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, Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, the California Attorney General, the California Department of Water Resources, and the California Public Utilities Commission (together, the “California Parties”). The penalty was the result of the FERC's finding that APX committed violations in the California market in the summer of 2000. APX made 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 identified Avista Energy’s share of APX’s exposure to be as much as $16.0 million even though no wrongdoing allegations were specifically attributable to Avista Energy. Avista Energy asserted its settlement with the California Parties in 2014 insulated it from any such liability and that as a dismissed party it would not be drawn back into the litigation. On May 3, 2018, the FERC issued an order, Order on Compliance Filings, resolving in the Company’s favor the last indirect exposure the Company had related to the California Refund Proceedings. That order, which fully absolved the Company of any further exposure, was not challenged and is now final and not subject to appeal.

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 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.

Collective Bargaining Agreements

The Company’s collective bargaining agreements with the IBEW represent approximately 45 percent of all of Avista Utilities’ employees. A three-year agreement with the local union in Washington and Idaho representing the majority (approximately 90 percent) of the Avista Utilities' bargaining unit employees was approved in March 2016 and expires in March 2019. The Company is currently negotiating a new agreement with the IBEW.

A three-year agreement in Oregon, which covers approximately 50 employees will expire in March 2020.

A collective bargaining agreement with the local union of the IBEW in Alaska expires in March 2019. The collective bargaining agreement with the IBEW in Alaska represents approximately 50 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 to our operations. However, the Company believes that the possibility of this occurring is remote.

Legal Proceedings Related to the Proposed Acquisition by Hydro One

See Note 24 for information regarding the termination of the proposed acquisition of the Company by Hydro One.

In connection with the now terminated acquisition, three lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington and were subsequently voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.

One lawsuit was 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 was stayed by the court until the closing of the transaction at which time the plaintiff would have the option to file an amended complaint within 30 days of such closing. If the amended complaint was not filed within the 30 days the suit would be dismissed. Since the transaction will not close, the status of this lawsuit is unknown.

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.

2015 Washington General Rate Cases

In January 2016, the Company received an order (Order 05) that concluded its electric and natural gas general rate cases that were originally filed with the WUTC in February 2015. New electric and natural gas rates were effective on January 11, 2016.

WUTC Order Denying Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities / Public Counsel Joint Motion for Clarification, WUTC Staff Motion to Reconsider and WUTC Staff Motion to Reopen Record

In January 2016, the Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities, the Public Counsel Unit of the Washington State Office of the Attorney General (PC) and the WUTC Staff, which is a separate party in the general rate case proceedings from the WUTC Advisory Staff, filed Motions for Clarification requesting the WUTC to clarify their attrition adjustment and the end result electric revenue amounts. The Motions for Clarification suggested that the electric revenue decrease should have been significantly larger than what was included in Order 05.

In February 2016, the WUTC issued an order (Order 06) denying the Motions summarized above and affirming Order 05, including an $8.1 million decrease in electric base revenue.

PC Petition for Judicial Review

In March 2016, PC filed in Thurston County Superior Court a Petition for Judicial Review of the WUTC's Order 05 and Order 06 described above. In April 2016, this matter was certified for review directly by the Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court in the State of Washington.

On August 7, 2018, the Court of Appeals issued a "Published Opinion" (Opinion) which concluded that the WUTC's use of an attrition allowance to calculate Avista Corp.'s rate base violated Washington law. In the Opinion, the Court stated that because the projected additions to rate base in the future were not "used and useful" for service at the time the request for the rate increase was made, they may not lawfully be included in the Company's rate base to justify a rate increase. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the WUTC erred in including an attrition allowance in the calculation of Avista Corp.’s electric and natural gas rate base. The Court noted, however, that the law does not prohibit an attrition allowance in the calculation, for ratemaking purposes, of recoverable operating and maintenance expense. Since the WUTC order provided one lump sum attrition allowance without distinguishing what portion was for rate base and which was for operating and maintenance expenses or other considerations, the Court struck all portions of the attrition allowance attributable to Avista Corp.'s rate base and reversed and remanded the case for the WUTC to recalculate Avista Corp.’s rates without including an attrition allowance in the calculation of rate base. On October 1, 2018, the Court of Appeals terminated its review of this case, remanding it back to the Thurston County Superior Court.

The total attrition allowance approved by the WUTC in Order 05 and reaffirmed in Order 06 was $35.2 million, with $28.3 million related to electric and $6.9 million related to natural gas. The Company believes the potential amount to return to customers is limited to the 2015 general rate cases because in subsequent Washington general rate cases (specifically those approved in April 2018), the WUTC did not include any attrition allowance on rate base. Even though the Company believes the issue only relates to the 2015 general rate cases, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter at this time and cannot estimate how much, if any, of the attrition allowance may be removed from the general rate cases or if other amounts from subsequent general rate cases will be included. The Company will participate in any regulatory process that is yet to be established by the WUTC.

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.