Commitments And Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
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) 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). 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 energy markets operated by the California Independent System Operator (CalISO) and the California Power Exchange (CalPX)(Bidding Investigation). Appeals of the FERC’s decisions are pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit). On March 7, 2014, Avista Utilities and Avista Energy filed at FERC a settlement with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, the California Attorney General (AG), the California Department of Water Resources (CERS), and the California Public Utilities Commission (together, the “California Parties”) that resolves both the Trading Investigation and the Bidding Investigation. The settlement was approved by the FERC and is final so there is no longer any potential liability. 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). Petitions for review of the FERC’s decisions are still pending in the Ninth Circuit. In August 2006, the Ninth Circuit remanded to the FERC its decision not to consider a Federal Power Act (FPA) section 309 remedy for tariff violations prior to October 2, 2000. During the FERC hearing on the remand in 2012, the Presiding Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a partial initial decision granting Avista Utilities' motion for summary disposition. On November 2, 2012, the FERC issued an order affirming the partial initial decision and dismissing Avista Utilities from the proceeding. On February 15, 2013, the ALJ issued an Initial Decision that may have subjected Avista Energy to additional refund liability. Exceptions to the Initial Decision were filed and are pending before the FERC. On March 7, 2014, Avista Utilities, Avista Energy and the California Parties filed a settlement at the FERC that fully resolved these matters. Because Avista Energy had not been paid for all of its sales during the Refund Period, substantial funds have been held in escrow accounts pending resolution of this proceeding. The settlement returned $15.0 million of Avista Energy’s receivable to Avista Energy, with the balance of the Avista Energy receivable flowing to the purchasers associated with the hourly transactions at issue. The settlement funds were received on June 23, 2014 and recorded as a reduction to other operating expenses within the non-utility operating expenses section of the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income. There is no admission of wrongdoing on the part of the settling parties and no part of the refund payment by Avista Energy constitutes a fine or a penalty. The settlement resolves all claims for alleged overcharges in the California Refund Proceeding, and in the Pacific Northwest Refund Proceeding (for sales made to CERS). The settlement also includes settlement of the Trading Investigation, the Bidding Investigation and the California Attorney General Complaint (the "Lockyer Complaint"). The settlement was approved by the FERC and is final so there is no longer any potential liability. California Attorney General Complaint (the “Lockyer Complaint”) In May 2002, the FERC 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 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, which ultimately resulted in summary disposition at the FERC in favor of Avista Utilities and Avista Energy. The proceeding is now before the Ninth Circuit. On March 7, 2014, Avista Utilities, Avista Energy and the California Parties filed a settlement at the FERC that resolves this matter. The settlement was approved by the FERC and is final so there is no longer any potential liability. Pacific Northwest Refund Proceeding In July 2001, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “Commission”) 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 had failed to take into account new evidence of market manipulation 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 new evidence. The Ninth Circuit expressly declined to direct the FERC to grant refunds. On October 3, 2011, the FERC issued an Order on Remand. On April 5, 2013, the FERC issued an Order on Rehearing expanding 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 Order on Remand established an evidentiary, trial-type hearing before an ALJ, and reopened the record to permit parties to present evidence of unlawful market activity. The Order on Remand stated 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 would not be sufficient to establish a causal connection between a particular seller's alleged unlawful activities and the specific contract negotiations at issue. The hearing was conducted in August through October 2013. On July 11, 2012 and March 28, 2013, Avista Energy and Avista Utilities filed settlements of all issues in this docket with regard to the claims made by the City of Tacoma and the California AG (on behalf of CERS). The FERC has approved the settlements and they are final. The remaining direct claimant against Avista Utilities and Avista Energy in this proceeding is the City of Seattle, Washington (Seattle). With regard to the Seattle claims, on March 28, 2014, the Presiding ALJ issued her Initial Decision finding that: 1) Seattle failed to demonstrate that either Avista Utilities or Avista Energy engaged in unlawful market activity and also failed to identify any specific contracts at issue; 2) Seattle failed to demonstrate that contracts with either Avista Utilities or Avista Energy imposed an excessive burden on consumers or seriously harmed the public interest; and that 3) Seattle failed to demonstrate that either Avista Utilities or Avista Energy engaged in any specific violations of substantive provisions of the Federal Power Act or any filed tariffs or rate schedules. Accordingly, the ALJ denied all of Seattle’s claims under both section 206 and section 309 of the Federal Power Act. Briefs on and opposing exceptions have been filed and the Initial Decision is pending before the Commission. The Company does not expect that this matter will have a material adverse effect on 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 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 filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss, seeking dismissal of 36 of the 39 claims. 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. 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 maintenance projects, upgrade projects and work 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. The Colstrip Owners filed a Motion to Dismiss, seeking dismissal of all of Plaintiffs' claims contained in the Amended Complaint. On May 22, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed his Findings and Recommendations as to the motions and recommended that 1) the Colstrip Owners' Motion to Dismiss be granted as to the Plaintiffs' Best Available Control Technology claims and the injunctive relief sought regarding two of the claims, but denied the Motion in all other respects; and 2) the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment be denied. Plaintiffs' have filed Objections to Findings and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge and the Colstrip Owners have filed their response to Plaintiffs' objections. On April 9, 2014, the Court issued an Order revising the Scheduling Order and setting the trial date for June 8, 2015. Due to the preliminary nature of the lawsuit, Avista Corp. 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 began implementing this plan in 2013, 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 the Idaho portion were $0.5 million and these costs have been recorded as regulatory assets. The Company has included the Washington portion of the costs in the latest general rate case filing and the Company currently intends to seek recovery of the Idaho costs through future ratemaking procedures. 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. Ongoing design improvements have been made, and the Company expects to continue spill crest modifications over the next several years, in ongoing consultation with key stakeholders. 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 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (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. Kettle Falls Generation Station - Diesel Spill Investigation and Remediation On December 24, 2013, the Company's operations staff at the Kettle Falls Generation Station discovered that approximately 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel had leaked underground from the piping system used to fuel heavy equipment. Avista Corp. made all proper agency notifications and worked closely with the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) during the spill response and investigation phase. The Company installed ground water monitoring wells and there is no indication that ground or surface water is threatened by the spill. There is no indication from Ecology that Ecology is considering any enforcement action and the Company initiated a voluntary cleanup action with the installation of a recovery system. As of June 30, 2014, the Company has recorded an estimated remediation liability and the Company will continue to monitor the remediation activities and will adjust any estimated remediation liability if necessary as new information is obtained. The Company does not expect that this matter will have a material effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Collective Bargaining Agreements The Company’s collective bargaining agreement with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers represents approximately 45 percent of all of Avista Utilities’ employees. The agreement with the local union in Washington and Idaho representing the majority (approximately 90 percent) of the bargaining unit employees expired in March 2014. A new three-year agreement in Oregon, which covers approximately 50 employees, was approved in April 2014. Negotiations are currently ongoing with respect to the expired labor agreement in Washington and Idaho and the Company does not expect any disruption to its operations. 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) 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). 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 energy markets operated by the California Independent System Operator (CalISO) and the California Power Exchange (CalPX)(Bidding Investigation). Appeals of the FERC’s decisions are pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit).

On March 7, 2014, Avista Utilities and Avista Energy filed at FERC a settlement with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, the California Attorney General (AG), the California Department of Water Resources (CERS), and the California Public Utilities Commission (together, the “California Parties”) that resolves both the Trading Investigation and the Bidding Investigation. The settlement was approved by the FERC and is final so there is no longer any potential liability.

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). Petitions for review of the FERC’s decisions are still pending in the Ninth Circuit. In August 2006, the Ninth Circuit remanded to the FERC its decision not to consider a Federal Power Act (FPA) section 309 remedy for tariff violations prior to October 2, 2000. During the FERC hearing on the remand in 2012, the Presiding Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a partial initial decision granting Avista Utilities' motion for summary disposition. On November 2, 2012, the FERC issued an order affirming the partial initial decision and dismissing Avista Utilities from the proceeding. On February 15, 2013, the ALJ issued an Initial Decision that may have subjected Avista Energy to additional refund liability. Exceptions to the Initial Decision were filed and are pending before the FERC.

On March 7, 2014, Avista Utilities, Avista Energy and the California Parties filed a settlement at the FERC that fully resolved these matters. Because Avista Energy had not been paid for all of its sales during the Refund Period, substantial funds have been held in escrow accounts pending resolution of this proceeding. The settlement returned $15.0 million of Avista Energy’s receivable to Avista Energy, with the balance of the Avista Energy receivable flowing to the purchasers associated with the hourly transactions at issue. The settlement funds were received on June 23, 2014 and recorded as a reduction to other operating expenses within the non-utility operating expenses section of the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income. There is no admission of wrongdoing on the part of the settling parties and no part of the refund payment by Avista Energy constitutes a fine or a penalty. The settlement resolves all claims for alleged overcharges in the California Refund Proceeding, and in the Pacific Northwest Refund Proceeding (for sales made to CERS). The settlement also includes settlement of the Trading Investigation, the Bidding Investigation and the California Attorney General Complaint (the "Lockyer Complaint"). The settlement was approved by the FERC and is final so there is no longer any potential liability.

California Attorney General Complaint (the “Lockyer Complaint”)

In May 2002, the FERC 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 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, which ultimately resulted in summary disposition at the FERC in favor of Avista Utilities and Avista Energy. The proceeding is now before the Ninth Circuit.

On March 7, 2014, Avista Utilities, Avista Energy and the California Parties filed a settlement at the FERC that resolves this matter. The settlement was approved by the FERC and is final so there is no longer any potential liability.

Pacific Northwest Refund Proceeding

In July 2001, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “Commission”) 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 had failed to take into account new evidence of market manipulation 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 new evidence. The Ninth Circuit expressly declined to direct the FERC to grant refunds. On October 3, 2011, the FERC issued an Order on Remand. On April 5, 2013, the FERC issued an Order on Rehearing expanding 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 Order on Remand established an evidentiary, trial-type hearing before an ALJ, and reopened the record to permit parties to present evidence of unlawful market activity. The Order on Remand stated 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 would not be sufficient to establish a causal connection between a particular seller's alleged unlawful activities and the specific contract negotiations at issue. The hearing was conducted in August through October 2013.

On July 11, 2012 and March 28, 2013, Avista Energy and Avista Utilities filed settlements of all issues in this docket with regard to the claims made by the City of Tacoma and the California AG (on behalf of CERS). The FERC has approved the settlements and they are final. The remaining direct claimant against Avista Utilities and Avista Energy in this proceeding is the City of Seattle, Washington (Seattle).

With regard to the Seattle claims, on March 28, 2014, the Presiding ALJ issued her Initial Decision finding that: 1) Seattle failed to demonstrate that either Avista Utilities or Avista Energy engaged in unlawful market activity and also failed to identify any specific contracts at issue; 2) Seattle failed to demonstrate that contracts with either Avista Utilities or Avista Energy imposed an excessive burden on consumers or seriously harmed the public interest; and that 3) Seattle failed to demonstrate that either Avista Utilities or Avista Energy engaged in any specific violations of substantive provisions of the Federal Power Act or any filed tariffs or rate schedules. Accordingly, the ALJ denied all of Seattle’s claims under both section 206 and section 309 of the Federal Power Act. Briefs on and opposing exceptions have been filed and the Initial Decision is pending before the Commission. The Company does not expect that this matter will have a material adverse effect on 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 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 filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss, seeking dismissal of 36 of the 39 claims.

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.

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 maintenance projects, upgrade projects and work 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. The Colstrip Owners filed a Motion to Dismiss, seeking dismissal of all of Plaintiffs' claims contained in the Amended Complaint.

On May 22, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed his Findings and Recommendations as to the motions and recommended that 1) the Colstrip Owners' Motion to Dismiss be granted as to the Plaintiffs' Best Available Control Technology claims and the injunctive relief sought regarding two of the claims, but denied the Motion in all other respects; and 2) the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment be denied.

Plaintiffs' have filed Objections to Findings and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge and the Colstrip Owners have filed their response to Plaintiffs' objections.

On April 9, 2014, the Court issued an Order revising the Scheduling Order and setting the trial date for June 8, 2015.

Due to the preliminary nature of the lawsuit, Avista Corp. 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 began implementing this plan in 2013, 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 the Idaho portion were $0.5 million and these costs have been recorded as regulatory assets. The Company has included the Washington portion of the costs in the latest general rate case filing and the Company currently intends to seek recovery of the Idaho costs through future ratemaking procedures.

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. Ongoing design improvements have been made, and the Company expects to continue spill crest modifications over the next several years, in ongoing consultation with key stakeholders. 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 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (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.

Kettle Falls Generation Station - Diesel Spill Investigation and Remediation

On December 24, 2013, the Company's operations staff at the Kettle Falls Generation Station discovered that approximately 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel had leaked underground from the piping system used to fuel heavy equipment. Avista Corp. made all proper agency notifications and worked closely with the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) during the spill response and investigation phase. The Company installed ground water monitoring wells and there is no indication that ground or surface water is threatened by the spill.

There is no indication from Ecology that Ecology is considering any enforcement action and the Company initiated a voluntary cleanup action with the installation of a recovery system.

As of June 30, 2014, the Company has recorded an estimated remediation liability and the Company will continue to monitor the remediation activities and will adjust any estimated remediation liability if necessary as new information is obtained. The Company does not expect that this matter will have a material effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Collective Bargaining Agreements

The Company’s collective bargaining agreement with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers represents approximately 45 percent of all of Avista Utilities’ employees. The agreement with the local union in Washington and Idaho representing the majority (approximately 90 percent) of the bargaining unit employees expired in March 2014. A new three-year agreement in Oregon, which covers approximately 50 employees, was approved in April 2014. Negotiations are currently ongoing with respect to the expired labor agreement in Washington and Idaho and the Company does not expect any disruption to its operations.

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.