XML 27 R24.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.3

Commitments And Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2019
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. 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 Terminated Acquisition by Hydro One See Note 18 for information regarding the termination of the proposed acquisition of the Company by Hydro One. In connection with the now terminated acquisition, three lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington and were subsequently voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. One lawsuit was 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).
The complaint generally alleged that the members of the Board of Directors of Avista Corp. breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process and agreeing to the acquisition at a price that allegedly undervalued Avista Corporation, and that Hydro One Limited, Olympus Holding Corp., and Olympus Corp. aided and abetted those purported breaches of duty. The complaint sought various remedies, including monetary damages, attorneys’ fees and expenses. Subsequent to the termination of the proposed acquisition in January 2019, the complaint was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. 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, 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. On April 17, 2019, the Thurston County Superior Court issued a Remand Order, granting a Joint Motion of Avista Corp., PC and the WUTC to remand the case back to the WUTC. On June 20, 2019, Avista Corp. filed testimony with the WUTC in the remand case. In Avista Corp.'s testimony, it asserted that the potential amount to return to customers is limited to revenues collected during the 11 month period between the effective date of the 2015 general rate case and the resolution of the subsequent 2016 general rate case, which resolved in December 2016. In the remand testimony the Company also asserted that no refund is due to customers for the 2015 general rate cases because actual 2016 electric rate base was greater than the 2016 electric rate base allowed in the general rate case, which included the prohibited attrition allowance. In addition, while 2016 actual natural gas rate base was slightly lower than the rate base allowed in the general rate case including the attrition allowance, the Company had already provided a refund to customers as a part of its earnings sharing mechanism. Subsequent to the Company's filing, other parties in the case filed testimony and asserted that Avista Corp. should refund to customers amounts ranging from approximately $3 million to approximately $77 million. These parties justified the proposed refund by claiming that the rates in question were in effect from 2016 to April 2018 as opposed to the 11 months argued by Avista Corp. Further, the parties asserted that the WUTC should, directly or indirectly, correct what they believe is a power supply calculation error (approximately $20 million), an issue that the WUTC already addressed and which the Company believes the Courts did not remand back to the WUTC for further process. While not its primary recommendation for a refund, the WUTC Staff included an alternative refund methodology in its testimony, which Avista Corp. calculates as calling for a refund of approximately $3 million, if limited to the 11 month period. While the Company does not agree as a legal matter with the positions of the other parties to the case, as a practical matter the Company believes that it is probable that it will refund some amount to customers. As such, as of September 30, 2019 the Company recorded a refund liability of approximately $3 million. Since the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter at this time, the amount so recorded represents the Company's best current estimate of a potential loss. Boyds Fire (State of Washington Department of Natural Resources v. Avista) On August 19, 2019, the Company was served with a complaint filed by the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources, seeking recovery of fire suppression costs and related expenses incurred in connection with a wildfire that occurred in Ferry County, Washington in August 2018. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the fire, which became known as the “Boyds Fire,” was caused by a dead ponderosa pine tree falling into an overhead distribution line, and that, Avista was negligent in failing to identify and remove it before the tree came into contact with the line. Avista Corp. disputes that the tree in question was the cause of the fire, and that it was negligent in failing to identify and remove it. The case is in the early stages of discovery and the plaintiff has not yet provided a statement specifying damages. Because the resolution of this claim remains uncertain, legal counsel cannot express an opinion on the extent, if any, of the Company’s liability, nor is it possible for the Company to estimate the impact of any outcome at this time. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in the litigation. 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 20 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements" in the 2018 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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration