Federal Reports

We audited $2.8 million in subcontractor costs billed to TVA by a contractor for work related to the restart of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Unit 1. Our preliminary review of the costs billed by the subcontractors caused us to have concerns that certain costs that were billed may have also been billed to TVA under other contracts. We identified two direct contracts TVA had with the companies and expanded our review to include $985,984 TVA had paid to the companies under these contracts.In summary, we found TVA had been overbilled $1,075,020 including (1) $174,912 of unsupported and ineligible labor and per diem costs, (2) $621,428 of unsupported and ineligible equipment costs, (3) $199,180 of unsupported material costs, and (4) $79,500 of overstated task costs. Summary Only

The OIG performed a review of the City of Oxford Electric Department (Oxford) which is a distributor for TVA power based in Oxford, Mississippi. Our review of Oxford found issues involving customer classification and metering that could impact (1) the proper reporting of electric sales and (2) nondiscrimination in providing electricity to members of the same rate class. We were unable to estimate the monetary effect of all the classification and metering issues because in some instances information was not available; however, for those where information was available, the monetary effect on Oxford and TVA would not be material.In addition, we found Oxford had more than enough cash on hand to cover planned capital projects and provide a cash reserve. The cash reserve after planned capital projects was about 6.6 percent which was within the guidelines (cash ratio of 5 percent to 8 percent) TVA established to determine if a distributor has adequate cash reserves. We also found improvements were needed to comply with contract provisions in the areas of (1) co-mingling of funds, (2) customer bill adjustments, (3) Oxford's accounting practices, and (4) customer contracts.Finally, we noted opportunities to enhance TVA oversight of the distributors. Specifically, we noted TVA has not (1) performed a joint cost study in over 20 years when the TVA Accountant's Manual calls for one to be performed every three to four years or when major changes occur that affect joint operations, (2) provided adequate guidance on when a demand meter is required, (3) provided definitive guidance for distributors on what constitutes prudent expenditures, and (4) adequately defined how often meters should be tested by the distributors.We recommended the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) work with Oxford to improve compliance with the contract. In addition, we recommended that the CFO (1) put procedures in place to perform joint cost studies with each distributor that shares costs with other entities at least every three to four years, and (2) develop guidance to indicate when a distributor should require that a demand meter be installed for GSA Part 2 customers. TVA is in the process of addressing findings from previous reviews that we also found at Oxford related to (1) a lack of guidance for distributors on what constitutes prudent expenditures and (2) how often meters should be tested by the distributors.TVA and Oxford management generally agreed with and are taking actions to address the recommendations with the exception of our finding of co-mingling of funds where no management action is planned. If TVA management accepts the mingling of electric system funds and accounts with other funds and accounts of the Municipality, we suggest TVA consider modifying Section 1 of the power contract in their planned formal implementation of a rate change to no longer prohibit such actions.