XML 49 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.10.0.1

Commitments And Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments And Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES In the course of its business, the Company becomes involved in various claims, controversies, disputes and other contingent matters, including the items described in this Note. Some of these claims, controversies, disputes and other contingent matters involve litigation or other contested proceedings. For all such matters, the Company intends to vigorously protect and defend its interests and pursue its rights. However, no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of any particular matter because litigation and other contested proceedings are inherently subject to numerous uncertainties. For matters that affect Avista Utilities’ or AEL&P's operations, the Company intends to seek, to the extent appropriate, recovery of incurred costs through the ratemaking process. California Refund Proceeding In February 2016, APX, a market maker in the California Refund Proceedings in whose markets Avista Energy participated in the summer of 2000, asserted that Avista Energy and its other customer/participants may be responsible for a share of the disgorgement penalty APX may be found to owe to Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, the California Attorney General (AG), the California Department of Water Resources (CERS), and the California Public Utilities Commission (together, the “California Parties”). The penalty arises as a result of the FERC's finding that APX committed violations in the California market in the summer of 2000. APX is making these assertions despite Avista Energy having been dismissed in FERC Opinion No. 536 from the on-going administrative proceeding at the FERC regarding potential wrongdoing in the California markets in the summer of 2000. APX has identified Avista Energy’s share of APX’s exposure to be as much as $16.0 million even though no wrongdoing allegations are specifically attributable to Avista Energy. Avista Energy believes its settlement with the California Parties in 2014 insulates it from any such liability and that as a dismissed party it cannot be drawn back into the litigation. On May 3, 2018, the FERC issued an order, Order on Compliance Filings, resolving in the Company’s favor the last indirect exposure the Company had related to the California Refund Proceedings. That order, which fully absolved the Company of any further exposure, was not challenged and is now final and not subject to appeal. Cabinet Gorge Total Dissolved Gas Abatement Plan Dissolved atmospheric gas levels (referred to as "Total Dissolved Gas" or "TDG") in the Clark Fork River exceed state of Idaho and federal water quality numeric standards downstream of Cabinet Gorge particularly during periods when excess river flows must be diverted over the spillway. Under the terms of the Clark Fork Settlement Agreement (CFSA) as incorporated in Avista Corp.’s FERC license for the Clark Fork Project, Avista Corp. has worked in consultation with agencies, tribes and other stakeholders to address this issue. Under the terms of a gas supersaturation mitigation plan, Avista Corp. is reducing TDG by constructing spill crest modifications on spill gates at the dam. These modifications have been shown to be effective in reducing TDG downstream. TDG monitoring and analysis is ongoing. Under the terms of the mitigation plan, Avista Corp. will continue to work with stakeholders to determine the degree to which TDG abatement reduces future mitigation obligations. The Company has sought, and will continue to seek recovery, through the ratemaking process, of all operating and capitalized costs related to this issue. Legal Proceedings Related to the Pending Acquisition by Hydro One See Note 17 for information regarding the proposed acquisition of the Company by Hydro One. In connection with the proposed acquisition, as of the date of this quarterly report, the three lawsuits that had been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington have been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. Those cases were captioned as follows:
• | Jenβ v. Avista Corporation., et al., No. 2:17-cv-00333 (E.D. Wash.) (filed September 25, 2017);
• | Samuel v. Avista Corporation, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00334 (E.D. Wash.) (filed September 26, 2017); and
• | Sharpenter v. Avista Corporation., et al., No. 2:17-cv-00336 (E.D. Wash.) (filed September 26, 2017)
There remains one lawsuit that has been filed in the Superior Court for the State of Washington in and for Spokane County, captioned as follows:
• | Fink v. Morris, et al., No. 17203616-6 (filed September 15, 2017, amended complaint filed October 25, 2017).
This lawsuit was filed against Hydro One Limited, Olympus Holding Corp., Olympus Corp. and Bank of America Merrill Lynch, as well as all members of the Company's Board of Directors, namely Erik Anderson, Kristianne Blake, Donald Burke, Rebecca Klein, Scott Maw, Scott Morris, Marc Racicot, Heidi Stanley, John Taylor and Janet Widmann. While Avista Corp. is not a named defendant in this lawsuit, the Company has the obligation to indemnify members of its Board of Directors. The complaint generally alleges that the members of the Board breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process and agreeing to the acquisition at a price that allegedly undervalues Avista Corporation, and that Hydro One Limited, Olympus Holding Corp., and Olympus Corp. aided and abetted those purported breaches of duty. The aiding and abetting claims were brought only against Hydro One Limited, Olympus Holding Corp. and Olympus Corp. The complaint seeks various remedies, including monetary damages, attorneys’ fees and expenses. The complaint has been stayed by the court until the closing of the transaction at which time the plaintiff will have the option to file an amended complaint within 30 days of such closing. If the amended complaint is not filed within the 30 days the suit will be dismissed. All defendants deny any wrongdoing in connection with the proposed acquisition and plan to vigorously defend against all pending claims; however, the Company cannot at this time predict the eventual outcome. 2015 Washington General Rate Cases In January 2016, the Company received an order (Order 05) that concluded its electric and natural gas general rate cases that were originally filed with the WUTC in February 2015. New electric and natural gas rates were effective on January 11, 2016. WUTC Order Denying Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities / Public Counsel Joint Motion for Clarification, WUTC Staff Motion to Reconsider and WUTC Staff Motion to Reopen Record In January 2016, the Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities (ICNU), the Public Counsel Unit of the Washington State Office of the Attorney General (PC) and the WUTC Staff, which is a separate party in the general rate case proceedings from the WUTC Advisory Staff, filed Motions for Clarification requesting the WUTC to clarify their attrition adjustment and the end result electric revenue amounts. The Motions for Clarification suggested that the electric revenue decrease should have been significantly larger than what was included in Order 05. In February 2016, the WUTC issued an order (Order 06) denying the Motions summarized above and affirming Order 05, including an $8.1 million decrease in electric base revenue. PC Petition for Judicial Review In March 2016, PC filed in Thurston County Superior Court a Petition for Judicial Review of the WUTC's Order 05 and Order 06 described above. In April 2016, this matter was certified for review directly by the Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court in the State of Washington. On August 7, 2018, the Court of Appeals issued a "Published Opinion" (Opinion) which concluded that the WUTC's use of an attrition allowance to calculate Avista Corp.'s rate base violated Washington law. In the Opinion, the Court stated that because the projected additions to rate base in the future were not "used and useful" for service at the time the request for the rate increase was made, they may not lawfully be included in the Company's rate base to justify a rate increase. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the WUTC erred in including an attrition allowance in the calculation of Avista Corp.’s electric and natural gas rate base. The Court noted, however, that the law does not prohibit an attrition allowance in the calculation, for ratemaking purposes, of recoverable operating and maintenance expense. Since the WUTC order provided one lump sum attrition allowance without distinguishing what portion was for rate base and which was for operating and maintenance expenses or other considerations, the Court struck all portions of the attrition allowance attributable to Avista Corp.'s rate base and reversed and remanded the case for the WUTC to recalculate Avista Corp.’s rates without including an attrition allowance in the calculation of rate base. On October 1, 2018, the Court of Appeals terminated its review of this case, remanding it back to the Thurston County Superior Court. The total attrition allowance approved by the WUTC in Order 05 and reaffirmed in Order 06 was $35.2 million, with $28.3 million related to electric and $6.9 million related to natural gas. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter at this time and cannot estimate how much, if any, of the attrition allowance may be removed from the general rate cases. The Company will participate in any regulatory process that is yet to be established by the WUTC. Other Contingencies In the normal course of business, the Company has various other legal claims and contingent matters outstanding. The Company believes that any ultimate liability arising from these actions will not have a material impact on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. It is possible that a change could occur in the Company’s estimates of the probability or amount of a liability being incurred. Such a change, should it occur, could be significant. See "Note 19 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements" in the 2017 Form 10-K for additional discussion regarding other contingencies.

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

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration