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

In February 2016, APX, a market maker in the California Refund Proceedings in whose markets Avista Energy participated in the summer of 2000, 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 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”). The penalty arises as a result of the FERC's 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 with the California Parties in 2014 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.

Cabinet Gorge Total Dissolved Gas Abatement Plan

Dissolved atmospheric gas levels (referred to as "Total Dissolved Gas" or "TDG") in the Clark Fork River exceed state of Idaho and federal water quality numeric standards downstream of Cabinet Gorge particularly during periods when excess river flows must be diverted over the spillway. Under the terms of the Clark Fork Settlement Agreement (CFSA) 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 Corp. is reducing TDG by constructing spill crest modifications on spill gates at the dam. These modifications have been shown to be effective in reducing TDG downstream. TDG monitoring and analysis is ongoing. Under the terms of the mitigation plan, Avista Corp. will continue to work with stakeholders to determine the degree to which TDG abatement reduces future mitigation obligations. The Company has sought, and will continue to seek recovery, through the ratemaking process, of all operating and capitalized costs related to this issue.

Legal Proceedings Related to the Pending Acquisition by Hydro One

See Note 13 for information regarding the proposed acquisition of the Company by Hydro One.

In connection with the proposed acquisition, as of the date of this quarterly report, the three lawsuits that had been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington have been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. Those cases were captioned as follows:


•	Jenβ v. Avista Corporation., et al., No. 2:17-cv-00333 (E.D. Wash.) (filed September 25, 2017);


•	Samuel v. Avista Corporation, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00334 (E.D. Wash.) (filed September 26, 2017); and


•	Sharpenter v. Avista Corporation., et al., No. 2:17-cv-00336 (E.D. Wash.) (filed September 26, 2017)

There remains one lawsuit that has been filed in the Superior Court for the State of Washington in and for Spokane County, captioned as follows:


•	Fink v. Morris, et al., No. 17203616-6 (filed September 15, 2017, amended complaint filed October 25, 2017).

This lawsuit was filed against Hydro One Limited, Olympus Holding Corp., Olympus Corp. and Bank of America Merrill Lynch, as well as all members of the Company's Board of Directors, namely Erik Anderson, Kristianne Blake, Donald Burke, Rebecca Klein, Scott Maw, Scott Morris, Marc Racicot, Heidi Stanley, John Taylor and Janet Widmann. While Avista Corp. is not a named defendant in this lawsuit, the Company has the obligation to indemnify members of its Board of Directors.

The complaint generally alleges that the members of the Board breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process and agreeing to the acquisition at a price that allegedly undervalues Avista Corporation, and that Hydro One Limited, Olympus Holding Corp., and Olympus Corp. aided and abetted those purported breaches of duty. The aiding and abetting claims were brought only against Hydro One Limited, Olympus Holding Corp. and Olympus Corp. The complaint seeks various remedies, including monetary damages, attorneys’ fees and expenses. The complaint has been stayed by the court until the closing of the transaction at which time the plaintiff will have the option to file an amended complaint within 30 days of such closing. If the amended complaint is not filed within the 30 days the suit will be dismissed.

All defendants deny any wrongdoing in connection with the proposed acquisition and plan to vigorously defend against all pending claims; however, the Company cannot at this time predict the eventual outcome.

Other Contingencies

In the normal course of business, the Company has various other legal claims and contingent matters outstanding. The Company believes that any ultimate liability arising from these actions will not have a material impact on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. It is possible that a change could occur in the Company’s estimates of the probability or amount of a liability being incurred. Such a change, should it occur, could be significant. See "Note 19 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements" in the 2017 Form 10-K for additional discussion regarding other contingencies.