XML 41 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | NOTE 15. COMMITMENT S 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 will 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. Collective Bargaining Agreements The Company’s collective bargaining agreement with the IBEW represents approximately 40 percent of all of Avista Corp.’s employees. The Company’s largest represented group, representing approximately 90 percent of Avista Corp.’s bargaining unit employees in Washington and Idaho, were covered under a three-year agreement which expired in March 2021. In March 2022, a new four-year collective bargaining agreement was reached with the IBEW. The new agreement is retroactive to March 2021 and expires in March 2025. Boyds Fire (State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) v. Avista) In August 2019, the Company was served with a complaint, captioned “State of Washington Department of Natural Resources v. Avista Corporation,” seeking recovery up to $4.4 million for fire suppression and investigation 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 Corp. was negligent in failing to identify and remove the tree before it 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. Additional lawsuits have subsequently been filed by private landowners seeking property damages, and holders of insurance subrogation claims seeking recovery of insurance proceeds paid. The lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of Ferry County, Washington. The Company continues to vigorously defend itself in the litigation. However, at this time the Company is unable to predict the likelihood of an adverse outcome or estimate a range of potential loss in the event of such an outcome. Road 11 Fire In April 2022, Avista Corp. received a notice of claim from a property owner seeking damages of $5 million in connection with a fire that occurred in Douglas County, Washington, in July 2020. The fire, which was designated as the “Road 11 Fire,” occurred in the vicinity of an Avista Corp. 115kv line, resulting in damage to three overhead transmission structures. The fire occurred during a high wind event and grew to 10,000 acres before being contained. The Company disputes that it is liable for the fire and will vigorously defend itself in any legal action that might be commenced in connection with the same; however, at this time the Company is unable to predict the likelihood of an adverse outcome or estimate a range of potential loss in the event of such an outcome. Labor Day 2020 Windstorm General In September 2020, a severe windstorm occurred in eastern Washington and northern Idaho. The extreme weather event resulted in customer outages and multiple wildfires in the region. The Company has become aware of instances where, during the course of the storm, otherwise healthy trees and limbs, located in areas outside its maintenance right-of-way, broke under the extraordinary wind conditions and caused damage to its energy delivery system at or near what is believed to be the potential area of origin of a wildfire. Those instances include what has been referred to as: the Babb Road fire (near Malden and Pine City, Washington); the Christensen Road fire (near Airway Heights, Washington); and the Mile Marker 49 fire (near Orofino, Idaho). These wildfires covered, in total, approximately 22,000 acres. The Company estimates approximately 230 residential, commercial and other structures were impacted. With respect to the Christensen Road Fire and the Mile Marker 49 Fire, the Company’s investigation determined that the primary cause of the fires was extreme high winds. To date, the Company has not found any evidence that the fires were caused by any deficiencies in its equipment, maintenance activities or vegetation management practices. See further discussion below regarding the Babb Road Fire. The Company’s investigation has found no evidence of negligence with respect to any of the fires, and the Company will vigorously defend any claims for damages that may be asserted against it with respect to the wildfires arising out of the extreme wind event; however, at this time the Company is unable to predict the likelihood of an adverse outcome or estimate a range of potential loss in the event of such an outcome. Babb Road Fire In May 2021 the Company learned that the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) had completed its investigation and issued a report on the Babb Road Fire. The Babb Road fire covered approximately 15,000 acres and destroyed approximately 220 structures. There are no reports of personal injury or death resulting from the fire. The DNR report concluded, among other things, that • the fire was ignited when a branch of a multi-dominant Ponderosa Pine tree was broken off by the wind and fell on an Avista Corp. distribution line; • the tree was located approximately 30 feet from the center of Avista Corp.’s distribution line and approximately 20 feet beyond Avista Corp.’s right-of-way; • the tree showed some evidence of insect damage, damage at the top of the tree from porcupines, a small area of scarring where a lateral branch/leader (LBL) had broken off in the past, and some past signs of Gall Rust disease. The DNR report concluded as follows: “It is my opinion that because of the unusual configuration of the tree, and its proximity to the powerline, a closer inspection was warranted. A nearer inspection of the tree should have revealed the cut LBL ends and its previous failure, and necessitated determination of the failure potential of the adjacent LBL, implicated in starting the Babb Road Fire.” The DNR report acknowledged that, other than the multi-dominant nature of the tree, the conditions mentioned above would not have been easily visible without close-up inspection of, or cutting into, the tree. The report also acknowledged that, while the presence of multiple tops would have been visible from the nearby roadway, the tree did not fail at a v-fork due to the presence of multiple tops. The Company contends that applicable inspection standards did not require a closer inspection of the otherwise healthy tree, nor was the Company negligent with respect to its maintenance, inspection or vegetation management practices. Four lawsuits seeking unspecified damages have been filed in connection with the Babb Road fire. These include a negligence action filed in the Superior Court of Spokane County, Washington on behalf of approximately 44 individual plaintiffs; three negligence-based subrogation actions filed in the Superior Court of Spokane on behalf of 23 insurance carriers; and a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of Spokane County Washington alleging liability for negligence, private nuisance and trespass, as well as liability based on a theory of "inverse condemnation." The Company will vigorously defend itself in all such legal proceedings; however, at this time the Company is unable to predict the likelihood of an adverse outcome or estimate a range of potential loss in the event of such an outcome. Colstrip Colstrip Owners Arbitration and Litigation Colstrip Units 3 & 4 are jointly owned by the Company, Puget Sound Energy (PSE), Pacificorp, Portland General Electric (PGE) (collectively, the "Western Co-Owners"), as well as NorthWestern and Talen, and are operated pursuant to an Ownership and Operating Agreement dated May 6, 1981, as amended (O&O Agreement). Avista Corp. is a 15 percent owner in Units 3 & 4. No single owner owns more than 30 percent of either generating unit. The Washington Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA) imposes deadlines by which coal-fired resources, such as Colstrip, must be excluded from the rate base of Washington utilities and by which electricity from such resources may no longer be delivered to Washington retail customers. The co-owners of Colstrip have differing needs for the generating capacity of these units. Accordingly, business disagreements have arisen among the co-owners, including, but not limited to, disagreements as to the shut-down date or dates of these units. These business disagreements, in turn, have led to disagreements as to the interpretation of the O&O Agreement, including, but not limited to, what percentage voting requirement under the O&O Agreement (55 percent vs. 100 percent) is needed to remove one or more of the Colstrip units from service or to make a determination that the project can no longer be operated consistent with prudent utility practice or the requirements of governmental agencies having jurisdiction. These disagreements are the subject of pending litigation in Montana Federal District Court in which the Western Co-Owners are plaintiffs and NorthWestern and Talen are defendants, as well as in the Montana District for Yellowstone County, in which Talen is the plaintiff and the Western Co-Owners and NorthWestern are defendants. In addition, there are legal proceedings pending in Montana Federal District Court with respect to the validity and constitutionality of changes to Montana law enacted in 2021 after the foregoing disputes arose. The Western Co-Owners are plaintiffs in those proceedings and NorthWestern and Talen are defendants. The changes to Montana law at issue purport to (a) dictate the location of any arbitration under the O&O Agreement, overriding the express provisions of that agreement; and (b) define actions relating to closing or not operating Colstrip as violations of Montana’s Consumer Protection Act. These legal proceedings remain pending. The Company is not able to predict the outcome, nor an amount or range of potential impact in the event of an outcome that is adverse to the Company’s interests. However, the Company will continue to vigorously defend and protect its interests (and those of its stakeholders) in all legal proceedings relating to Colstrip. Burnett et al. v. Talen et al. Multiple property owners have initiated a legal proceeding (titled Burnett et al. v. Talen et al.) in the Montana District Court for Rosebud County against Talen, PSE, Pacificorp, PGE, Avista Corp., NorthWestern, and Westmoreland Rosebud Mining. The plaintiffs allege a failure to contain coal dust in connection with the operation of Colstrip, and seek unspecified damages. The Company will vigorously defend itself in the litigation, but at this time is unable to predict the outcome, nor an amount or range of potential impact in the event of an outcome that is adverse to the Company’s interests. Westmoreland Mine Permits Two lawsuits have been commenced by the Montana Environmental Information Center, challenging certain permits relating to the operation of the Westmoreland Rosebud Mine, which provides coal to Colstrip. In the first, the Montana District Court for Rosebud County issued an order vacating a permit for one area of the mine. In the second, the Montana Federal District Court issued findings and recommended that a decision approving expansion of the mine into a new area should be vacated, but recommending that the decision not take effect for 365 days from the date of a final order, which order remains pending. Both decisions may be subject to appellate review. Avista Corp. is not a party to either of these proceedings, but is continuing to monitor the progress of both lawsuits and assess the impact, in any, of the proceedings on Westmoreland’s ability to meet its contractual coal supply obligations. National Park Service (NPS) - Natural and Cultural Damage Claim In March 2017, the Company accessed property managed by the National Park Service (NPS) to prevent the imminent failure of a power pole that was surrounded by flood water in the Spokane River. The Company voluntarily reported its actions to the NPS several days later. Thereafter, in March 2018, the NPS notified the Company that it might seek recovery for unspecified costs and damages allegedly caused during the incident pursuant to the System Unit Resource Protection Act (SURPA), 54 U.S.C. 100721 et seq. In January 2021, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) requested that the Company and the DOJ renew discussions relating to the matter. In July 2021, the DOJ communicated that it may seek damages of approximately $2 million in connection with the incident for alleged damage to "natural and cultural resources". In addition, the DOJ indicated that it may seek treble damages under the SURPA and state law, bringing its total potential claim to approximately $6 million. The Company disputes the position taken by the DOJ with respect to the incident, as well as the nature and extent of the DOJ’s alleged damages, and will vigorously defend itself in any litigation that may arise with respect to the matter. The Company and the DOJ have agreed to engage in discussions to understand their respective positions and determine whether a resolution of the dispute may be possible. However, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the matter. Rathdrum, Idaho Natural Gas Incident In October 2021, there was an incident in Rathdrum, Idaho involving the Company’s natural gas infrastructure. The incident occurred after a third party damaged those facilities during the course of excavation work. The incident resulted in a fire which destroyed one residence and resulted in minor injuries to the occupants. No claims or proceedings have been initiated from this incident; however, the Company will vigorously defend itself against any claims for damages that may be asserted against it. 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 22 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements" in the 2021 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 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration