Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

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.

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 will expire in March 2021. A three-year agreement in Oregon, which covers approximately 50 employees will also expire on April 1, 2020.

The Company is in the process of negotiating new agreements with each of these represented bargaining units. However, 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 Terminated 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).

The complaint generally alleged that the members of the Board of Directors of Avista Corp. breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process and agreeing to the acquisition at a price that allegedly undervalued Avista Corporation, and that Hydro One Limited, Olympus Holding Corp., and Olympus Corp. aided and abetted those purported breaches of duty. The complaint sought various remedies, including monetary damages, attorneys’ fees and expenses. Subsequent to the termination of the proposed acquisition in January 2019, the complaint was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.

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.

During 2019, other parties in the case filed testimony and based on the testimony filed (including Avista Corp.'s testimony) the Company believes the range for a refund to customers is approximately $3.6 million to approximately $77.0 million. The other parties justified the proposed refund by claiming that the rates in question were in effect from 2016 to April 2018 as opposed to the 11 months argued by Avista Corp. Further, the parties asserted that the WUTC should, directly or indirectly, correct what they believe is a power supply calculation error (approximately $20.0 million), an issue that the WUTC already addressed and which the Company believes the Courts did not remand back to the WUTC for further process. While not its primary recommendation for a refund, the WUTC Staff included an alternative refund methodology in its testimony, which Avista Corp. calculates as calling for a refund of $3.6 million, if limited to the 11 month period and if other adjustments are made. While the Company does not agree as a legal matter with the positions of the other parties to the case, as a practical matter the Company believes that it is probable that it will refund some amount to customers. As such, as of December 31, 2019, the Company recorded a refund liability of $3.6 million, which represents the low-end of the range, as we cannot predict an outcome of this case.

Boyds Fire (State of Washington Department of Natural Resources v. Avista)

On August 19, 2019, the Company was served with a complaint filed by the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources, seeking recovery of fire suppression costs and related expenses incurred in connection with a wildfire that occurred in Ferry County, Washington in August 2018. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the fire, which became known as the “Boyds Fire,” was caused by a dead ponderosa pine tree falling into an overhead distribution line, and that Avista Corp. was negligent in failing to identify and remove it before the tree came into contact with the line. Avista Corp. disputes that the tree in question was the cause of the fire, and that it was negligent in failing to identify and remove it. The case is in the early stages of discovery and the plaintiff has not yet provided a statement specifying damages. Because the resolution of this claim remains uncertain, legal counsel cannot express an opinion on the extent, if any, of the Company’s liability, nor is it possible for the Company to estimate the impact of any outcome at this time. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in the litigation.

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 analysis 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.