Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES In the course of its business, the Company becomes involved in various claims, controversies, disputes and other contingent matters, including the items described in this Note. Some of these claims, controversies, disputes and other contingent matters involve litigation or other contested proceedings. For all such matters, the Company intends to vigorously protect and defend its interests and pursue its rights. However, no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of any particular matter because litigation and other contested proceedings are inherently subject to numerous uncertainties. For matters that affect Avista Utilities’ or AEL&P's operations, the Company intends to seek, to the extent appropriate, recovery of incurred costs through the ratemaking process. California Refund Proceeding Recently, APX, a market maker in these proceedings in whose markets Avista Energy participated in the summer of 2000, has asserted that Avista Energy and its other customer/participants may be responsible for a share of the disgorgement penalty APX may be found to owe to the California parties. The penalty arises as a result of the FERC finding that APX committed violations in the California market in the summer of 2000. APX is making these assertions despite Avista Energy having been dismissed in FERC Opinion No. 536 from the on-going administrative proceeding at the FERC regarding potential wrongdoing in the California markets in the summer of 2000. APX has identified Avista Energy’s share of APX’s exposure to be as much as $16.0 million even though no wrongdoing allegations are specifically attributable to Avista Energy. Avista Energy believes its settlement insulates it from any such liability and that as a dismissed party it cannot be drawn back into the litigation. Avista Energy intends to vigorously dispute APX’s assertions of indirect liability, but cannot at this time predict the eventual outcome. 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 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 FPA 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 FPA. On May 22, 2015, the FERC issued its Order on Initial Decision in which it upheld the ALJ’s Initial Decision denying all of Seattle’s claims against Avista Utilities and Avista Energy. Seattle filed a Request for Rehearing of the FERC’s Order on Initial Decision which was denied on December 31, 2015. 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 Complaint Against the Owners of Colstrip 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 Talen (formerly 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. 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. On August 27, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint withdraws from the Amended Complaint five claims and adds one new claim. The Second Amended Complaint alleges certain violations of the Clean Air Act and the New Source Review. The Plaintiffs request that the Court grant injunctive and declaratory relief, order remediation of alleged environmental damages, 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 Plaintiffs have since indicated that they do not intend to pursue two of the seven projects, leaving a total of five projects remaining. A number of motions for summary judgment were filed by both the Plaintiffs and the defendants. The Court issued its rulings on these motions and, as a result, only two projects remain for trial. The Plaintiffs have filed objections to the order. The case has been bifurcated into separate liability and remedy trials. The Court has set the liability trial date for May 31, 2016. No date has been set for the remedy trial. Management believes that it is reasonably possible that this matter could result in a loss to the Company. However, due to uncertainties concerning this matter, Avista Corp. cannot predict the outcome or determine whether it would have a material impact on the Company. Cabinet Gorge Total Dissolved Gas Abatement Plan Dissolved atmospheric gas levels (referred to as "TDG") in the Clark Fork River exceed state of Idaho and federal water quality numeric standards downstream of 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. Under the terms of a gas supersaturation mitigation plan, Avista is reducing TDG by constructing spill crest modifications on spill gates at the dam, and the Company expects to continue spill crest modifications over the next several years, in ongoing consultation with key stakeholders. Avista Corp. cannot at this time predict the outcome or estimate a range of costs associated with this contingency; however, 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. In 2010, the USFWS issued a revised designation of critical habitat for bull trout, which includes the lower Clark Fork River. The USFWS issued a final recovery plan in October 2015. 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 have been completed, and the Company is developing construction cost estimates currently. The Company believes its ongoing efforts through the Clark Fork Settlement Agreement continue to effectively address issues related to bull trout. Avista Corp. cannot at this time predict the outcome or estimate a range of costs associated with this contingency; however, 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. Collective Bargaining Agreements The Company’s collective bargaining agreements with the IBEW 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 Avista Utilities' bargaining unit employees expires in March 2016. In October 2015, a new collective bargaining agreement concerning wages over the three-year period 2016 through 2018 was approved by the local IBEW in Washington and Idaho. The new collective bargaining agreement will be effective in March 2016. A three-year agreement in Oregon, which covers approximately 50 employees, expires in March 2017. A collective bargaining agreement with the local union of the IBEW in Alaska expires in March 2017. The collective bargaining agreement with the IBEW in Alaska represents approximately 54 percent of all AERC employees. The remainder of AERC's employees are non-union. There is a risk that if collective bargaining agreements expire and new agreements are not reached in each of our jurisdictions, employees could strike. Given the magnitude of employees that are covered by collective bargaining agreements, this could result in disruptions of our operations. However, the Company believes that the possibility of this occurring is remote. Customer Information and Work Management Systems Project Cost Recovery Over the past four years, Avista Corp. has invested significant capital into Project Compass. Project Compass was completed and went into service during the first quarter of 2015. As part of the Washington electric and natural gas general rate cases filed in February 2015 and the Oregon natural gas general rate case filed in May 2015, Avista Utilities requested the full recovery of the Washington and Oregon share of the costs associated with this project. On July 27, 2015, the UTC Staff in the Company's electric and natural gas general rate cases filed responsive testimony. Included in their testimony was a recommendation to disallow $12.7 million (Washington's share) of Project Compass costs primarily related to the delay in the completion of the project. In a UTC order received in January 2016, the UTC approved the full recovery of Washington's share of Project Compass costs with no disallowances. In October 2015, the OPUC staff filed testimony in the Company's natural gas general rate case which included a recommendation to disallow $1.2 million (Oregon's share) of Project Compass costs, similar to the initial recommendation in Washington. In January 2016, following the January 2016 UTC order approving the full recovery of Washington's share of Project Compass costs, the OPUC staff withdrew its proposal for a disallowance, with the exception of an inconsequential amount which is still open for discussion. 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. The Company routinely assesses, based on studies, expert analyses and legal reviews, its contingencies, obligations and commitments for remediation of contaminated sites, including assessments of ranges and probabilities of recoveries from other responsible parties who either have or have not agreed to a settlement as well as recoveries from insurance carriers. The Company’s policy is to accrue and charge to current expense identified exposures related to environmental remediation sites based on estimates of investigation, cleanup and monitoring costs to be incurred. For matters that affect Avista Utilities’ or AEL&P's operations, the Company seeks, to the extent appropriate, recovery of incurred costs through the ratemaking process. The Company has potential liabilities under the Endangered Species Act for species of fish, plants and wildlife that have either already been added to the endangered species list, listed as “threatened” or petitioned for listing. Thus far, measures adopted and implemented have had minimal impact on the Company. However, the Company will continue to seek recovery, through the ratemaking process, of all operating and capitalized costs related to these issues. Under the federal licenses for its hydroelectric projects, the Company is obligated to protect its property rights, including water rights. In addition, the company holds additional non-hydro water rights. The state of Montana is examining the status of all water right claims within state boundaries through a general adjudication. Claims within the Clark Fork River basin could adversely affect the energy production of the Company’s Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids hydroelectric facilities. The state of Idaho has initiated adjudication in northern Idaho, which will ultimately include the lower Clark Fork River, the Spokane River and the Coeur d’Alene basin. The Company is and will continue to be a participant in these and any other relevant adjudication processes. The complexity of such adjudications makes each unlikely to be concluded in the foreseeable future. As such, it is not possible for the Company to estimate the impact of any outcome at this time. The Company will continue to seek recovery, through the ratemaking process, of all operating and capitalized costs related to this issue.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

In the course of its business, the Company becomes involved in various claims, controversies, disputes and other contingent matters, including the items described in this Note. Some of these claims, controversies, disputes and other contingent matters involve litigation or other contested proceedings. For all such matters, the Company intends to vigorously protect and defend its interests and pursue its rights. However, no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of any particular matter because litigation and other contested proceedings are inherently subject to numerous uncertainties. For matters that affect Avista Utilities’ or AEL&P's operations, the Company intends to seek, to the extent appropriate, recovery of incurred costs through the ratemaking process.

California Refund Proceeding

Recently, APX, a market maker in these proceedings in whose markets Avista Energy participated in the summer of 2000, has asserted that Avista Energy and its other customer/participants may be responsible for a share of the disgorgement penalty APX may be found to owe to the California parties. The penalty arises as a result of the FERC finding that APX committed violations in the California market in the summer of 2000. APX is making these assertions despite Avista Energy having been dismissed in FERC Opinion No. 536 from the on-going administrative proceeding at the FERC regarding potential wrongdoing in the California markets in the summer of 2000. APX has identified Avista Energy’s share of APX’s exposure to be as much as $16.0 million even though no wrongdoing allegations are specifically attributable to Avista Energy. Avista Energy believes its settlement insulates it from any such liability and that as a dismissed party it cannot be drawn back into the litigation. Avista Energy intends to vigorously dispute APX’s assertions of indirect liability, but cannot at this time predict the eventual outcome.

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 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 FPA 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 FPA. On May 22, 2015, the FERC issued its Order on Initial Decision in which it upheld the ALJ’s Initial Decision denying all of Seattle’s claims against Avista Utilities and Avista Energy. Seattle filed a Request for Rehearing of the FERC’s Order on Initial Decision which was denied on December 31, 2015. 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 Complaint Against the Owners of Colstrip

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 Talen (formerly 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.

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.

On August 27, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint withdraws from the Amended Complaint five claims and adds one new claim. The Second Amended Complaint alleges certain violations of the Clean Air Act and the New Source Review. The Plaintiffs request that the Court grant injunctive and declaratory relief, order remediation of alleged environmental damages, 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 Plaintiffs have since indicated that they do not intend to pursue two of the seven projects, leaving a total of five projects remaining. A number of motions for summary judgment were filed by both the Plaintiffs and the defendants. The Court issued its rulings on these motions and, as a result, only two projects remain for trial. The Plaintiffs have filed objections to the order.

The case has been bifurcated into separate liability and remedy trials. The Court has set the liability trial date for May 31, 2016. No date has been set for the remedy trial.

Management believes that it is reasonably possible that this matter could result in a loss to the Company. However, due to uncertainties concerning this matter, Avista Corp. cannot predict the outcome or determine whether it would have a material impact on the Company.

Cabinet Gorge Total Dissolved Gas Abatement Plan

Dissolved atmospheric gas levels (referred to as "TDG") in the Clark Fork River exceed state of Idaho and federal water quality numeric standards downstream of 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. Under the terms of a gas supersaturation mitigation plan, Avista is reducing TDG by constructing spill crest modifications on spill gates at the dam, and the Company expects to continue spill crest modifications over the next several years, in ongoing consultation with key stakeholders. Avista Corp. cannot at this time predict the outcome or estimate a range of costs associated with this contingency; however, 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. In 2010, the USFWS issued a revised designation of critical habitat for bull trout, which includes the lower Clark Fork River. The USFWS issued a final recovery plan in October 2015.

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 have been completed, and the Company is developing construction cost estimates currently. The Company believes its ongoing efforts through the Clark Fork Settlement Agreement continue to effectively address issues related to bull trout. Avista Corp. cannot at this time predict the outcome or estimate a range of costs associated with this contingency; however, 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.

Collective Bargaining Agreements

The Company’s collective bargaining agreements with the IBEW 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 Avista Utilities' bargaining unit employees expires in March 2016. In October 2015, a new collective bargaining agreement concerning wages over the three-year period 2016 through 2018 was approved by the local IBEW in Washington and Idaho. The new collective bargaining agreement will be effective in March 2016.

A three-year agreement in Oregon, which covers approximately 50 employees, expires in March 2017.

A collective bargaining agreement with the local union of the IBEW in Alaska expires in March 2017. The collective bargaining agreement with the IBEW in Alaska represents approximately 54 percent of all AERC employees. The remainder of AERC's employees are non-union.

There is a risk that if collective bargaining agreements expire and new agreements are not reached in each of our jurisdictions, employees could strike. Given the magnitude of employees that are covered by collective bargaining agreements, this could result in disruptions of our operations. However, the Company believes that the possibility of this occurring is remote.

Customer Information and Work Management Systems Project Cost Recovery

Over the past four years, Avista Corp. has invested significant capital into Project Compass. Project Compass was completed and went into service during the first quarter of 2015. As part of the Washington electric and natural gas general rate cases filed in February 2015 and the Oregon natural gas general rate case filed in May 2015, Avista Utilities requested the full recovery of the Washington and Oregon share of the costs associated with this project.

On July 27, 2015, the UTC Staff in the Company's electric and natural gas general rate cases filed responsive testimony. Included in their testimony was a recommendation to disallow $12.7 million (Washington's share) of Project Compass costs primarily related to the delay in the completion of the project. In a UTC order received in January 2016, the UTC approved the full recovery of Washington's share of Project Compass costs with no disallowances.

In October 2015, the OPUC staff filed testimony in the Company's natural gas general rate case which included a recommendation to disallow $1.2 million (Oregon's share) of Project Compass costs, similar to the initial recommendation in Washington. In January 2016, following the January 2016 UTC order approving the full recovery of Washington's share of Project Compass costs, the OPUC staff withdrew its proposal for a disallowance, with the exception of an inconsequential amount which is still open for discussion.

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.

The Company routinely assesses, based on studies, expert analyses and legal reviews, its contingencies, obligations and commitments for remediation of contaminated sites, including assessments of ranges and probabilities of recoveries from other responsible parties who either have or have not agreed to a settlement as well as recoveries from insurance carriers. The Company’s policy is to accrue and charge to current expense identified exposures related to environmental remediation sites based on estimates of investigation, cleanup and monitoring costs to be incurred. For matters that affect Avista Utilities’ or AEL&P's operations, the Company seeks, to the extent appropriate, recovery of incurred costs through the ratemaking process.

The Company has potential liabilities under the Endangered Species Act for species of fish, plants and wildlife that have either already been added to the endangered species list, listed as “threatened” or petitioned for listing. Thus far, measures adopted and implemented have had minimal impact on the Company. However, the Company will continue to seek recovery, through the ratemaking process, of all operating and capitalized costs related to these issues.

Under the federal licenses for its hydroelectric projects, the Company is obligated to protect its property rights, including water rights. In addition, the company holds additional non-hydro water rights. The state of Montana is examining the status of all water right claims within state boundaries through a general adjudication. Claims within the Clark Fork River basin could adversely affect the energy production of the Company’s Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids hydroelectric facilities. The state of Idaho has initiated adjudication in northern Idaho, which will ultimately include the lower Clark Fork River, the Spokane River and the Coeur d’Alene basin. The Company is and will continue to be a participant in these and any other relevant adjudication processes. The complexity of such adjudications makes each unlikely to be concluded in the foreseeable future. As such, it is not possible for the Company to estimate the impact of any outcome at this time. The Company will continue to seek recovery, through the ratemaking process, of all operating and capitalized costs related to this issue.