XML 65 R30.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.22.4
Commitments and Contingencies
12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies

NOTE 22. 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.

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

In August 2019, the Company was served with a complaint, captioned “State of Washington Department of Natural Resources v. Avista Corporation,” seeking recovery of up to $4.4 million for fire suppression and investigation 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 the tree before it 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. Additional lawsuits have subsequently been filed by private landowners seeking property damages, and holders of insurance subrogation claims seeking recovery of insurance proceeds paid.

The lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of Ferry County, Washington. The Company continues to vigorously defend itself in the litigation. However, at this time the Company is unable to predict the likelihood of an adverse outcome or estimate a range of potential loss in the event of such an outcome.

Road 11 Fire

In April 2022, Avista Corp. received a notice of claim from property owners seeking damages of $5 million in connection with a fire that occurred in Douglas County, Washington, in July 2020. In June 2022, those claimants filed suit in the Superior Court of Douglas County, Washington, seeking unspecified damages. The fire, which was designated as the “Road 11 Fire,” occurred in the vicinity of an Avista Corp. 115kv line, resulting in damage to three overhead transmission structures. The fire occurred during a high wind event and grew to 10,000 acres before being contained. The Company disputes that it is liable for the fire and will vigorously defend itself in the pending legal proceeding; however, at this time the Company is unable to predict the likelihood of an adverse outcome or estimate a range of potential loss in the event of such an outcome.

Labor Day Windstorm

General

In September 2020, a severe windstorm occurred in eastern Washington and northern Idaho. The extreme weather event resulted in customer outages and multiple wildfires in the region.

The Company has become aware of instances where, during the course of the storm, otherwise healthy trees and limbs, located in areas outside its maintenance right-of-way, broke under the extraordinary wind conditions and caused damage to its energy delivery system at or near what is believed to be the potential area of origin of a wildfire. Those instances include what has been referred to as: the Babb Road fire (near Malden and Pine City, Washington); the Christensen Road fire (near Airway Heights, Washington); the Mile Marker 49 fire (near Orofino, Idaho); and the Kewa Field Fire (near Colville, Washington). These wildfires covered, in total, more than 25,000 acres. The Company estimates approximately 230 residential, commercial and other structures were impacted. With respect to the Christensen Road Fire, the Mile Marker 49 Fire, and the Kewa Field Fire, the Company’s investigation determined that the primary cause of the fires was extreme high winds. To date, the Company has not found any evidence that the fires were caused by any deficiencies in its equipment, maintenance activities or vegetation management practices. See further discussion below regarding the Babb Road Fire.

In addition to the instances identified above, the Company is aware of a 5-acre fire that occurred in Colfax, Washington, which damaged several residential structures. The Company's investigation determined that the Company's facilities were not involved in the ignition of this fire.

The Company’s investigation has found no evidence of negligence with respect to any of the fires, and the Company will vigorously defend itself against any claims for damages that may be asserted against it with respect to the wildfires arising out of the extreme wind event; however, at this time the Company is unable to predict the likelihood of an adverse outcome or estimate a range of potential loss in the event of such an outcome.

Babb Road Fire

In May 2021 the Company learned that the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) had completed its investigation and issued a report on the Babb Road Fire. The Babb Road fire covered approximately 15,000 acres and destroyed approximately 220 structures. There are no reports of personal injury or death resulting from the fire.

The DNR report concluded, among other things, that

the fire was ignited when a branch of a multi-dominant Ponderosa Pine tree was broken off by the wind and fell on an Avista Corp. distribution line;
the tree was located approximately 30 feet from the center of Avista Corp.’s distribution line and approximately 20 feet beyond Avista Corp.’s right-of-way;
the tree showed some evidence of insect damage, damage at the top of the tree from porcupines, a small area of scarring where a lateral branch/leader (LBL) had broken off in the past, and some past signs of Gall Rust disease.

The DNR report concluded as follows: “It is my opinion that because of the unusual configuration of the tree, and its proximity to the powerline, a closer inspection was warranted. A nearer inspection of the tree should have revealed the cut LBL ends and its previous failure, and necessitated determination of the failure potential of the adjacent LBL, implicated in starting the Babb Road Fire.”

The DNR report acknowledged that, other than the multi-dominant nature of the tree, the conditions mentioned above would not have been easily visible without close-up inspection of, or cutting into, the tree. The report also acknowledged that, while the presence of multiple tops would have been visible from the nearby roadway, the tree did not fail at a v-fork due to the presence of multiple tops. The Company contends that applicable inspection standards did not require a closer inspection of the otherwise healthy tree, nor was the Company negligent with respect to its maintenance, inspection or vegetation management practices.

Nine lawsuits seeking unspecified damages have been filed in connection with the Babb Road fire. These include six subrogation actions filed by insurance companies seeking recovery for amounts paid to insureds; two actions on behalf of

individual plaintiffs; and a class action lawsuit. All proceedings have been consolidated for discovery and pre-trial proceedings, are pending in the Superior Court of Spokane County Washington, and variously assert causes of action for negligence, private nuisance, trespass and inverse condemnation (a theory of strict liability).

On September 16, 2022, the Company filed a motion in the Superior Court of Spokane County, Washington, seeking dismissal of the Plaintiffs' inverse condemnation claims as a matter of law on the grounds that they are not legally cognizable under Washington law. On October 14, 2022, the Superior Court heard oral argument on that motion. The Court concluded the Company's motion involved mixed questions of law and fact, and, as a consequence, could not be granted at that stage of the proceedings; however, the Court indicated the Company could bring the issue before the Court again after discovery is completed.

The Company will vigorously defend itself in the legal proceedings; however, at this time the Company is unable to predict the likelihood of an adverse outcome or estimate a range of potential loss in the event of such an outcome.

Colstrip

Colstrip Owners Arbitration and Litigation

Colstrip Units 3 and 4 are owned by the Company, PacifiCorp, Portland General Electric (PGE), and Puget Sound Energy (PSE) (collectively, the “Western Co-Owners”), as well as NorthWestern and Talen Montana, LLC (Talen), as tenants in common under an Ownership and Operating Agreement, dated May 6, 1981, as amended (O&O Agreement), in the percentages set forth below:

Co-Owner

 

Unit 3

 

 

Unit 4

 

Avista

 

 

15

%

 

 

15

%

PacifiCorp

 

 

10

%

 

 

10

%

PGE

 

 

20

%

 

 

20

%

PSE

 

 

25

%

 

 

25

%

NorthWestern

 

 

 

 

 

30

%

Talen

 

 

30

%

 

 

 

Colstrip Units 1 and 2, owned by PSE and Talen, were shut down in 2020 and are in the process of being decommissioned. The co-owners of Units 3 and 4 also own undivided interests in facilities common to both Units 3 and 4, as well as in certain facilities common to all four Colstrip units.

The Washington Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA), among other things, imposes deadlines by which each electric utility must eliminate from its electricity rates in Washington the costs and benefits associated with coal-fired resources, such as Colstrip. The practical impact of CETA is that electricity from such resources, including Colstrip, may no longer be delivered to Washington retail customers after 2025.

The co-owners of Colstrip Units 3 and 4 have differing needs for the generating capacity of these units. Accordingly, certain business disagreements have arisen among the co-owners, including, disagreements as to the requirements for shutting down these units. NorthWestern has initiated arbitration pursuant to the O&O Agreement to resolve these business disagreements, and two actions have been initiated to compel arbitration of those disputes: one by Talen in the Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court for Yellowstone County, and one by the Western Co-Owners, which is pending in Montana Federal District Court. In light of the ownership agreements discussed below, the Colstrip owners agreed to stay both the litigation and the arbitration until March 2023, at which time the proceedings would resume absent additional agreement between the owners.

 

In addition, the Western Co-Owners commenced legal proceedings in the Montana Federal District Court challenging the constitutionality of two changes to Montana law enacted in 2021. The first, Senate Bill 265, purported to modify the provisions in the O&O Agreement governing arbitration of disputes; and the second, Senate Bill 266, made it a violation of Montana’s Consumer Protection Act (MC 30-14-103 et seq.) for an owner of Colstrip to either fail to fund its share of operating costs, or to attempt to bring about a closure of one or both units without unanimous consent. In September 2022, a Magistrate Judge issued proposed Findings and an Order finding that both Senate Bill 265 and 266 were unconstitutional and, in October 2022, the District Court Judge adopted the Magistrate’s findings and recommendations in full.

Agreement Between Talen Energy and Puget Sound Energy

In September 2022, the Company received notice that PSE and Talen entered into an agreement through which PSE has agreed to transfer its 25 percent ownership in Colstrip Units 3 and 4 to Talen at the end of 2025. The terms and conditions of the agreement are similar in most respects to the NorthWestern Transaction discussed below.

Agreement Between Avista and NorthWestern

On January 16, 2023, the Company entered into an agreement with NorthWestern under which the Company will transfer its 15 percent ownership in Colstrip Units 3 and 4 to NorthWestern. There is no monetary exchange included in the transaction. The transaction is scheduled to close on December 31, 2025 or such other date as the parties mutually agree upon.

Under the agreement, the Company will remain obligated through the close of the transaction to pay its share of (i) operating expenses, (ii) capital expenditures, but not in excess of the portion allocable pro rata to the portion of useful life expired through the close of the transaction, and (iii) except for certain costs relating to post-closing activities, site remediation expenses. In addition, the Company would enter into a vote sharing agreement under which it would retain its voting rights with respect to decisions relating to remediation.

The Company will retain its Colstrip transmission system assets, which are excluded from the transaction.

Under the Colstrip O&O Agreement, each of the other owners of Colstrip will have a 90-day period in which to evaluate the transaction and determine whether to exercise their respective rights of first refusal as to a portion of the generation being turned over to NorthWestern.

The transaction is subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions including the receipt of any required regulatory approvals, as well as NorthWestern's ability to enter into a new coal supply agreement by December 31, 2024.

The Company does not expect this transaction to have a material impact on its financial results.

Burnett et al. v. Talen et al.

Multiple property owners have initiated a legal proceeding (titled Burnett et al. v. Talen et al.) in the Montana District Court for Rosebud County against Talen, PSE, Pacificorp, PGE, Avista Corp., NorthWestern, and Westmoreland Rosebud Mining. The plaintiffs allege a failure to contain coal dust in connection with the operation of Colstrip, and seek unspecified damages. The parties agreed to temporarily stay the litigation as a result of the bankruptcy proceedings initiated by Talen, which agreement was not impacted by the stipulation to lift the stay for purposes of the Montana litigation and arbitration. The Company will vigorously defend itself in the litigation, but at this time is unable to predict the outcome, nor an amount or range of potential impact in the event of an outcome that is adverse to the Company’s interests.

Westmoreland Mine Permits

Two lawsuits have been commenced by the Montana Environmental Information Center, challenging certain permits relating to the operation of the Westmoreland Rosebud Mine, which provides coal to Colstrip. In the first, the Montana District Court for Rosebud County issued an order vacating a permit for one area of the mine. In the second, the Montana Federal District Court issued findings and recommended that a decision approving expansion of the mine into a new area should be vacated, but recommending that the decision not take effect for 365 days from the date of a final order. Both decisions may be subject to appellate review. Avista Corp. is not a party to either of these proceedings, but is continuing to monitor the progress of both lawsuits and assess the impact, if any, of the proceedings on Westmoreland’s ability to meet its contractual coal supply obligations.

National Park Service (NPS) - Natural and Cultural Damage Claim

In March 2017, the Company accessed property managed by the National Park Service (NPS) to prevent the imminent failure of a power pole that was surrounded by flood water in the Spokane River. The Company voluntarily reported its actions to the

NPS several days later. Thereafter, in March 2018, the NPS notified the Company that it might seek recovery for unspecified costs and damages allegedly caused during the incident pursuant to the System Unit Resource Protection Act (SURPA), 54 U.S.C. 100721 et seq. In January 2021, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) requested that the Company and the DOJ renew discussions relating to the matter. In July 2021, the DOJ communicated that it may seek damages of approximately $2 million in connection with the incident for alleged damage to “natural and cultural resources”. In addition, the DOJ indicated that it may seek treble damages under the SURPA and state law, bringing its total potential claim to approximately $6 million.

The Company disputes the position taken by the DOJ with respect to the incident, as well as the nature and extent of the DOJ’s alleged damages, and will vigorously defend itself in any litigation that may arise with respect to the matter. The Company and the DOJ have agreed to engage in discussions to understand their respective positions and determine whether a resolution of the dispute may be possible. However, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the matter.

Rathdrum, Idaho Natural Gas Incident

In October 2021, there was an incident in Rathdrum, Idaho involving the Company’s natural gas infrastructure. The incident occurred after a third party damaged those facilities during the course of excavation work. The incident resulted in a fire which destroyed one residence and resulted in minor injuries to the occupants. On January 23, 2023, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in the District Court of Kootenai County, Idaho by one property owner, seeking unspecified damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this action.

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.

The Company has potential liabilities under the Endangered Species Act and similar state statutes 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 costs related to this issue.