and
construction schedule, and the modernization of the two existing Widows Creek
scrubbers is nearly complete. The court’s order will require TVA to
accelerate its schedule in some cases, such as by adding scrubbers and SCRs at
John Sevier by December 31, 2011, when the previous schedule called for
completing the scrubbers in mid-2012 and completing the SCRs by
2015. The court-ordered scrubbers and SCRs at Widows Creek Unit 1-6
were not in TVA’s previous Clean Air plan. Advancing the construction
schedule or taking additional actions will increase TVA’s expenses or cause TVA
to change the way it operates these facilities.
TVA currently estimates that the total
cost of taking all of the actions required by the court would be approximately
$1.7 billion in fiscal years 2009 through 2014. Of this amount, TVA
was already planning to spend approximately $0.8 billion before the court issued
its order. There could be other cost impacts, including fuel,
variable operation and maintenance (“O&M”), and fixed O&M, and those
costs are under evaluation.
On January 28, 2009, TVA asked the
court to clarify one aspect of its order dealing with the schedule at John
Sevier. On April 2, 2009, the court denied TVA’s request, thus
leaving the court’s schedule of John Sevier in place. TVA is
currently reviewing the decision and considering its options.
Case Involving Opacity at
Colbert Fossil Plant. On September 16, 2002, the Sierra Club
and the Alabama Environmental Council filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama alleging that TVA violated
Clean Air Act (“CAA”) opacity limits applicable to Colbert Fossil Plant
(“Colbert”) between July 1, 1997, and
June 30, 2002. The plaintiffs seek a court order that could require
TVA to incur substantial additional costs for environmental controls and pay
civil penalties of up to approximately $250 million. The district
court dismissed the complaint, finding that the challenged emissions were within
Alabama’s two percent de minimis rule, which provided a safe harbor if nonexempt
opacity monitor readings over 20 percent did not occur more than two percent of
the time each quarter. On November 22, 2005, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (“Eleventh Circuit”) affirmed the district
court’s dismissal of the claims for civil penalties but held that the Alabama de
minimis rule was not applicable because Alabama had not yet obtained the EPA’s
approval of that rule. The case was remanded to the district court
for further proceedings. The district court held that TVA had
exceeded the 20 percent opacity limit (measured in six minute intervals), at
various times between January 3, 2000 and September 30, 2002. The EPA
has since approved the rule, which is being challenged in separate litigation
before the Eleventh Circuit. On January 6, 2009, the district court
dismissed the case, finding that the plaintiffs had not established that a
permanent injunction against TVA was justified, and that the case was
moot. The EPA has agreed to reconsider the rule.
Case Involving Alleged
Violations of the New Source Review Regulations at Bull Run Fossil
Plant. The National Parks Conservation Association, Inc.
(“NPCA”), and the Sierra Club, Inc. (“Sierra Club”) filed suit against TVA on
February 13, 2001, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee, alleging that TVA did not comply with the new source review
(“NSR”) requirements of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) when TVA repaired Bull Run, a
coal-fired electric generating facility located in Anderson County,
Tennessee. Trial was scheduled for September 2, 2008, but the trial
was postponed, and the district court instead heard oral arguments on the
parties’ motions for summary judgment on that date. The trial has
been reset for June 1, 2009. TVA is already installing or has
installed the control equipment that the plaintiffs seek to require TVA to
install in this case, and it is unlikely that an adverse decision will result in
substantial additional costs to TVA at Bull Run. An adverse decision,
however, could lead to additional litigation and could cause TVA to install
additional emission control systems such as scrubbers and SCRs on units where
they are not currently installed, under construction, or planned to be
installed. It is uncertain whether there would be significant
increased costs to TVA.
Case Involving AREVA Fuel
Fabrication. On April 19, 2007, AREVA filed suit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, alleging that a
contract with TVA and AREVA’s predecessor required
TVA to
purchase certain amounts of fuel fabrication services for TVA’s Bellefonte
Nuclear Plant and/or to pay a cancellation fee. AREVA subsequently
claimed it was entitled to $48 million. Trial on the question of
liability was scheduled to begin on September 22, 2008, but was
postponed. On February 12, 2009, the TVA Board approved a settlement
agreement between TVA and AREVA. The settlement provides that TVA
will pay AREVA $18 million in six annual installments of $3 million, ending
in 2013. If AREVA, or any affiliate, performs work for TVA
during this period and the invoiced amount is $20 million or more
above amounts set forth in the agreement, TVA’s annual payment will be
reduced by $1 million for each such $20 million. The case was
dismissed on February 17, 2009.
Case Involving the General
Waste Products Sites. In July 2008, a third-party complaint
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(“CERCLA”) was filed against TVA in the District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana, alleging that TVA and several other defendants disposed of hazardous
materials at the General Waste Products sites in Evansville,
Indiana. TVA was named in the complaint based on allegations that TVA
arranged for the disposal of contaminated materials at the sites. The
complaint also includes a claim under state law for the release of hazardous
materials. The other third-party defendants are General Waste
Products, General Electric Company, Indianapolis Power and Light, National Tire
and Battery, Old Ben Coal Co., Solar Sources Inc., Whirlpool, White County Coal,
PSI, Tell City Electric Department, Frontier Kemper, Speed Queen, Allan Trockman
(the former operator of the site), and the City of Evansville. This
action was brought by the Evansville Greenway PRP Group, a group of entities who
are currently being sued in the underlying case for disposing of hazardous
materials at the sites, in order to require the third-party defendants to
contribute to, or pay for, the remediation of the sites. As of
February 2009, the total remediation cost for both sites was expected to exceed
$10 million. While the complaint does not specify the exact types of
hazardous substances at issue, a subpoena sent to TVA in 2003 by the owner of
the sites reflects that the primary issues involved lead from batteries and PCBs
from transformers. TVA has found no records indicating that it
arranged for disposal of these types of hazardous substances at the
sites.
Administrative Proceeding
Regarding Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Units 3 and 4. TVA
submitted its combined license application (“COLA”) to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (“NRC”) for Bellefonte Nuclear Plant (“Bellefonte”) Units 3 and 4 in
October 2007. If approved, the license to build and operate the plant
would be issued to TVA. Obtaining the necessary license would give
TVA more certainty about the cost and schedule of a nuclear option for future
decisions. The COLA for two AP1000 reactors at Bellefonte was
docketed by the NRC on January 18, 2008, indicating the NRC found it complete
and technically sufficient to support the NRC’s more detailed
reviews.
On June 6, 2008, a joint petition for
intervention and a request for a hearing was submitted to the NRC by the
Bellefonte Efficiency and Sustainability Team, the Blue Ridge Environmental
Defense League, and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. The
petition raised 19 potential contentions with respect to TVA’s
COLA. Both TVA and the NRC
staff opposed the admission of the petitioners’ proposed contentions, and, thus
the admission of the petitioners as parties to the proceeding as
well. Additionally, TVA opposed the admission of one of the
petitioners to the proceeding on the grounds that it lacked
standing. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board presiding over the
proceeding subsequently denied standing to one of the petitioners and accepted
four of the 19 contentions submitted by the remaining two
petitioners. The admitted contentions involved questions about the
estimated costs of the new nuclear plant, the storage of low-level radioactive
waste, and the impact of the facility’s operations, in particular the plant
intake, on aquatic species. In February 2009, the NRC dismissed the
contentions related to low-level radioactive waste. A hearing on the
remaining contentions will be conducted in the future. Other COLA
applicants have received similar petitions raising similar potential
contentions.
The TVA Board has not made a decision
to construct a new plant at the Bellefonte site, and TVA continues to evaluate
all nuclear generation options at the site.
Information Request from the
EPA. On April 25, 2008, TVA received a request from the EPA
under section 114 of the CAA requesting extensive information about projects at
and the operations of 14 of TVA’s 59 coal-fired units. These 14 units
are located in the States of Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee. This
request for information is similar to but broader than section 114 requests
that other companies have received during the EPA’s New Source Review (“NSR”)
enforcement initiative. TVA has responded to this request. The
EPA’s request could be the first step in an administrative proceeding against
TVA that could then result in litigation in the courts.
Employment
Proceedings. TVA is engaged in various administrative and
legal proceedings arising from employment disputes. These matters are
governed by federal law and involve issues typical of those encountered
in
the
ordinary course of business of a utility. They may include
allegations of discrimination or retaliation (including retaliation for raising
nuclear safety or environmental concerns), wrongful termination, and failure to
pay overtime
under the
Fair Labor Standards Act. Adverse outcomes in these proceedings would
not normally be material to TVA’s results of operations, liquidity, and
financial condition, although it is possible that some outcomes could require
TVA to change how it handles certain personnel matters or operates its
plants.
Litigation with Potential Impact on TVA
Case Involving North Carolina’s Petition to the
EPA. In 2005, North Carolina petitioned the EPA under Section
126 of the CAA to impose additional emission reduction requirements on SO2 and
NOx on
coal-fired power plants in 13 states, including the states where TVA’s
coal-fired power plants are located. In March 2006, the EPA
denied
the North Carolina petition primarily on the basis that the Clean Air Interstate
Rule remedies the problem. In June 2006, North Carolina filed a
petition for review of the EPA’s decision with the D.C. Circuit. On
October 1, 2007, TVA filed a friend of the court brief in support of the EPA’s
decision to deny North Carolina’s Section 126 petition.
Case Involving Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
(“BREDL”) Petition to Federal Court of Appeals. In August
2008, TVA asked the NRC to reinstate the construction permits for its two
unfinished nuclear units at the Bellefonte site. On March 9,
2009, NRC issued an order to TVA reinstating the construction permits
for Bellefonte Units 1
and 2 and returning the plant to a terminated status. On
March 30, 2009, BREDL filed a petition in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit asking the court to review NRC's decision to
reinstate the construction permits.
ITEM
3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET
RISK
There are no material
changes related to market risk from the market risks disclosed under Item 7,
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations — Risk Management
Activities in the Annual Report.
An evaluation has
been performed under the supervision of TVA management (including the president
and chief executive officer) and members of the disclosure control committee
(including the chief financial officer and the vice president and controller) of
the effectiveness and the design of TVA’s disclosure controls and procedures as
of March 31, 2009. Based on that evaluation, the president and chief
executive officer and members of the disclosure control committee (including the
chief financial officer and the vice president and controller) concluded that
TVA’s disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of March 31, 2009, to
ensure that information required to be disclosed in reports TVA files or submits
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, is recorded,
processed,
summarized, and reported within the time periods specified in Securities and
Exchange Commission rules and forms. This includes controls and
procedures designed to ensure that such information is accumulated and
communicated
to TVA management, including the president and chief executive officer, the
disclosure control committee,
and the chief financial officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions
regarding required disclosure.
TVA management
believes that a control system, no matter how well designed and operated, cannot
provide absolute assurance that the objectives of the control system are met,
and no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control
issues and instances of fraud, if any, within a company can be
detected.
TVA’s controls and
procedures are designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that
the objectives will be met. It should be noted that the design of any
system of controls is based in part upon certain assumptions about the
likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design will
succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions,
regardless of how remote.
During the most
recent fiscal quarter, there were no changes in TVA’s internal control over
financial reporting that materially affected, or are reasonably likely to
materially affect, TVA’s internal control over financial
reporting.
See the Annual Report and Notes 1 and
18 and Part I, Item 2, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations — Litigation with Potential Impact on
TVA in this Quarterly Report for a discussion of legal proceedings
affecting TVA.
The discussion below supplements the disclosure contained in Item 1A, Risk
Factors in the Annual Report. The factors described in Item 1A, Risk
Factors in the Annual Report, together with the risk factors discussed below and
the other information contained in the Quarterly Report, could materially affect
TVA’s business, financial condition, and operating results and should be
carefully considered. Further, the risks described in this Quarterly
Report and in the Annual Report are not the only risks facing
TVA. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to TVA
management or that TVA management currently deems to be immaterial also may
materially adversely affect TVA’s business, financial condition, and operating
results.
Strategic
Risk
|
•
|
TVA could become subject to
regulation of coal combustion by-products. There
is a risk that
|
|
coal
combustion by-products may be strictly regulated by federal and state
governments in a way
|
|
that
adversely affects TVA. Recent events at TVA’s Kingston Fossil
Plant have resulted in certain
|
|
testimony
before Congress recommending the regulation of coal combustion
by-products, which
|
|
may
require TVA to make additional capital expenditures, increase TVA’s
operating and
|
|
maintenance
costs, or lead to TVA’s retiring certain
facilities.
|
Operational Risk
|
•
|
Laws
and regulations impacting containment ponds at TVA’s plants may negatively
affect
|
|
TVA’s
operations. There is a risk that TVA could be required
to phase out the use of, or make
|
|
significant
changes to, surface impoundments for coal combustion by-products at
existing fossil plants.
|
|
Any
such development could require TVA to incur significant capital
expenditures to redesign its
|
|
existing
surface impoundments to include items such as composite liners, leachate
collection systems,
|
|
and
groundwater monitoring systems, and could also increase TVA’s maintenance
costs or even lead to
|
|
TVA’s
retiring certain facilities.
|
Exhibit
No.
|
Description
|
|
10.1*
|
Fall
Maturity Credit Agreement Dated as of March 26, 2009, Among TVA, Bank of
America, N.A., as Administrative Agent, Bank
of
America, N.A, as a Lender, and
the Other Lenders Party Thereto
|
|
10.2*
|
Spring
Maturity Credit Agreement Dated as of March 26, 2009, Among TVA, Bank of
America, N.A., as Administrative Agent, Bank of America, N.A, as a Lender,
and
the Other Lenders Party Thereto
|
|
31.1
|
Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
Certification Executed by the Chief Executive Officer
|
|
31.2
|
Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
Certification Executed by the Chief Financial Officer
|
|
32.1
|
Section 1350
Certification Executed by the Chief Executive Officer
|
|
32.2
|
Section 1350
Certification Executed by the Chief Financial Officer
|
|
* The
schedules have been omitted from the Spring Maturity Credit Agreement and
the Fall Maturity Credit
Agreement. TVA hereby undertakes
to furnish supplementally copies of the omitted
schedules upon request by the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
|
Pursuant to the requirements of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to
be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly
authorized.
Date: May 1,
2009 TENNESSEE
VALLEY AUTHORITY
(Registrant)
By:
|
/s/ Tom D. Kilgore |
Tom
D. Kilgore
|
|
President
and Chief Executive Officer
|
|
(Principal
Executive Officer)
|
|
By:
|
/s/ Kimberly S. Greene |
Kimberly
S. Greene
|
|
Chief
Financial Officer and Executive
|
|
Vice
President, Financial Services
|
|
(Principal
Financial
Officer)
|
Exhibit
No.
|
Description
|
|
10.1*
|
Fall
Maturity Credit Agreement Dated as of March 26, 2009, Among TVA, Bank of
America, N.A., as Administrative Agent, Bank
of
America, N.A, as a Lender, and
the Other Lenders Party Thereto
|
|
10.2*
|
Spring
Maturity Credit Agreement Dated as of March 26, 2009, Among TVA, Bank of
America, N.A., as Administrative Agent, Bank of America, N.A, as a Lender,
and
the Other Lenders Party Thereto
|
|
31.1
|
Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
Certification Executed by the Chief Executive Officer
|
|
31.2
|
Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
Certification Executed by the Chief Financial Officer
|
|
32.1
|
Section 1350
Certification Executed by the Chief Executive Officer
|
|
32.2
|
Section 1350
Certification Executed by the Chief Financial Officer
|
|
* The
schedules have been omitted from the Spring Maturity Credit Agreement and
the Fall Maturity Credit Agreement. TVA hereby undertakes to
furnish supplementally copies of the omitted schedules
upon request by the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
|
72