Commitments And Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
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’ operations, the Company intends to seek, to the extent appropriate, recovery of incurred costs through the ratemaking process. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Inquiry In April 2004, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved the contested Agreement in Resolution of Section 206 Proceeding (Agreement in Resolution) between Avista Corp. doing business as Avista Utilities, Avista Energy and the FERC's Trial Staff which stated that there was: (1) no evidence that any executives or employees of Avista Utilities or Avista Energy knowingly engaged in or facilitated any improper trading strategy during 2000 and 2001; (2) no evidence that Avista Utilities or Avista Energy engaged in any efforts to manipulate the western energy markets during 2000 and 2001; and (3) no finding that Avista Utilities or Avista Energy withheld relevant information from the FERC's inquiry into the western energy markets for 2000 and 2001 (Trading Investigation). Pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) are petitions of the Attorney General of the State of California (California AG) and the California Electricity Oversight Board challenging FERC's decisions approving the Agreement in Resolution. In May 2004, the FERC provided notice that Avista Energy was no longer subject to an investigation reviewing certain bids above $250 per MW in the short-term energy markets operated by the California Independent System Operator (CalISO) and the California Power Exchange (CalPX) from May 1, 2000 to October 2, 2000 (Bidding Investigation). That matter is also pending before the Ninth Circuit, after the California AG, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) filed petitions for review in 2005. Based on the FERC's order approving the Agreement in Resolution in the Trading Investigation and order denying rehearing requests, the Company does not expect that this proceeding will have any material effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Furthermore, based on information currently known to the Company regarding the Bidding Investigation and the fact that the FERC Staff did not find any evidence of manipulative behavior, the Company does not expect that this matter will have a material effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. California Refund Proceeding In July 2001, the FERC ordered an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of refunds due to California energy buyers for purchases made in the spot markets operated by the CalISO and the CalPX during the period from October 2, 2000 to June 20, 2001 (Refund Period). Proposed refunds are based on the calculation of mitigated market clearing prices for each hour. The FERC ruled that if the refunds required by the formula would cause a seller to recover less than its actual costs for the Refund Period, sellers may document these costs and limit their refund liability commensurately. In September 2005, Avista Energy submitted its cost filing claim pursuant to the FERC's August 2005 order. The filing was initially accepted by the FERC, but in March 2011, the FERC ordered Avista Energy to remove any return on equity in a compliance filing with the CalISO, which Avista Energy did in April 2011. A challenge to Avista Energy's cost filing by the California AG, the CPUC, PG&E and SCE was denied in July 2011 as a collateral attack on the FERC's prior orders accepting Avista Energy's cost filing. In July 2011, the California AG, the CPUC, PG&E and SCE filed a petition for review of the FERC's orders regarding Avista Energy's cost filing with the Ninth Circuit. The 2001 bankruptcy of PG&E resulted in a default on its payment obligations to the CalPX. As a result, Avista Energy has not been paid for all of its energy sales during the Refund Period. Those funds are now in escrow accounts and will not be released until the FERC issues an order directing such release in the California refund proceeding. As of September 30, 2013, Avista Energy's accounts receivable outstanding related to defaulting parties in California were fully offset by reserves for uncollected amounts and funds collected from the defaulting parties. In August 2006, the Ninth Circuit upheld October 2, 2000 as the refund effective date for the FPA section 206 refund proceeding, but remanded to the FERC its decision not to consider an FPA section 309 remedy for tariff violations prior to that date. In an order issued in May 2011, the FERC clarified the issues set for hearing for the period May 1, 2000 - October 1, 2000 (Summer Period): (1) which market practices and behaviors constitute a violation of the then-current CalISO, CalPX, and individual seller's tariffs and FERC orders; (2) whether any of the sellers named as respondents in this proceeding engaged in those tariff violations; and (3) whether any such tariff violations affected the market clearing price. The FERC also gave the California Parties an opportunity to show that exchange transactions with the CalISO during the Refund Period were not just and reasonable. Avista Energy had one exchange transaction with the CalISO during the Refund Period. The California AG, the CPUC, PG&E and SCE filed for rehearing of the FERC's May 2011 order, arguing that it improperly denies them a market-wide remedy for the pre-refund period. That request for rehearing was denied in an order issued by the FERC on November 2, 2012. The California AG, the CPUC, PG&E and SCE filed a petition for review of the May 2011 and November 2012 orders with the Ninth Circuit on November 7, 2012. A FERC hearing commenced on April 11, 2012 and concluded on July 19, 2012. On August 27, 2012, the Presiding Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a partial initial decision granting Avista Utilities' motion for summary disposition, based on the stipulation by the California Parties that there are no allegations of tariff violations made against Avista Utilities in this proceeding and therefore no tariff violations by Avista Utilities that affected the market clearing price in any hour during the Summer Period. On November 2, 2012, the FERC issued an order affirming the partial initial decision and dismissing Avista Utilities from the proceeding, thereby terminating all claims against Avista Utilities for the Summer Period. In the same order, the FERC also held that a market-wide remedy would not be appropriate with regard to any respondent during the Summer Period. The FERC stated that it is clear that the Ninth Circuit did not mandate a specific remedy on remand and, instead, left it to the FERC's discretion to determine which remedy would be appropriate. On December 3, 2012, the California Parties filed a request for clarification and rehearing of the November 2, 2012 order. On February 15, 2013, the ALJ issued an initial decision finding that certain Respondents committed various tariff and other violations that affected the market clearing price in the California organized markets during the Summer Period. The tariff violations identified for Avista Energy are type II and III bidding violations; false export violations; and selling ancillary services without market-based rate authority. The initial decision did not discuss evidence offered by Avista Energy, on an hour-by-hour basis, rebutting the alleged violations. With respect to Avista Energy's one exchange transaction with the CalISO during the Refund Period, the judge made no findings with respect to the justness and reasonableness of that transaction, but nonetheless determined that Avista Energy owed approximately $0.2 million in refunds with regard to the transaction. Avista Energy filed its brief on exceptions to the initial decision on April 12, 2013. The California AG, the CPUC, PG&E and SCE filed a brief opposing exceptions on June 7, 2013. Because the resolution of the California refund proceeding remains uncertain, legal counsel cannot express an opinion on the extent of the Company's liability, if any. However, based on information currently known, the Company does not expect that the refunds ultimately ordered for the Refund Period would result in a material loss. In the event that the Commission does not overturn the legal and factual errors in the February 15, 2013 initial decision, the Company does not expect that the refunds ultimately ordered for that period would result in a material loss either. This is primarily due to the fact that the FERC orders have stated that any refunds will be netted against unpaid amounts owed to the respective parties and the Company does not believe that refunds would exceed unpaid amounts owed to the Company. Pacific Northwest Refund Proceeding In July 2001, the FERC initiated a preliminary evidentiary hearing to develop a factual record as to whether prices for spot market sales of wholesale energy in the Pacific Northwest between December 25, 2000 and June 20, 2001 were just and reasonable. In June 2003, the FERC terminated the Pacific Northwest refund proceedings, after finding that the equities do not justify the imposition of refunds. In August 2007, the Ninth Circuit found that the FERC, in denying the request for refunds, had failed to take into account new evidence of market manipulation in the California energy market and its potential ties to the Pacific Northwest energy market and that such failure was arbitrary and capricious and, accordingly, remanded the case to the FERC, stating that the FERC's findings must be reevaluated in light of the evidence. In addition, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the FERC abused its discretion in denying potential relief for transactions involving energy that was purchased by California Energy Resources Scheduling (CERS) in the Pacific Northwest and ultimately consumed in California. The Ninth Circuit expressly declined to direct the FERC to grant refunds. The Ninth Circuit denied petitions for rehearing by various parties, and remanded the case to the FERC in April 2009. On October 3, 2011, the FERC issued an Order on Remand, finding that, in light of the Ninth Circuit's remand order, additional procedures are needed to address possible unlawful activity that may have influenced prices in the Pacific Northwest spot market during the period from December 25, 2000 through June 20, 2001. The Order on Remand establishes an evidentiary, trial-type hearing before an ALJ, and reopens the record to permit parties to present evidence of unlawful market activity. The Order on Remand also allows participants to supplement the record with additional evidence on CERS transactions in the Pacific Northwest spot market from January 18, 2001 to June 20, 2001. The Order on Remand states that parties seeking refunds must submit evidence demonstrating that specific unlawful market activity occurred, and must demonstrate that such activity directly affected negotiations with respect to the specific contract rate about which they complain. Simply alleging a general link between the dysfunctional spot market in California and the Pacific Northwest spot market will not be sufficient to establish a causal connection between a particular seller's alleged unlawful activities and the specific contract negotiations at issue. On July 11, 2012, Avista Energy and Avista Utilities filed settlements of all issues in this docket with regard to the claims made by the City of Tacoma. On September 21, 2012, and September 26, 2012, the FERC issued orders approving the settlements between the City of Tacoma and Avista Utilities and Avista Energy, respectively, thus terminating those claims. The two remaining direct claimants against Avista Utilities and Avista Energy in this proceeding are the City of Seattle, Washington (Seattle), and the California Attorney General (on behalf of CERS). On April 5, 2013, the FERC issued an Order on Rehearing of the October 3, 2011 Order on Remand. The Order on Rehearing reaffirmed the rulings in the Order on Remand about the scope of the hearing and permissible evidence, rejecting various challenges by the claimants. The Order on Rehearing expanded the temporal scope of the proceeding to permit parties to submit evidence on transactions during the period from January 1, 2000 through and including June 20, 2001. The hearing before an administrative law judge began on August 27, 2013, and concluded on October 24, 2013. The parties’ initial post-hearing briefs are due on December 16, 2013, and their reply briefs are due on January 28, 2014. The ALJ’s initial decision is anticipated on or before March 18, 2014. On April 11, 2013, the California Parties filed a petition for review of the October 3, 2011 Order on Remand and the April 5, 2013 Order on Rehearing, in the Ninth Circuit. Seattle filed a petition for review of the same orders on April 26, 2013. On May 22, 2013, the Ninth Circuit issued an order consolidating the California Parties' and Seattle's petitions for review with respect to the Order on Remand and the Order on Rehearing. Both Avista Utilities and Avista Energy were buyers and sellers of energy in the Pacific Northwest energy market during the period between January 1, 2000 and June 20, 2001, and are subject to potential claims in this proceeding. If refunds are ordered by the FERC with regard to any particular contract, Avista Utilities and Avista Energy could be liable to make payments. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding or the amount of any refunds that Avista Utilities or Avista Energy could be ordered to make. Therefore, the Company cannot predict the potential impact the outcome of this matter could ultimately have on the Company's results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. California Attorney General Complaint (the “Lockyer Complaint”) In May 2002, the FERC conditionally dismissed a complaint filed in March 2002 by the California AG that alleged violations of the FPA by the FERC and all sellers (including Avista Corp. and its subsidiaries) of electric power and energy into California. The complaint alleged that the FERC's adoption and implementation of market-based rate authority was flawed and, as a result, individual sellers should refund the difference between the rate charged and a just and reasonable rate. In May 2002, the FERC issued an order dismissing the complaint. In September 2004, the Ninth Circuit upheld the FERC's market-based rate authority, but held that the FERC erred in ruling that it lacked authority to order refunds for violations of its reporting requirement. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. In March 2008, the FERC issued an order establishing a trial-type hearing to address “whether any individual public utility seller's violation of the FERC's market-based rate quarterly reporting requirement led to an unjust and unreasonable rate for that particular seller in California during the 2000-2001 period.” Purchasers in the California markets were given the opportunity to present evidence that “any seller that violated the quarterly reporting requirement failed to disclose an increased market share sufficient to give it the ability to exercise market power and thus cause its market-based rates to be unjust and unreasonable.” In March 2010, the Presiding ALJ granted the motions for summary disposition and found that a hearing was “unnecessary” because the California AG, CPUC, PG&E and SCE “failed to apply the appropriate test to determine market power during the relevant time period.” The judge determined that “[w]ithout a proper showing of market power, the California Parties failed to establish a prima facie case.” In May 2011, the FERC affirmed “in all respects” the ALJ's decision. In June 2011, the California AG, CPUC, PG&E and SCE filed for rehearing of that order. Those rehearing requests were denied by the FERC on June 13, 2012. On June 20, 2012, the California AG, CPUC, PG&E and SCE filed a petition for review of the FERC's order with the Ninth Circuit. Based on information currently known to the Company's management, the Company does not expect that this matter will have a material effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Colstrip Generating Project - Complaint Alleging Water Pollution In March 2007, two families that own property near the holding ponds from Units 3 & 4 of the Colstrip Generating Project (Colstrip) filed a complaint against the owners of Colstrip and Hydrometrics, Inc. in Montana District Court. Avista Corp. owns a 15 percent interest in Units 3 & 4 of Colstrip. The plaintiffs alleged that the holding ponds and remediation activities adversely impacted their property. They alleged contamination, decrease in water tables, reduced flow of streams on their property and other similar impacts to their property. They also sought punitive damages, attorneys' fees, an order by the court to remove certain ponds, and the forfeiture of profits earned from the generation of Colstrip. In September 2010, the owners of Colstrip filed a motion with the court to enforce a settlement agreement that would resolve all issues between the parties. In October 2011 the court issued an order which enforces the settlement agreement. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the court's decision and, on December 31, 2012, the Montana Supreme Court issued its decision, holding that the District Court properly granted the motion to enforce the settlement agreement. A petition for rehearing before the Supreme Court was denied on February 5, 2013. A motion to dismiss the case was approved by the court. Under the settlement, Avista Corp.'s portion of payment (which was accrued in 2010) to the plaintiffs was not material to its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Sierra Club and Montana Environmental Information Center Litigation On March 6, 2013, the Sierra Club and Montana Environmental Information Center (MEIC) (collectively "Plaintiffs"), filed a Complaint (Complaint) in the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Billings Division, against the owners of the Colstrip Generating Project (Colstrip). Avista Corp. owns a 15 percent interest in Units 3 & 4 of Colstrip. The other Colstrip co-owners are PPL Montana, Puget Sound Energy, Portland General Electric Company, NorthWestern Energy and PacifiCorp. The Complaint alleges certain violations of the Clean Air Act, including the New Source Review, Title V and opacity requirements. The Plaintiffs request that the Court grant injunctive and declaratory relief, impose civil penalties, require a beneficial environmental project in the areas affected by the alleged air pollution and require payment of Plaintiffs' costs of litigation and attorney fees. On May 3, 2013, the Colstrip owners and operator filed a partial motion to dismiss, seeking dismissal of 36 of the 39 claims. The Plaintiffs filed their opposition on May 31, 2013, and the owners and operator filed their reply on June 21, 2013. On July 17, 2013, the Court held a preliminary pretrial conference, and on July 18, 2013, the Court issued an Order establishing a procedural schedule and deadlines. On September 12, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed Plaintiffs’ First Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Applicable Method for Calculating Emission Increases from Modifications Made to the Colstrip Power Plant. The Colstrip Owners and Operator Response is due on November 15, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint withdrew from the original Complaint fifteen claims related to seven pre-January 1, 2001 Colstrip projects, and claims alleging violations of Title V and opacity requirements. The Amended Complaint alleges certain violations of the Clean Air Act and the New Source Review; and adds claims with respect to post-January 1, 2001 Colstrip projects. The Plaintiffs request that the Court grant injunctive and declaratory relief, order remediation of alleged environmental damage, impose civil penalties, require a beneficial environmental project in the areas affected by the alleged air pollution and require payment of Plaintiffs’ costs of litigation and attorney fees. On October 11, 2013, the Colstrip owners and operator filed a motion to dismiss, seeking dismissal of all of Plaintiffs' claims contained in the Amended Complaint. Due to the preliminary nature of the lawsuit, Avista Corporation cannot, at this time, predict the outcome of the matter. Spokane River Licensing The Company owns and operates six hydroelectric plants on the Spokane River. Five of these (Long Lake, Nine Mile, Upper Falls, Monroe Street, and Post Falls) are regulated under one 50-year FERC license issued in June 2009 and are referred to as the Spokane River Project. The sixth, Little Falls, is operated under separate Congressional authority and is not licensed by the FERC. The license incorporated the 4(e) conditions that were included in the December 2008 Settlement Agreement with the United States Department of Interior and the Coeur d’Alene Tribe, as well as the mandatory conditions that were agreed to in the Idaho 401 Water Quality Certifications and in the amended Washington 401 Water Quality Certification. As part of the Settlement Agreement with the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), the Company has participated in the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process for the Spokane River and Lake Spokane, the reservoir created by Long Lake Dam. On May 20, 2010, the EPA approved the TMDL and on May 27, 2010, Ecology filed an amended 401 Water Quality Certification with the FERC for inclusion into the license. The amended 401 Water Quality Certification includes the Company's level of responsibility, as defined in the TMDL, for low dissolved oxygen levels in Lake Spokane. The Company submitted a draft Water Quality Attainment Plan for Dissolved Oxygen to Ecology in May 2012 and this was approved by Ecology in September 2012. This plan was subsequently approved by the FERC. The Company will begin to implement this plan, and management believes costs will not be material. On July 16, 2010, the City of Post Falls and the Hayden Area Regional Sewer Board filed an appeal with the United States District Court for the District of Idaho with respect to the EPA's approval of the TMDL. The Company, the City of Coeur d'Alene, Kaiser Aluminum and the Spokane River Keeper subsequently moved to intervene in the appeal. In September 2011, the EPA issued a stay to the litigation that will be in effect until either the permits are issued and all appeals and challenges are complete or the court lifts the stay. The stay is still in effect. During 2013, through a collaborative process with key stakeholders, a decision was reached to not move forward with a specific capital project to add oxygen to Lake Spokane. At the time of such decision, the Company had expended $1.3 million on the discontinued project. On September 26, 2013 and October 23, 2013, the UTC and IPUC, respectively issued Orders approving the Company's petition for an accounting order authorizing deferral of costs related to the discontinued project. The Washington portion of the project costs were $0.9 million and this amount has been recorded as a regulatory asset until the next general rate case. The Idaho portion of the costs of $0.4 million will be recorded as a regulatory asset during the fourth quarter of 2013 and will be included in the next general rate case. The Company will address the prudence and recovery of these costs in the next Washington and Idaho general rate cases, expected to be filed in 2014. The UTC and IPUC approved the recovery of licensing costs through the general rate case settlements in 2009. The Company will continue to seek recovery, through the ratemaking process, of all operating and capitalized costs related to implementing the license for the Spokane River Project. Cabinet Gorge Total Dissolved Gas Abatement Plan Dissolved atmospheric gas levels in the Clark Fork River exceed state of Idaho and federal water quality standards downstream of the Cabinet Gorge Hydroelectric Generating Project (Cabinet Gorge) during periods when excess river flows must be diverted over the spillway. Under the terms of the Clark Fork Settlement Agreement 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. In the second quarter of 2011, the Company completed preliminary feasibility assessments for several alternative abatement measures. In 2012, Avista Corp., with the approval of the Clark Fork Management Committee (created under the Clark Fork Settlement Agreement), moved forward to test one of the alternatives by constructing a spill crest modification on a single spill gate. Based on testing in 2013, the modification appears to provide significant Total Dissolved Gas reduction. Further evaluation and design improvements are underway prior to applying this approach to other spill gates. The Company will continue to seek recovery, through the ratemaking process, of all operating and capitalized costs related to this issue. Fish Passage at Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids In 1999, the USFWS listed bull trout as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The Clark Fork Settlement Agreement describes programs intended to help restore bull trout populations in the project area. Using the concept of adaptive management and working closely with the USFWS, the Company evaluated the feasibility of fish passage at Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids. The results of these studies led, in part, to the decision to move forward with development of permanent facilities, among other bull trout enhancement efforts. Fishway designs for Cabinet Gorge are still being finalized. Construction cost estimates and schedules will be developed after several remaining issues are resolved, related to Montana's approval of fish transport from Idaho and expected minimum discharge requirements. Fishway design for Noxon Rapids has also been initiated, and is still in early stages. In January 2010, the USFWS revised its 2005 designation of critical habitat for the bull trout to include the lower Clark Fork River as critical habitat. The Company believes its ongoing efforts through the Clark Fork Settlement Agreement continue to effectively address issues related to bull trout. The Company will continue to seek recovery, through the ratemaking process, of all operating and capitalized costs related to fish passage at Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids. 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.

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’ operations, the Company intends to seek, to the extent appropriate, recovery of incurred costs through the ratemaking process.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Inquiry

In April 2004, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved the contested Agreement in Resolution of Section 206 Proceeding (Agreement in Resolution) between Avista Corp. doing business as Avista Utilities, Avista Energy and the FERC's Trial Staff which stated that there was: (1) no evidence that any executives or employees of Avista Utilities or Avista Energy knowingly engaged in or facilitated any improper trading strategy during 2000 and 2001; (2) no evidence that Avista Utilities or Avista Energy engaged in any efforts to manipulate the western energy markets during 2000 and 2001; and (3) no finding that Avista Utilities or Avista Energy withheld relevant information from the FERC's inquiry into the western energy markets for 2000 and 2001 (Trading Investigation). Pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) are petitions of the Attorney General of the State of California (California AG) and the California Electricity Oversight Board challenging FERC's decisions approving the Agreement in Resolution. In May 2004, the FERC provided notice that Avista Energy was no longer subject to an investigation reviewing certain bids above $250 per MW in the short-term energy markets operated by the California Independent System Operator (CalISO) and the California Power Exchange (CalPX) from May 1, 2000 to October 2, 2000 (Bidding Investigation). That matter is also pending before the Ninth Circuit, after the California AG, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) filed petitions for review in 2005.

Based on the FERC's order approving the Agreement in Resolution in the Trading Investigation and order denying rehearing requests, the Company does not expect that this proceeding will have any material effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Furthermore, based on information currently known to the Company regarding the Bidding Investigation and the fact that the FERC Staff did not find any evidence of manipulative behavior, the Company does not expect that this matter will have a material effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

California Refund Proceeding

In July 2001, the FERC ordered an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of refunds due to California energy buyers for purchases made in the spot markets operated by the CalISO and the CalPX during the period from October 2, 2000 to June 20, 2001 (Refund Period). Proposed refunds are based on the calculation of mitigated market clearing prices for each hour. The FERC ruled that if the refunds required by the formula would cause a seller to recover less than its actual costs for the Refund Period, sellers may document these costs and limit their refund liability commensurately. In September 2005, Avista Energy submitted its cost filing claim pursuant to the FERC's August 2005 order. The filing was initially accepted by the FERC, but in March 2011, the FERC ordered Avista Energy to remove any return on equity in a compliance filing with the CalISO, which Avista Energy did in April 2011. A challenge to Avista Energy's cost filing by the California AG, the CPUC, PG&E and SCE was denied in July 2011 as a collateral attack on the FERC's prior orders accepting Avista Energy's cost filing. In July 2011, the California AG, the CPUC, PG&E and SCE filed a petition for review of the FERC's orders regarding Avista Energy's cost filing with the Ninth Circuit.

The 2001 bankruptcy of PG&E resulted in a default on its payment obligations to the CalPX. As a result, Avista Energy has not been paid for all of its energy sales during the Refund Period. Those funds are now in escrow accounts and will not be released until the FERC issues an order directing such release in the California refund proceeding. As of September 30, 2013, Avista Energy's accounts receivable outstanding related to defaulting parties in California were fully offset by reserves for uncollected amounts and funds collected from the defaulting parties.

In August 2006, the Ninth Circuit upheld October 2, 2000 as the refund effective date for the FPA section 206 refund proceeding, but remanded to the FERC its decision not to consider an FPA section 309 remedy for tariff violations prior to that date. In an order issued in May 2011, the FERC clarified the issues set for hearing for the period May 1, 2000 - October 1, 2000 (Summer Period): (1) which market practices and behaviors constitute a violation of the then-current CalISO, CalPX, and individual seller's tariffs and FERC orders; (2) whether any of the sellers named as respondents in this proceeding engaged in those tariff violations; and (3) whether any such tariff violations affected the market clearing price. The FERC also gave the California Parties an opportunity to show that exchange transactions with the CalISO during the Refund Period were not just and reasonable. Avista Energy had one exchange transaction with the CalISO during the Refund Period. The California AG, the CPUC, PG&E and SCE filed for rehearing of the FERC's May 2011 order, arguing that it improperly denies them a market-wide remedy for the pre-refund period. That request for rehearing was denied in an order issued by the FERC on November 2, 2012. The California AG, the CPUC, PG&E and SCE filed a petition for review of the May 2011 and November 2012 orders with the Ninth Circuit on November 7, 2012.

A FERC hearing commenced on April 11, 2012 and concluded on July 19, 2012. On August 27, 2012, the Presiding Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a partial initial decision granting Avista Utilities' motion for summary disposition, based on the stipulation by the California Parties that there are no allegations of tariff violations made against Avista Utilities in this proceeding and therefore no tariff violations by Avista Utilities that affected the market clearing price in any hour during the Summer Period. On November 2, 2012, the FERC issued an order affirming the partial initial decision and dismissing Avista Utilities from the proceeding, thereby terminating all claims against Avista Utilities for the Summer Period. In the same order, the FERC also held that a market-wide remedy would not be appropriate with regard to any respondent during the Summer Period. The FERC stated that it is clear that the Ninth Circuit did not mandate a specific remedy on remand and, instead, left it to the FERC's discretion to determine which remedy would be appropriate. On December 3, 2012, the California Parties filed a request for clarification and rehearing of the November 2, 2012 order. On February 15, 2013, the ALJ issued an initial decision finding that certain Respondents committed various tariff and other violations that affected the market clearing price in the California organized markets during the Summer Period. The tariff violations identified for Avista Energy are type II and III bidding violations; false export violations; and selling ancillary services without market-based rate authority. The initial decision did not discuss evidence offered by Avista Energy, on an hour-by-hour basis, rebutting the alleged violations. With respect to Avista Energy's one exchange transaction with the CalISO during the Refund Period, the judge made no findings with respect to the justness and reasonableness of that transaction, but nonetheless determined that Avista Energy owed approximately $0.2 million in refunds with regard to the transaction. Avista Energy filed its brief on exceptions to the initial decision on April 12, 2013. The California AG, the CPUC, PG&E and SCE filed a brief opposing exceptions on June 7, 2013.

Because the resolution of the California refund proceeding remains uncertain, legal counsel cannot express an opinion on the extent of the Company's liability, if any. However, based on information currently known, the Company does not expect that the refunds ultimately ordered for the Refund Period would result in a material loss. In the event that the Commission does not overturn the legal and factual errors in the February 15, 2013 initial decision, the Company does not expect that the refunds ultimately ordered for that period would result in a material loss either. This is primarily due to the fact that the FERC orders have stated that any refunds will be netted against unpaid amounts owed to the respective parties and the Company does not believe that refunds would exceed unpaid amounts owed to the Company.

Pacific Northwest Refund Proceeding

In July 2001, the FERC initiated a preliminary evidentiary hearing to develop a factual record as to whether prices for spot market sales of wholesale energy in the Pacific Northwest between December 25, 2000 and June 20, 2001 were just and reasonable. In June 2003, the FERC terminated the Pacific Northwest refund proceedings, after finding that the equities do not justify the imposition of refunds. In August 2007, the Ninth Circuit found that the FERC, in denying the request for refunds, had failed to take into account new evidence of market manipulation in the California energy market and its potential ties to the Pacific Northwest energy market and that such failure was arbitrary and capricious and, accordingly, remanded the case to the FERC, stating that the FERC's findings must be reevaluated in light of the evidence. In addition, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the FERC abused its discretion in denying potential relief for transactions involving energy that was purchased by California Energy Resources Scheduling (CERS) in the Pacific Northwest and ultimately consumed in California. The Ninth Circuit expressly declined to direct the FERC to grant refunds. The Ninth Circuit denied petitions for rehearing by various parties, and remanded the case to the FERC in April 2009.

On October 3, 2011, the FERC issued an Order on Remand, finding that, in light of the Ninth Circuit's remand order, additional procedures are needed to address possible unlawful activity that may have influenced prices in the Pacific Northwest spot market during the period from December 25, 2000 through June 20, 2001. The Order on Remand establishes an evidentiary, trial-type hearing before an ALJ, and reopens the record to permit parties to present evidence of unlawful market activity. The Order on Remand also allows participants to supplement the record with additional evidence on CERS transactions in the Pacific Northwest spot market from January 18, 2001 to June 20, 2001. The Order on Remand states that parties seeking refunds must submit evidence demonstrating that specific unlawful market activity occurred, and must demonstrate that such activity directly affected negotiations with respect to the specific contract rate about which they complain. Simply alleging a general link between the dysfunctional spot market in California and the Pacific Northwest spot market will not be sufficient to establish a causal connection between a particular seller's alleged unlawful activities and the specific contract negotiations at issue.

On July 11, 2012, Avista Energy and Avista Utilities filed settlements of all issues in this docket with regard to the claims made by the City of Tacoma. On September 21, 2012, and September 26, 2012, the FERC issued orders approving the settlements between the City of Tacoma and Avista Utilities and Avista Energy, respectively, thus terminating those claims. The two remaining direct claimants against Avista Utilities and Avista Energy in this proceeding are the City of Seattle, Washington (Seattle), and the California Attorney General (on behalf of CERS).

On April 5, 2013, the FERC issued an Order on Rehearing of the October 3, 2011 Order on Remand. The Order on Rehearing reaffirmed the rulings in the Order on Remand about the scope of the hearing and permissible evidence, rejecting various challenges by the claimants. The Order on Rehearing expanded the temporal scope of the proceeding to permit parties to submit evidence on transactions during the period from January 1, 2000 through and including June 20, 2001.

The hearing before an administrative law judge began on August 27, 2013, and concluded on October 24, 2013. The parties’ initial post-hearing briefs are due on December 16, 2013, and their reply briefs are due on January 28, 2014. The ALJ’s initial decision is anticipated on or before March 18, 2014.

On April 11, 2013, the California Parties filed a petition for review of the October 3, 2011 Order on Remand and the April 5, 2013 Order on Rehearing, in the Ninth Circuit. Seattle filed a petition for review of the same orders on April 26, 2013. On May 22, 2013, the Ninth Circuit issued an order consolidating the California Parties' and Seattle's petitions for review with respect to the Order on Remand and the Order on Rehearing.

Both Avista Utilities and Avista Energy were buyers and sellers of energy in the Pacific Northwest energy market during the period between January 1, 2000 and June 20, 2001, and are subject to potential claims in this proceeding. If refunds are ordered by the FERC with regard to any particular contract, Avista Utilities and Avista Energy could be liable to make payments. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding or the amount of any refunds that Avista Utilities or Avista Energy could be ordered to make. Therefore, the Company cannot predict the potential impact the outcome of this matter could ultimately have on the Company's results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

California Attorney General Complaint (the “Lockyer Complaint”)

In May 2002, the FERC conditionally dismissed a complaint filed in March 2002 by the California AG that alleged violations of the FPA by the FERC and all sellers (including Avista Corp. and its subsidiaries) of electric power and energy into California. The complaint alleged that the FERC's adoption and implementation of market-based rate authority was flawed and, as a result, individual sellers should refund the difference between the rate charged and a just and reasonable rate. In May 2002, the FERC issued an order dismissing the complaint. In September 2004, the Ninth Circuit upheld the FERC's market-based rate authority, but held that the FERC erred in ruling that it lacked authority to order refunds for violations of its reporting requirement. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

In March 2008, the FERC issued an order establishing a trial-type hearing to address “whether any individual public utility seller's violation of the FERC's market-based rate quarterly reporting requirement led to an unjust and unreasonable rate for that particular seller in California during the 2000-2001 period.” Purchasers in the California markets were given the opportunity to present evidence that “any seller that violated the quarterly reporting requirement failed to disclose an increased market share sufficient to give it the ability to exercise market power and thus cause its market-based rates to be unjust and unreasonable.” In March 2010, the Presiding ALJ granted the motions for summary disposition and found that a hearing was “unnecessary” because the California AG, CPUC, PG&E and SCE “failed to apply the appropriate test to determine market power during the relevant time period.” The judge determined that “[w]ithout a proper showing of market power, the California Parties failed to establish a prima facie case.” In May 2011, the FERC affirmed “in all respects” the ALJ's decision. In June 2011, the California AG, CPUC, PG&E and SCE filed for rehearing of that order. Those rehearing requests were denied by the FERC on June 13, 2012. On June 20, 2012, the California AG, CPUC, PG&E and SCE filed a petition for review of the FERC's order with the Ninth Circuit.

Based on information currently known to the Company's management, the Company does not expect that this matter will have a material effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Colstrip Generating Project - Complaint Alleging Water Pollution

In March 2007, two families that own property near the holding ponds from Units 3 & 4 of the Colstrip Generating Project (Colstrip) filed a complaint against the owners of Colstrip and Hydrometrics, Inc. in Montana District Court. Avista Corp. owns a 15 percent interest in Units 3 & 4 of Colstrip. The plaintiffs alleged that the holding ponds and remediation activities adversely impacted their property. They alleged contamination, decrease in water tables, reduced flow of streams on their property and other similar impacts to their property. They also sought punitive damages, attorneys' fees, an order by the court to remove certain ponds, and the forfeiture of profits earned from the generation of Colstrip. In September 2010, the owners of Colstrip filed a motion with the court to enforce a settlement agreement that would resolve all issues between the parties. In October 2011 the court issued an order which enforces the settlement agreement. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the court's decision and, on December 31, 2012, the Montana Supreme Court issued its decision, holding that the District Court properly granted the motion to enforce the settlement agreement. A petition for rehearing before the Supreme Court was denied on February 5, 2013. A motion to dismiss the case was approved by the court. Under the settlement, Avista Corp.'s portion of payment (which was accrued in 2010) to the plaintiffs was not material to its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Sierra Club and Montana Environmental Information Center Litigation

On March 6, 2013, the Sierra Club and Montana Environmental Information Center (MEIC) (collectively "Plaintiffs"), filed a Complaint (Complaint) in the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Billings Division, against the owners of the Colstrip Generating Project (Colstrip). Avista Corp. owns a 15 percent interest in Units 3 & 4 of Colstrip. The other Colstrip co-owners are PPL Montana, Puget Sound Energy, Portland General Electric Company, NorthWestern Energy and PacifiCorp. The Complaint alleges certain violations of the Clean Air Act, including the New Source Review, Title V and opacity requirements. The Plaintiffs request that the Court grant injunctive and declaratory relief, impose civil penalties, require a beneficial environmental project in the areas affected by the alleged air pollution and require payment of Plaintiffs' costs of litigation and attorney fees.

On May 3, 2013, the Colstrip owners and operator filed a partial motion to dismiss, seeking dismissal of 36 of the 39 claims. The Plaintiffs filed their opposition on May 31, 2013, and the owners and operator filed their reply on June 21, 2013. On July 17, 2013, the Court held a preliminary pretrial conference, and on July 18, 2013, the Court issued an Order establishing a procedural schedule and deadlines.

On September 12, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed Plaintiffs’ First Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Applicable Method for Calculating Emission Increases from Modifications Made to the Colstrip Power Plant. The Colstrip Owners and Operator Response is due on November 15, 2013.

On September 27, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint withdrew from the original Complaint fifteen claims related to seven pre-January 1, 2001 Colstrip projects, and claims alleging violations of Title V and opacity requirements. The Amended Complaint alleges certain violations of the Clean Air Act and the New Source Review; and adds claims with respect to post-January 1, 2001 Colstrip projects. The Plaintiffs request that the Court grant injunctive and declaratory relief, order remediation of alleged environmental damage, impose civil penalties, require a beneficial environmental project in the areas affected by the alleged air pollution and require payment of Plaintiffs’ costs of litigation and attorney fees.

On October 11, 2013, the Colstrip owners and operator filed a motion to dismiss, seeking dismissal of all of Plaintiffs' claims contained in the Amended Complaint. Due to the preliminary nature of the lawsuit, Avista Corporation cannot, at this time, predict the outcome of the matter.

Spokane River Licensing

The Company owns and operates six hydroelectric plants on the Spokane River. Five of these (Long Lake, Nine Mile, Upper Falls, Monroe Street, and Post Falls) are regulated under one 50-year FERC license issued in June 2009 and are referred to as the Spokane River Project. The sixth, Little Falls, is operated under separate Congressional authority and is not licensed by the FERC. The license incorporated the 4(e) conditions that were included in the December 2008 Settlement Agreement with the United States Department of Interior and the Coeur d’Alene Tribe, as well as the mandatory conditions that were agreed to in the Idaho 401 Water Quality Certifications and in the amended Washington 401 Water Quality Certification.

As part of the Settlement Agreement with the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), the Company has participated in the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process for the Spokane River and Lake Spokane, the reservoir created by Long Lake Dam. On May 20, 2010, the EPA approved the TMDL and on May 27, 2010, Ecology filed an amended 401 Water Quality Certification with the FERC for inclusion into the license. The amended 401 Water Quality Certification includes the Company's level of responsibility, as defined in the TMDL, for low dissolved oxygen levels in Lake Spokane. The Company submitted a draft Water Quality Attainment Plan for Dissolved Oxygen to Ecology in May 2012 and this was approved by Ecology in September 2012. This plan was subsequently approved by the FERC. The Company will begin to implement this plan, and management believes costs will not be material. On July 16, 2010, the City of Post Falls and the Hayden Area Regional Sewer Board filed an appeal with the United States District Court for the District of Idaho with respect to the EPA's approval of the TMDL. The Company, the City of Coeur d'Alene, Kaiser Aluminum and the Spokane River Keeper subsequently moved to intervene in the appeal. In September 2011, the EPA issued a stay to the litigation that will be in effect until either the permits are issued and all appeals and challenges are complete or the court lifts the stay. The stay is still in effect.

During 2013, through a collaborative process with key stakeholders, a decision was reached to not move forward with a specific capital project to add oxygen to Lake Spokane. At the time of such decision, the Company had expended $1.3 million on the discontinued project. On September 26, 2013 and October 23, 2013, the UTC and IPUC, respectively issued Orders approving the Company's petition for an accounting order authorizing deferral of costs related to the discontinued project. The Washington portion of the project costs were $0.9 million and this amount has been recorded as a regulatory asset until the next general rate case. The Idaho portion of the costs of $0.4 million will be recorded as a regulatory asset during the fourth quarter of 2013 and will be included in the next general rate case. The Company will address the prudence and recovery of these costs in the next Washington and Idaho general rate cases, expected to be filed in 2014.

The UTC and IPUC approved the recovery of licensing costs through the general rate case settlements in 2009. The Company will continue to seek recovery, through the ratemaking process, of all operating and capitalized costs related to implementing the license for the Spokane River Project.

Cabinet Gorge Total Dissolved Gas Abatement Plan

Dissolved atmospheric gas levels in the Clark Fork River exceed state of Idaho and federal water quality standards downstream of the Cabinet Gorge Hydroelectric Generating Project (Cabinet Gorge) during periods when excess river flows must be diverted over the spillway. Under the terms of the Clark Fork Settlement Agreement 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. In the second quarter of 2011, the Company completed preliminary feasibility assessments for several alternative abatement measures. In 2012, Avista Corp., with the approval of the Clark Fork Management Committee (created under the Clark Fork Settlement Agreement), moved forward to test one of the alternatives by constructing a spill crest modification on a single spill gate. Based on testing in 2013, the modification appears to provide significant Total Dissolved Gas reduction. Further evaluation and design improvements are underway prior to applying this approach to other spill gates. The Company will continue to seek recovery, through the ratemaking process, of all operating and capitalized costs related to this issue.

Fish Passage at Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids

In 1999, the USFWS listed bull trout as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The Clark Fork Settlement Agreement describes programs intended to help restore bull trout populations in the project area. Using the concept of adaptive management and working closely with the USFWS, the Company evaluated the feasibility of fish passage at Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids. The results of these studies led, in part, to the decision to move forward with development of permanent facilities, among other bull trout enhancement efforts. Fishway designs for Cabinet Gorge are still being finalized. Construction cost estimates and schedules will be developed after several remaining issues are resolved, related to Montana's approval of fish transport from Idaho and expected minimum discharge requirements. Fishway design for Noxon Rapids has also been initiated, and is still in early stages.

In January 2010, the USFWS revised its 2005 designation of critical habitat for the bull trout to include the lower Clark Fork River as critical habitat. The Company believes its ongoing efforts through the Clark Fork Settlement Agreement continue to effectively address issues related to bull trout. The Company will continue to seek recovery, through the ratemaking process, of all operating and capitalized costs related to fish passage at Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids.

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.