XML 46 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.3

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2024
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 outcome of any matter because litigation and other contested proceedings are subject to numerous uncertainties. For matters affecting Avista Utilities’ or AEL&P's operations, the Company intends to seek, to the extent appropriate, recovery of incurred costs through the ratemaking process. Climate Commitment Act (CCA) The CCA requires the Company to submit greenhouse gas emission reports to the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) annually for its electric and natural gas entities. The CCA then requires the Company to contract with a third-party verifier to audit the emissions data in the emissions reports. In August 2024, the Company’s third-party verifier submitted to Ecology its verification report on the Company’s 2023 emissions report. The verification report was issued with an adverse emissions data verification statement. In September 2024, in the absence of a positive verification statement, Ecology assigned an emission level (AEL) to Avista Corp. based on information submitted by the Company’s third-party verifier. The Company disagrees with the emissions assigned by Ecology as the amounts do not consider the application of the white paper entitled “Consideration of Electricity Imports and Determination of the Electricity Importer Under the Climate Commitment Act”, which was previously discussed with and agreed to in principle by Ecology. The third-party verifier was unable to apply the white paper as it couldn’t confirm with Ecology that the methodologies applied by the Company were consistent with the white paper before the initial reporting deadline. Ecology, the Company, and the third-party verifier have engaged in discussions regarding the proper application of the calculation methods identified in Ecology’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program and the white paper. The Company has revised and re-submitted its emissions report to the third-party verifier and Ecology. The revised report makes certain adjustments identified by the verifier, but is otherwise consistent with the initial report regarding total emissions. The revised report has been reviewed by the third-party verifier, and the verifier has provided the Company written confirmation that it intends to issue a report with a positive emissions data verification statement in the fourth quarter of 2024. The revised report may result in an additional emissions liability of $0.2 million allocated to Idaho. The Company does not recover CCA emissions obligations from customers in Idaho. The Company believes it has sufficient allowances to cover the additional emissions liability allocated to Washington. Any additional costs allocated to Washington would be deferred and included in the ERM, which, based on Avista Corp.’s current position in the ERM, would be allocated 90 percent to customers and 10 percent to the Company. On October 31, 2024, Ecology agreed to stay the AEL issued in September 2024 for a period of 45 days to allow the Company to revise its emissions report (see above) and receive a positive verification statement from the third-party verifier. Under Washington law and as provided in an agreement with the Company entered into on October 31, 2024, Ecology has the authority and will adjust the AEL upon receipt of a report with a positive verification statement. Avista Corp. expects to receive a positive verification statement and for Ecology to adjust the AEL in the fourth quarter of 2024. If Avista Corp. doe s not receive a positive verification statement or if, despite the express agreement between Ecology and the Company, Ecology does not adjust the AEL, Avista Corp. estimates the additional liability could be up to $32 million, of which $12 million would be allocated to Idaho and $20 million allocated to Washington. The Company does not believe such an outcome is probable and the Company would exercise all available legal and administrative remedies to preserve its rights under the law. Collective Bargaining Agreements The Company's collective bargaining agreement with the IBEW represents 36 percent of all Avista Utilities' employees. The Company's largest represented group, representing approximately 90 percent of Avista Utilities' bargaining unit employees in Washington and Idaho, are covered under a four year agreement which expires in March 2025. The current agreement includes a clause to negotiate wages in effect for the last year of the agreement. On July 31, 2024, the IBEW voted to approve new wages for 2024 and 2025, with wages for 2024 effective retroactively to March 26, 2024 and wages for 2025 taking effect on January 1, 2025. Boyds Fire (State of Washington Department of Natural Resources 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 of 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 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., along with its independent vegetation management contractors Asplundh Tree Company and CN Utility Consulting, were negligent in failing to identify and remove the tree before it came into contact with the line. Avista Corp. disputes that it was negligent in failing to identify and remove the tree in question. Additional lawsuits were subsequently filed by private landowners seeking $0.8 million in property damages as well as potential non-economic damages, and holders of insurance subrogation claims seeking recovery of $1.8 million in insurance proceeds purportedly paid to their insureds. The lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of Ferry County, Washington, and is scheduled for trial on July 7, 2025. 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 property owners seeking damages of $5 million in connection with a fire that occurred in Douglas County, Washington, in July 2020. In June 2022, those claimants filed suit in the Superior Court of Douglas County, Washington, seeking unspecified damages. 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. In June 2024, the parties reached an agreement to settle the matter for $0.1 million which will result in dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice. Labor Day 2020 Windstorm/ Babb Road Fire 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, including the Babb Road Fire, which occurred near the town of Malden, Washington. 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. In May 2021 the Company learned the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) had completed its investigation and issued a report on the Babb Road 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, 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 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. Eleven lawsuits have been filed in connection with the Babb Road fire. Asplundh Tree Company and CN Utility Consulting, which both perform vegetation management services as independent contractors to the Company, are also named as defendants in each of the lawsuits. The lawsuits include six subrogation actions filed by 51 insurance companies seeking to recover approximately $23 million purportedly paid to insureds to date; and five actions on behalf of 128 individual plaintiffs seeking unspecified damages, one of which was originally filed as a class action lawsuit on behalf of three putative individual plaintiffs, but which has since been amended to assert direct claims on behalf of the named plaintiffs. In the course of discovery, 40 individual plaintiffs have provided economic damage estimates, claiming total economic losses of approximately $8.2 million, of which approximately $3.5 million is covered by insurance or other forms of reimbursement. These plaintiffs may also seek as-yet unspecified non-economic damages (pain and suffering and emotional distress). The Company does not believe non-economic damages are applicable in this case and plans to dispute such claims. All proceedings, except for one action filed on September 1, 2023 on behalf of three individual plaintiffs (the "Widman Action") have been consolidated in the Superior Court of Spokane County Washington under the lead action Blakeley v. Avista Corporation et al., and variously assert causes of action for negligence, private nuisance, and trespass (the "Blakeley Proceeding"). In November 2023, all parties to the Blakeley Proceeding agreed to a stipulated order, which was presented to and entered by the Superior Court of Spokane County, Washington. The order consolidates the Blakeley Proceeding for trial (in addition to discovery and pre-trial proceedings) and bifurcates the trial into liability and damages phases, such that the initial trial in the case will focus solely on whether the defendants are legally responsible for the Babb Road Fire. A trial date on the liability phase has been set for May 5, 2025. The Widman Action is set for trial on October 6, 2025. In addition, the stipulated order relating to the Blakeley Proceeding memorializes the plaintiffs' agreement to voluntarily dismiss all claims asserting inverse condemnation as a theory of liability, without prejudice to their ability to seek permission from the Court to refile those claims at a later date if they can show good cause to do so. The Widman Action does not include claims for inverse condemnation. The parties to the Blakeley Proceeding agreed to a preliminary mediation no later than 60 days prior to the liability trial, and, if there is a trial following that mediation and if the jury returns a verdict in the plaintiffs' favor in the liability trial, a second mediation within 90 days following the verdict focusing on damages. Finally, the plaintiffs agreed to complete a damages questionnaire identifying all claimed damages being sought in connection with the litigation. In June 2024, a motion was filed in one of the individual actions (the "VanDyke Action") to add three additional plaintiffs. Although the statute of limitations for new claims has passed, the plaintiffs argued that the addition of new plaintiffs is timely because the lawsuit was initially pled as a class action. The Court subsequently allowed two of the proposed plaintiffs to be added to the action on the grounds that they were minors at the time of the incident, but denied the remainder of the motion. The Company will vigorously defend itself in the 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. Orofino Fire In August 2023, a fire subsequently referred to as the "Hospital Fire" started in windy conditions near Orofino, Idaho, burning 53 acres and seven primary residences, as well as several outbuildings. The Idaho Department of Lands investigated and has issued a report in which it concluded the fire was caused by an electrical fault igniting three separate spots which then spread uphill. The Company has a distribution line in the area near the ignition point. The Company has to date found no evidence suggesting negligence on its part. Except for two claims for damage to personal property, the Company has not, at this time, received any claims in connection with the fire. The Company will vigorously defend itself in the event any such claims are asserted; however, at this time, it is unable to estimate the likelihood of an adverse outcome nor the amount or range of a potential loss in the event of an adverse outcome. Colstrip Colstrip Owners Arbitration and Litigation Colstrip Units 3 and 4 are owned by the Company, PacifiCorp, Portland General Electric (PGE), and Puget Sound Energy (PSE) (collectively, the "Western Co-Owners"), as well as NorthWestern and Talen Montana, LLC (Talen), as tenants in common under an Ownership and Operating Agreement, dated May 6, 1981, as amended (O&O Agreement), in the percentages set forth below:
Co-Owner |  | Unit 3 |  |  | Unit 4 |
Avista |  |  | 15 | % |  |  | 15 | %
PacifiCorp |  |  | 10 | % |  |  | 10 | %
PGE |  |  | 20 | % |  |  | 20 | %
PSE |  |  | 25 | % |  |  | 25 | %
NorthWestern |  |  | — |  |  |  | 30 | %
Talen |  |  | 30 | % |  |  | — |
Colstrip Units 1 and 2, owned by PSE and Talen, were shut down in 2020 and are in the process of being decommissioned. The co-owners of Units 3 and 4 also own undivided interests in facilities common to both Units 3 and 4, as well as in certain facilities common to all four Colstrip units. The Washington Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA), among other things, imposes deadlines by which each electric utility must eliminate from its electricity rates in Washington the costs and benefits associated with coal-fired resources, such as Colstrip. The practical impact of CETA is electricity from such resources, including Colstrip, may no longer be delivered to Washington retail customers after 2025. The co-owners of Colstrip Units 3 and 4 have differing needs for the generating capacity of these units. Accordingly, certain business disagreements have arisen among the co-owners, including, disagreements as to the requirements for shutting down these units. NorthWestern has initiated arbitration pursuant to the O&O Agreement to resolve these business disagreements, and two actions have been initiated to compel arbitration of those disputes: one by Talen in the Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court for Yellowstone County, and one by the Western Co-Owners, which is pending in Montana Federal District Court. In light of the ownership transfer agreements, the Colstrip owners agreed to stay both the litigation and the arbitration through March 2024. On April 1, 2024, the agreement to stay lapsed and the parties are now in the process of reengaging in arbitration discussions. An arbitration date has not yet been scheduled. The Company cannot predict the outcome of the arbitration process. Agreement Between Avista and NorthWestern In January 2023, the Company entered into an agreement with NorthWestern under which, subject to the terms and conditions specified in the agreement, the Company will transfer its 15 percent ownership in Colstrip Units 3 and 4 to NorthWestern. There is no monetary exchange included in the transaction. The transaction is scheduled to close on December 31, 2025 or such other date as the parties mutually agree upon. Under the agreement, the Company will remain obligated through the close of the transaction to pay its share of (i) operating expenses, (ii) capital expenditures, but not in excess of the portion allocable pro rata to the portion of useful life (through 2030) expired through the close of the transaction, and (iii) site remediation expenses except certain costs relating to post closing activities. In addition, the Company would enter into an agreement under which it would retain its voting rights with respect to decisions relating to remediation. The Company will retain its Colstrip transmission system assets, which are excluded from the transaction. The transaction is subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions including NorthWestern's ability to enter into a new coal supply agreement by December 31, 2024. The Company does not expect this transaction to have a direct material impact on its financial results. Agreement Between PSE and NorthWestern In July 2024, PSE entered into an agreement with NorthWestern under which, PSE will transfer its 25 percent ownership in Colstrip Units 3 and 4 to NorthWestern. There is no monetary exchange included in the transaction. The transaction is scheduled to close on December 31, 2025. Burnett et al. v. Talen et al. Multiple property owners 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 Colstrip owners reached a settlement with one of the litigants, Richard Burnett, for an amount of less than $0.1 million. The settlement does not involve or implicate the claims of any other litigants. 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 adverse to the Company’s interests. Westmoreland Mine Permits Two lawsuits have been commenced by the Montana Environmental Information Center and others, 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, which decision was subsequently upheld by the Montana Supreme Court. In the second, the Montana Federal District Court vacated a decision by the federal Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, a branch of the United States Department of the Interior, approving expansion of the mine into a new area, pending further analysis of potential environmental impact. An initial appeal of that decision to the Ninth Circuit was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, pending further proceedings before the Department of the Interior. Avista Corp. is not a party to either of these proceedings, but continues to monitor the progress of both issues and assess the impact, if 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 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 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. In April 2024 the parties reached a settlement in principle, through which the Company has agreed to pay $0.9 million in order to settle all claims and allegations relating to the matter. The settlement in principle is contingent upon execution of a mutually acceptable settlement agreement, as well as a required public notice and comment period to be initiated by NPS and/or the DOJ. 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 excavation work. The incident resulted in a fire which destroyed one residence and resulted in minor injuries to the occupants. In January 2023, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in the District Court of Kootenai County, Idaho by one property owner, seeking unspecified damages. In February 2024, the Company received a second lawsuit filed by the owners of the adjacent property, seeking damages for personal injury and emotional distress from having witnessed the incident. The Company will vigorously defend itself in the 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. Other Contingencies In the normal course of business, the Company has various other legal claims and contingent matters outstanding. The Company believes any liability arising from these actions will not have a material impact on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. It is possible 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 2023 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/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration