20250228AVU to Staff 5 Attachment A - 2023 WA 1st Qtr - Combined.pdf

Service Date: February 9,2023
BEFORE THE WASHINGTON
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
In the Matter of the Petition of DOCKET U-210595
PUGET SOUND ENERGY, AVISTA ORDER 02
CORPORATION d/b/a AVISTA
UTILITIES, PACIFICORP d/b/a
PACIFIC POWER&LIGHT APPROVING AGREEMENT
COMPANY, CASCADE NATURAL SUBJECT TO CONDITION;
GAS CORPORATION,NORTHWEST
NATURAL GAS COMPANY d/b/a NW REQUIRING REFILING OF
NATURAL, THE ALLIANCE OF MODIFIED AGREEMENT
WESTERN ENERGY CONSUMERS,
NW ENERGY COALITION, SMALL
BUSINESS UTILITY ADVOCATES,
FRONT & CENTERED, AND SPARK
NORTHWEST,
Petitioners,
For an Order Approving Extended Interim
Participatory Funding Agreement between
Puget Sound Energy, Avista Corporation
d/b/a Avista Utilities, PacifiCorp d/b/a
Pacific Power& Light Company, Cascade
Natural Gas Company d/b/a NW Natural,
the Alliance of Western Energy
Consumers, NW Energy Coalition, The
Energy Project, Small Business Utility
Advocates, Front & Centered, and Spark
Northwest.
BACKGROUND
1 On December 20, 2022, Puget Sound Energy (PSE), Avista Corporation d/b/a Avista
Utilities (Avista), PacifiCorp d/b/a Pacific Power& Light Company (PacifiCorp), Cascade
Natural Gas Corporation (Cascade), Northwest Natural Gas Company d/b/a NW Natural
(NW Natural), the Alliance of Western Energy Consumers,NW Energy Coalition, The
Energy Project, Small Business Utility Advocates, Front & Centered and Spark Northwest
(collectively, Joint Parties) filed with the Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission (Commission) a petition seeking an order authorizing PSE, Avista,

DOCKET U-210595 PAGE 2
ORDER 02
PacifiCorp, Cascade, and NW Natural (Companies) to extend and modify previously
approved funding agreements with certain customer advocacy organizations (Petition).
2 The Washington State Legislature passed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5295 in 2021,
codified as RCW 80.28.430. The measure required utilities to enter into funding
agreements with organizations that represent broad customer interests. The Commission is
directed to determine the amount of financial assistance, if any, that may be provided to
any organization; the way the financial assistance is distributed; the way the financial
assistance is recovered in a utility's rates; and other matters necessary to administer the
agreement. Such agreements for participatory funding must prioritize organizations that
represent highly impacted communities and vulnerable populations (Prioritized
Communities).
3 On August 19, 2021, the Commission issued a notice seeking input from interested
persons and utilities, and on September 28, 2021, the Commission hosted a workshop.
After considering input, including written comments from 11 interested parties, the
Commission issued a Policy Statement on Participatory Funding for Regulatory
Proceedings (Policy Statement) on November 19, 2021, that provides interim, high-level
guidance on participatory funding agreements. The Policy Statement includes guidance on
funding caps; funding for Prioritized Communities; the Commission's interpretation of
"eligible organizations," "eligible proceedings," and "broad customer interests"; and
process requirements for the distribution of funds.
4 After the Policy Statement was issued, the Joint Parties entered discussions to negotiate
the interim, one-year funding agreement (Original Agreement). The Original Agreement
was limited to a one-year term, made up to .01 percent of operating revenue available
from each company(up to a cap of$300,000 per utility), set aside one-third of funding for
organizations representing Prioritized Communities, and detailed a process that includes
Commission approval for all requests for funds and final payments.
5 On February 24, 2022, the Commission entered Order 01, Approving Agreement with
Modifications (Order 01), allowing the Original Agreement, with several modifications, to
take effect February 25, 2022, and remain in place until December 31, 2022,unless
extended or terminated with Commission approval.
6 Commission staff(Staff) has reviewed the revised agreement (Revised Agreement)
submitted with the Petition and believes it continues to align with the guidance in the
Policy Statement, for the most part. Staff believes that the funding limits are appropriate
and that the Revised Agreement appropriately sets funding aside for organizations

DOCKET U-210595 PAGE 3
ORDER 02
representing Prioritized Communities, and notes that the proposed increase of$100,000 to
PSE's prioritized communities sub-fund is appropriate given the fact that PSE's funds
were over-subscribed under the Original Agreement. Staff believes that, if implemented
with minor modifications, the Revised Agreement will continue to enable public
participation in the Commission's regulatory processes as SB5295 intended. Staff
recommends the Commission make the following modifications to the Agreement:
• Remove new provision 4.2.4, a"safety valve"provision to increase sub-funds
upon showing of good cause.
• Remove provision 7.9, which pre-approved accounting treatment for the duration
of the Original Agreement.
7 Staff believes that provision 4.2.4 provides an avenue by which organizations that have
historically been more involved with the Commission and are already familiar with
Commission processes will be able to increase their access to funding at the expense of
smaller, less experienced organizations. Staff also believes that this provision would create
increased administrative burdens and unnecessarily increase the burden on ratepayers.
8 Finally, Staff recommends the Commission clarify again that it is not bound by the
timeframes set out in the Revised Agreement.
9 This matter came before the Commission at its regularly scheduled open meeting on
February 9, 2023.
10 At the open meetings, the Commission heard comments from most of the Companies and
consumer advocacy groups in support of the Revised Agreement as written.
11 The Alliance of Western Energy Consumers (AWEC) stated, in support of provision 4.2.4,
that the safety valve mechanism is intended as a true emergency provision, rather than a
first resort, and that a compelling argument would be required for approval of any increase
in funds. AWEC further mentioned that any grant of increase in funds would be at the
Commission's discretion after thorough review, and so concerns about abuse of process or
inequitable distribution of funds could be addressed in those individual petitions for funds.
Additionally, AWEC stated that the primary impetus for provision 4.2.4 is the likelihood
of a generally applicable docket, such as a rulemaking affecting all utilities, arising after
any particular utility's funds have been depleted,which may result in the customers of
other utilities unfairly subsidizing the representation on behalf of the customers of the
utility whose funds were depleted.

DOCKET U-210595 PAGE 4
ORDER 02
12 The Energy Project(TEP) echoed AWEC's remarks and reiterated that there would be a
very high bar to prove the necessity of additional funds under the safety valve.
13 Small Business Utility Advocates also advocated for provision 4.2.4, echoing AWEC and
TEP, and added that a two-year trial of provision 4.2.4 would be more informative to a
future long-term agreement.
14 Spark Northwest joined in the earlier comments in support of provision 4.2.4, but advised
that the Commission needs to improve and extend its outreach towards new and smaller
frontline and environmental justice organizations that have had little opportunity to
participate previously, to ensure that those organizations have access to the approved
funds and any additional funds available through provision 4.2.4.
15 NW Energy Coalition, PacifiCorp, Avista, and PSE all echoed the comments in support of
provision 4.2.4 and supported the Revised Agreement as a whole. Avista spoke
additionally to support provision 7.9, stating that it believes that because the Revised
Agreement is simply an extension of the Original Agreement, the deferrals granted for the
duration of the Original Agreement should likewise extend.
16 PacifiCorp additionally expressed concern that any modification to the agreement that
would require the parties to modify,re-sign, and re-file the agreement could raise other
potential issues or changes requiring further examination by the Commission.
17 PSE noted that its currently approved deferral was date-specific and therefore would need
to be modified or refiled regardless of the Commission's decision regarding provision 7.9.
DISCUSSION
18 We agree in part with Staff s recommendation and approve the Revised Agreement,
subject to the removal of provision 7.9 only.
19 New provision 4.2.4, "Request to Increase Sub-funds," is a"safety valve"provision that
would allow the Commission to consider requests for an increase to funding after an
annual limit is exhausted if a participating organization demonstrates good cause. The
joint parties argue that some sub-funds were over-subscribed, which indicates an
additional need for funding. While we are sympathetic to Staff s concerns that this
provision could increase the burden on ratepayers and that it could tend to favor
incumbent organizations, we find that the Revised Agreement provides sufficient
procedural mechanisms to prevent unwarranted increases in funding. Any petition to
increase sub-funds would also be subject to Commissions review. We are further

DOCKET U-210595 PAGE 5
ORDER 02
persuaded by the argument that a two-year trial of this safety valve would provide more
information for future negotiations toward a long-term agreement.
20 However, the provision regarding accounting treatment in the extended agreement,
provision 7.9, should be removed. Typically, the Commission does not pre-authorize
accounting treatment, and it will not do so in this case. Specific accounting treatment
should be determined by the Commission via accounting petitions, consistent with other
Commission practices, rather than through a pre-negotiated agreement. We also clarify
that the current deferrals granted pertain only to funds distributed in 2022 and are not
ongoing, so either new or amended petitions must be filed for funds distributed under the
Revised Agreement.
21 Additionally, the Joint Parties request that filings under the Revised Agreement be ruled
on within 30 days of receipt. Although the Commission believes that this timeline is a
reasonable guideline and goal, the Commission clarifies by this Order that it is not bound
by the timelines set out in the Revised Agreement. Likewise, our approval of the
agreement does not bind the Commission to the requests outlined in the Petition's section
titled"VI. Further Process."
22 Finally, although we approve the proposed two-year term, we believe that Staff and the
Joint Parties should work toward a permanent agreement to take effect at the expiration of
this term.
23 Overall, the Commission finds that the Revised Agreement serves the public interest, and
that the funding made available through the Revised Agreement represents a reasonable
allocation of financial assistance. Accordingly, we approve the Revised Agreement with
the modification described above.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
24 (1) The Commission is an agency of the State of Washington vested by statute with
the authority to regulate the rates, rules,regulations, practices, accounts, securities,
transfers of property and affiliated interests of public service companies, including
electric and gas companies.
25 (2) PSE and Avista are electric and natural gas companies and public service
companies subject to Commission jurisdiction. PacifiCorp is an electric company
and a public service company subject to Commission jurisdiction.NW Natural and
Cascade are natural gas companies and public service companies subject to the
Commission's jurisdiction.

DOCKET U-210595 PAGE 6
ORDER 02
26 (3) RCW 80.28.430 requires investor-owned utilities to enter into funding agreements
with organizations that represent broad customer interests, including the Revised
Agreement for which the Joint Parties seek approval.
27 (4) Staff has reviewed the Petition and the Revised Agreement filed in this Docket.
28 (5) Staff believes the proposed Revised Agreement the Joint Parties' request is
reasonable and in the public interest, and that it should be granted with one
modification.
29 (6) This matter came before the Commission at its regularly scheduled meeting on
February 9, 2023.
30 (7) RCW 80.28.430 also delegates to the Commission the authority to review and
approve an agreement, approve an agreement with modifications, or reject an
agreement.
31 (8) The Revised Agreement filed by the Joint Parties,with certain modifications, is
consistent with both RCW 80.28.430 and the Commission's Policy Statement and
should be approved.
32 (9) After reviewing the Petition filed in U-210595 on December 20, 2022, and giving
due consideration to all relevant matters and for good cause shown, the
Commission finds that the Revised Agreement should be approved, subject to the
removal of provision 7.9.
ORDER
THE COMMISSION ORDERS THAT:
33 (1) The Revised Agreement filed by Puget Sound Energy, Avista Corporation d/b/a
Avista Utilities, PacifiCorp d/b/a Pacific Power&Light Company, Cascade
Natural Gas Corporation,Northwest Natural Gas Company d/b/a NW Natural, the
Alliance of Western Energy Consumers,NW Energy Coalition, The Energy
Project, Small Business Utility Advocates, Front& Centered, and Spark Northwest
is approved, subject to the removal of paragraph 7.9. The Revised Agreement must
be refiled in this Docket with the modification identified in paragraph 20 within
seven days of the entry of this Order.

DOCKET U-210595 PAGE 7
ORDER 02
34 (2) The Commission Secretary is authorized to accept by letter, with copies to all
parties to this proceeding, all filings that comply with the requirements of this
Order.
35 (3) This Order shall not affect the Commission's authority over rates, services,
accounts, valuations, estimates, or determination of costs, on any matters that may
come before it. Nor shall this Order be construed as an agreement to any estimate
or determination of costs, or any valuation of property claimed or asserted.
36 (4) The Commission retains jurisdiction over the subject matter and Puget Sound
Energy, Avista Corporation d/b/a Avista Utilities, PacifiCorp d/b/a Pacific Power
& Light Company, Cascade Natural Gas Corporation, and Northwest Natural Gas
Company d/b/a NW Natural to effectuate the provisions of this Order.
DATED at Lacey, Washington, and effective February 9, 2023.
WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DAVID W. DANNER, Chair'
ANN E. RENDAHL, Commissioner
MILTON H. DOUMIT, Commissioner
' Chair Danner does not join Paragraph 19 of this Order.

Service Date: January 12,2023
BEFORE THE WASHINGTON
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
In the Matter of the Petition of DOCKET UE-210949
AVISTA CORPORATION d/b/a AVISTA ORDER 01
UTILITIES,
Petitioner, GRANTING AMENDED
ACCOUNTING PETITION
For An Accounting Order authorizing the
Company to utilize deferred accounting for
the Company's remaining investment in the
Turner Energy Storage Project
BACKGROUND
1 On December 15, 2021, Avista Corporation d/b/a Avista Utilities (Avista or Company)
filed with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission(Commission) a
petition seeking an Accounting Order under WAC 480-07-370(1)(b) and WAC 480-90-
203(3) authorizing Avista to utilize deferred accounting for the Company's remaining
investment in the failed Turner Energy Storage (TES)project.
2 On December 12, 2022, Avista filed an amended petition(Amended Petition), which
removed the Company's request for a carrying charge on the deferral amount and
removed the request for site remediation costs.
3 Approval of this Amended Petition would authorize the Company to track its remaining
investment, approximately$3.7 million, as well as any proceeds that result from legal
action in deferred Federal Energy Regulatory Commission(FERC) account (186), until
the Company files for recovery of these amounts in its next rate proceeding. No interest
will accrue on the deferral balance.
4 The TES pilot project was installed and commissioned in the spring of 2015 and failed in
June 2018. It was partly funded by the Washington State Department of Commerce's
Clean Energy Fund. The construction of the battery, inverter set(0), and transformer set
(#1)was completed and moved into production in April 2015. In February 2018, an
additional invertor(#2) and transformer(#2) were added, and in April 2018, the testing
was completed, and the system was functioning. Although these additional assets were
useful, they were not yet being used and remained as Construction Work in Progress.

DOCKET UE-210949 PAGE 2
ORDER 01
S After the battery failed in June 2018, Avista worked with UniEnergy Technologies
(UET)to get a warranty replacement of the battery. In May of 2021, Avista learned that
UET was experiencing financial difficulties. In July 2021, Avista sent a letter to UET
demanding that it either: (a)provide a date that a replacement battery would be delivered
and post a performance bond; or(b)refund Avista all amounts paid to UET.
6 Counsel for UET responded that it was not capable of refunding Avista, nor could it
come up with a replacement because it had lost its office and lab spaces, it had
furloughed all employees, and its executives had all resigned. In September 2021, Avista
learned that UET's senior secured creditor had taken possession of UET's assets and sold
those assets to a third party. In November 2021, UET's counsel informed Avista that
involuntary bankruptcy proceedings had been instituted against UET.
7 Avista has retained outside counsel to monitor the status of the bankruptcy proceedings.
Depending on the outcome of those proceedings, Avista may either: (a) file a creditor
claim in UET's bankruptcy; or(b)request a stipulated judgment from UET. In either
case, it is unlikely Avista will recover given Avista's status as an unsecured creditor and
UET's lack of assets.
8 On January 4, 2023, Public Counsel filed comments in this Docket requesting that if the
Commission approves the Amended Petition, it should make clear to Avista that its
approval is not evidence in support of a future finding of prudence of the project and that
prudence will be evaluated when Avista requests cost recovery from ratepayers.
DISCUSSON
9 We agree that the circumstances here are extraordinary and that these costs are beyond
Avista's control. Accordingly, we find that tracking these deferred costs in FERC
Account 186 is appropriate. We agree with Public Counsel that approving the Amended
Petition has no bearing on the prudence of the TES project, and that prudence will be
evaluated in a future proceeding when Avista seeks to recover the deferred costs.
Accordingly, we grant the Company's Amended Petition.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
10 (1) The Commission is an agency of the State of Washington vested by statute with
the authority to regulate the rates, rules, regulations,practices, accounts,

DOCKET UE-210949 PAGE 3
ORDER 01
securities, transfers of property and affiliated interests of public service
companies, including electric companies.
11 (2) Avista is an electric company and a public service company subject to
Commission jurisdiction.
12 (3) The Commission has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and
over Avista.
13 (4) WAC 480-07-370(3) allows companies to file petitions including that for which
Avista seeks approval.
14 (5) Staff has reviewed the Amended Petition in Docket UE-210949.
15 (6) Staff recommends the Commission grant the Amended Petition.
16 (7) This matter came before the Commission at its regularly scheduled meeting on
January 12, 2023.
17 (8) After reviewing Avista's Amended Petition filed in Docket UE-210949 and
giving due consideration to all relevant matters and for good cause shown, the
Commission finds that the Amended Petition should be granted.
ORDER
THE COMMISSION ORDERS:
18 (1) Avista Corporation d/b/a Avista Utilities' request to utilize deferred accounting
for the remaining investment in the Turner Energy Storage Project is granted.
19 (2) This Order shall not affect the Commission's authority over rates, services,
accounts, valuations, estimates, or determination of costs on any matters that may
come before it. Nor shall this Order granting the Amended Petition be construed
as an agreement to any estimate or determination of costs, or any valuation of
property claimed or asserted, or to the possible recovery of the amounts deferred
to the regulatory asset.
20 (3) The Commission retains jurisdiction to effectuate the provisions of this Order.

DOCKET UE-210949 PAGE 4
ORDER 01
The Commissioners, having determined that this Order to be consistent with the public
interest, directed the Executive Director and Secretary to enter this Order.
DATED at Lacey, Washington, and effective January 12, 2023.
WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AMANDA MAXWELL
Executive Director and Secretary

Service Date: January 30,2023
BEFORE THE WASHINGTON
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND DOCKETS UE-220053, UG-220054,
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, UE-210854 (Consolidated)
Complainant,
V.
ORDER 11 /05
AVISTA CORPORATION d/b/a
AVISTA UTILITIES,
Respondent
DENYING PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
In the Matter of the Electric Service
Reliability Reporting Plan of
AVISTA CORPORATION d/b/a
AVISTA UTILITIES
BACKGROUND
1 On December 12, 2022,the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
(Commission) entered its Final Order 10/04, Rejecting Tariff Sheets; Granting Petition;
Approving and Adopting Full Multiparty Settlement Stipulation Subject to Conditions;
Authorizing and Requiring Compliance Filing (Order 10/04) in the above-captioned
docket. Order 10/04 resolved all contested issues in Avista Corporation's d/b/a Avista
Utilities (Avista or Company) general rate case (GRC) and required Avista to file revised
tariff pages consistent with the Commission's decisions contained therein.
2 On December 22, 2022,the Public Counsel Unit of the Washington Attorney General's
Office filed a Petition for Reconsideration of Order 10/04 (Petition). In its Petition,
Public Counsel requests the Commission reconsider the following language in Paragraph
180 of Order 10/04 related to Public Counsel's strategy and arguments:

DOCKETS UE-220053,UG-220054,UE-210854(Consolidated) PAGE 2
ORDER 11105
[the] strategy of recommending adjustments to a results-on1X
revenue requirement makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the
Commission to effectuate any of Public Counsel's positions
because we cannot determine which, if any, of Public Counsel's
positions were already adopted or considered in the negotiations
of the Settling Parties when arriving at the agreed revenue
requirement. Thus, contrary to Public Counsel's arguments, we
find its presentation cannot serve as an appropriate basis to
decrement the [Full Multiparty Settlement Stipulation's
(Settlement)] revenue requirement. We decline to break the
results-only terms of the Settlement's revenue requirement in
order to specify or enumerate any of the adjustments proposed by
Public Counsel that might be considered in a fully litigated
proceeding or a settlement that enumerated specific adjustments.'
3 On December 30, 2022,pursuant to Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 480-07-
850, the Commission issued a notice authorizing all parties to respond to the Petition by
January 13, 2023, and indicating that it would issue a decision on the Petition by
February 1, 2023.
4 On January 13, 2023, Avista and Commission staff(Staff) each filed with the
Commission separate responses to the Petition. Avista and Staff both oppose Public
Counsel's Petition.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
S We deny Public Counsel's Petition for the reasons discussed below.
6 The Commission may approve a settlement with a revenue requirement that is results-
only if the Commission finds that such a settlement meets the Commission's standards,
1 Wash. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n v. Avista Corp. d/b/a Avista Utils., Dockets UE-220053,UG-
220054,UE-210854(Consolidated)Final Order 10/04,Rejecting Tariff Sheets, Granting Petition,
Approving and Adopting Full Multiparty Settlement Stipulation Subject to Conditions,
Authorizing and Requiring Compliance Filing,¶ 180(Dec. 12,2022) (emphasis added to identify
specific language disputed by Public Counsel); Public Counsel's Petition at 1-2,¶ 1.

DOCKETS UE-220053,UG-220054,UE-210854(Consolidated) PAGE 3
ORDER 11105
and is consistent with legal precedent.2 Such results-only terms are not novel, and the
Commission has approved many settlements that include such terms, often with various
combinations of parties in support and in opposition. Ratemaking is not an exact science
and the Washington Supreme Court has observed that "the economic judgments required
in rate proceedings are often hopelessly complex and do not admit of a single correct
result. ,3 It is the total effect, or the end results, of a rate case order that we must consider
and not the specific method used to reach the result.4 In Order 10/04, we determined that
the end results produced by the Settlement, modified by certain conditions, represent a
reasonable and balanced compromise of the issues, are well supported by the evidence,
and provide for rates that are equitable, fair,just,reasonable and sufficient.'
7 When evaluating settlements, we consider the entire record, including the initial filing,
and determine whether the Settlement meets the standard of review: whether, in light of
all information available to the Commission, the Settlement is lawful, supported by an
appropriate record, and consistent with the public interest. We also examine the
Settlement to determine whether it meets Commission standards and produces end results
that are equitable, fair,just, reasonable, and sufficient. We determined in Order 10/04 that
the Settlement meets those standards, and were not persuaded by Public Counsel that the
Settlement was unlawful, unsupported by an appropriate record, or inconsistent with the
public interest.
8 Public Counsel asserts that the language of Order 10/04 "appears to deny Public Counsel
the right to offer evidence in opposition to a settlement"' and"prevents Public Counsel in
this case, and any party opposing a settlement in the future, from exercising rights to
oppose a settlement under WAC 480-07-740(c)."7 We disagree. Avista's response to the
Petition accurately observes that"nowhere does Public Counsel assert that the
'See, e.g., Bluefield Waterworks &Improvement v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of W. Va., 262 U.S.
679 (1923);Federal Power Comm'n v. Hope Nat. Gas Co., 320 U.S. 591 (1944);
3 US West. Communs., Inc. v. Wash. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 134 Wash. 2d 48, 70 (1997)
(quoting Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch,488 U.S. 299, 314(1989)).
4 US West Communs., Inc. v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 134 Wn.2d 48, 70 (1997) (citing Federal
Power Comm'n v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U.S. at 602;Duquesne Light Co. v. Barasch,488
U.S. at 314).
5 Order 10/04 at 73,¶202.
6 Public Counsel's Petition at 3,¶3.
'Id. at 7,¶ 10.

DOCKETS UE-220053,UG-220054,UE-210854(Consolidated) PAGE 4
ORDER 11105
Commission's own rules for addressing contested settlements were violated."g Indeed,
Public Counsel was afforded every opportunity to exercise its rights to oppose the
Settlement. Public Counsel presented evidence in opposition to the Settlement, examined
witnesses, and presented its arguments. In rebuttal, Avista also provided substantial
evidence contradicting Public Counsel's presentation.'
9 Public Counsel argues that Order 10/04 sets a new standard for evaluating a Settlement
with a results-only revenue requirement that is nearly impossible for opposing parties to
achieve.10 Again, we disagree. Order 10/04 preserves the Commission's standard of
review and offers no additional standard for the review of a Settlement containing results-
only revenue requirement terms. In response to the Petition, Staff states that
a party can persuasively oppose a results-only settlement by
presenting an alternate revenue requirement calculation that is
fair,just reasonable, equitable and sufficient, and also materially
lower than the proposed settlement. Such a presentation could
convince the Commission that,regardless of what was or was not
included in the results-only settlement, the proposed settlement's
overall revenue requirement should be rejected or altered.
10 We agree. Any party opposing a settlement must show that the settlement fails to meet
the Commission's standards, as stated previously, and present an alternative supported by
the record. As we explained in detail in Order 10/04, we are not persuaded by Public
Counsel's arguments that the Settlement fails to meet the Commission's standards or that
the alternative it presented should be adopted and the Settlement conditioned, modified,
or rejected." An effective opposition to a Settlement with a results-only revenue
requirement must focus, as the Commission must, on the Settlement and on the results-
focused revenue requirement in order to be persuasive.
11 A company's initial filing is part of the record that informs any Commission decision.
Thus, reference and opposition to the initial filing may be included in a convincing
8 Avista's Response at 2,¶3;see also id. at 3-4,¶¶4-7.
'See id. at3,¶5.
10 See Public Counsel's Petition at 8-9,¶ 14.
11 See, e.g., Order 10/04 at 63-67,¶¶ 173-83. The Commission explains elsewhere in Sections A
and B of Order 10/04 its determinations that the many other portions of the Settlement also meet
the Commission's standards.

DOCKETS UE-220053,UG-220054,UE-210854(Consolidated) PAGE 5
ORDER 11105
argument that shows a settlement fails to meet Commission standards. For example, in
Cascade Natural Gas Company's (Cascade) recent GRC, the Commission considered a
settlement that adopted and enumerated many of the revenue requirement adjustments
Cascade presented in its initial filing. As we explained in Order 10/04, this case is unlike
and quite distinct from the recent Cascade GRC. Here, the Settling Parties adopted none
of the revenue requirement adjustments Avista presented in its initial filing. Public
Counsel's presentation focused on objections to specific adjustments to the initial filing,
constructing an alternative to the settlement, which we found to be unpersuasive.
12 As Order 10/04 explains, we were not persuaded or convinced by Public Counsel that the
revenue requirement terms of the Settlement, taken in aggregate and in consideration of
the Settlement as a whole, were unlawful, unsupported, inconsistent with the public
interest, or would produce end results that were inequitable,unfair, unjust, unreasonable,
or insufficient. Neither were we persuaded or convinced that Public Counsel's alternative
revenue requirement should be adopted and the Settlement either modified, conditioned,
or rejected.
ORDER
13 THE COMMISSION denies the Petition for Reconsideration of Order 10/04 filed with
the Commission on December 22, 2022, by the Public Counsel Unit of the Washington
Attorney General's Office.
DATED at Lacey, Washington, and effective January 30, 2023.
WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DAVID W. DANNER, Chairman
ANN E. RENDAHL, Commissioner
MILT DOUMIT, Commissioner

Service Date: January 24,2023
BEFORE THE WASHINGTON
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
In the Matter of the Petition of DOCKET UE-220770
AVISTA CORPORATION d/b/a ORDER 01
AVISTA UTILITIES,
APPROVING SUPPLY AND
For An Order Approving its Four-Year DEMAND FORECAST
Demand and Resource Supply Forecast
Pursuant to the Climate Commitment Act
BACKGROUND
1 In 2021, the Washington State Legislature passed the Climate Commitment Act(CCA)
through Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5126 into law, codified as RCW
70A.65, to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Also referred to as "Cap and
Invest,"the law establishes a declining cap on GHG emissions from covered entities, and
is intended to reduce emissions in the state by 95 percent by 2050.1 The CCA allows
electric utilities, which are subject to the Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA), to
receive no-cost allowances to mitigate the cost burden of the Cap and Invest Program on
electric customers.2 The CCA required the Department of Ecology(Ecology) to adopt
rules, in consultation with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
(Commission) to establish the methods and procedures for allocating allowances for
investor-owned electric utilities (IOUs).3
2 On September 29, 2022, Ecology published final rules under Chapter 173-446 of the
Washington Administrative Code (WAC), the Climate Commitment Act Program. WAC
173-446-230 specifies that Ecology will use utility-specific four-year demand and
resource supply forecasts to determine the cost-burden effect and the allocation of no-cost
allowances to each electric utility.
3 WAC 173-446-230(2)(g)provides that the initial allocation of allowances will be
adjusted as necessary to account for any differential between actual GHG emissions and
' See Climate Commitment Act-Washington State Department of Ecology.
2 WAC 173-446-230(1).
3 RCW 70A.65.120.

DOCKET UE-220770 PAGE 2
ORDER 01
forecasted GHG emissions.' Commission staff(Staff) and other parties refer to this
informally as the true-up mechanism(true-up). Ecology has clarified that it will not
subtract allowances if actuals are less than forecasted emissions,but rather it would give
the utility proportionately fewer allowances the next year.
4 On September 30,2022, the Commission served a Notice Requiring Petitions Requesting
Approval of Forecasts Pursuant to RCW 70A.65.120 (Notice) to the electric IOUs, which
asked each utility to file for approval its most likely four-year demand and resource
supply forecast by October 31, 2022.5 The Notice indicated that the forecasts should be
derived from sources that most accurately and best predict how each IOU will comply
with CETA, which may include a Clean Energy Implementation Plan(CEIP)6 or
Integrated Resource Plan(IRP). Further, the Notice asked the IOUs to address whether
the Commission should permit annual updates to the four-year demand and resource
supply forecasts.
5 On October 20, 2022, Avista Corporation d/b/a Avista Utilities (Avista or Company)
filed with the Commission a Petition for and Order Approving its Four-Year Demand and
Resource Supply Forecast Pursuant to the Climate Commitment Act, which was assigned
to Docket UE-220770, and on December 27, 2022, Avista filed a revised petition. Avista
used its approved 2021 CEIP as the source for its forecast of years 2023-2025,' and used
its 2021 IRP as the source for 2026. Avista forecasts a total Washington load of
6,089,906 MWh in 2023; 6,114,235 MWh in 2024; 6,138,095 MWh in 2025; and
6,169,914 MWh in 2026. As Avista serves customers in multiple states, the Company
used the Production/Transmission ratio of 65.54 percent from Docket UE-200900, its
most recently approved general rate case as of the October 31 filing, to calculate the share
of output serving Washington customers.
6 On November 10, 2022, the Commission issued a Notice of Opportunity to File Written
Comments and Notice of Recessed Open Meeting, providing an opportunity for
interested parties to provide input on Avista's forecast.
4 WAC 173-446-230(2)(g).
5 Notice Requiring Petitions Requesting Approval of Forecasts Pursuant to RCW 70A.65.120,
filed November 16,2023, in Dockets UE-220770,220789, &220797.
6 The compliance period for the utilities' CEIPs is 2022-2025,which differs by one year from the
2023-2026 compliance period.
7 Avista's CEIP was approved by the Commission on June 23,2022,in Order 01 of Docket UE-
210628.

DOCKET UE-220770 PAGE 3
ORDER 01
7 NW Energy Coalition(NWEC), Public Counsel, and Climate Solutions filed comments
in response to the Notice, which are discussed in detail below. No commenter
recommended rejecting the companies' forecasts.
8 Staff has reviewed Avista's forecast and believes that it is consistent with WAC 173-446-
230 and Commission expectations but recommends that the Commission approve the
forecast subject to the condition that, beginning in 2023, if substantive changes to
emissions estimated by this forecast are expected in a future year, the Company must
refile by June 15 of that year.
9 The Commission held a recessed open meeting to discuss the IOUs' CCA forecasts on
January 23, 2023. Public Counsel and NWEC made oral comments regarding the general
process for approving forecasts, issues related to the standard for"substantive" changes
requiring an update per Staff s suggested condition, and the potential uncertainty in a
"most likely" standard for approving the forecasts. Public Counsel also requested that the
Company update specific line-item entries to separate zero-emission resources from
carbon emitting resources in future forecasts.
DISCUSSION
10 As a threshold matter, we approve Avista's forecast. After hearing discussion on the
value of a condition requiring an update that may duplicate the reporting required by
Ecology,we grant our approval subject to the modified condition that the Company must
notify the Commission if there are any substantive changes, as that term may be defined
by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
Forecast Sources
11 The Commission believes that CEIPs and IRPs are the best basis for CCA forecasts.
WAC 173-446-230(2)(c)(i) states that the preferred source for these forecasts should be a
forecast"approved"by the Commission, although other sources, such as filed CEIPs and
IRPs, are also included in the rule as appropriate sources for forecasts. Because Avista's
CEIP has been approved, the Commission finds that its forecast was grounded in data
that has been vetted and approved by the Commission. In the past, Staff, the Company,
and other parties have discussed using power cost forecasts as the basis for CCA
forecasts, as these are typically also approved by the Commission. However, the
interlocking, iterative, and robust public processes between CEIPs and IRPs provide
more transparency to the Commission and interested persons and are more likely to result
in continuous improvement, while power cost forecasts are typically only used within the
context of rate cases.

DOCKET UE-220770 PAGE 4
ORDER 01
12 Secondly, the ongoing discussions in the CEIPs make them more current than power-
cost-based forecasts. Moreover, should the Commission require changes to targets or
methodologies in CEIP or IRP discussions that substantively change emissions and
allowance expectations, the notification condition provided in this Order should help
resolve any discrepancies.
Annual Updates and True-Up Mechanism
13 Avista recommends the Commission not require annual updates,but rather provide a
means whereby utilities could propose to update their Commission approved forecasts
when material deficiencies or surpluses are expected to occur and are outside the control
of a utility. We agree. Since Ecology's final rules include a"true-up"mechanism, the
Commission should not require annual updates to the forecasts, because the "true-up" is
intended to account for any differences between forecasted emissions and actuals,
rendering an annual update unnecessary. We thus approve these forecasts, subject to the
condition detailed above regarding notification in the event of substantive changes
affecting the forecasts. The Commission reserves the right to determine the definition of
substantive changes requiring notification, and trusts that Avista will open a dialogue
with Staff regarding any arguably substantive changes. This approach strikes a balance
that ensures that the most updated forecast is publicly available and that the true-up
mechanism can work as an administrative buffer,rather than as a fix for large
discrepancies.
Other Issues Raised by Interested Parties
14 Several related issues were raised by interested parties in response to the Commission's
invitation to comment on the forecast. These issues include the use of the social cost of
greenhouse gases in dispatch costs; increases in unspecified market purchases; leakage,
as defined in RCW 70A.65.010(43); and the use of allowances to mitigate impacts to
ratepayers. We appreciate parties raising these issues, agree that these issues are
important and that we should, and will, address them going forward.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
15 (1) The Commission is an agency of the State of Washington vested by statute with
the authority to regulate the rates, rules, regulations, practices, accounts,
securities, transfers of property and affiliated interests of public service
companies, including electric companies.

DOCKET UE-220770 PAGE 5
ORDER 01
16 (2) Avista is an electric company and a public service company subject to
Commission jurisdiction.
17 (3) Avista is an investor-owned electric utility subject to the requirements of Chapter
19.405 RCW.
18 (4) Avista properly calculated its four-year demand and resource supply forecast.
19 (5) Avista's 2023-2026 demand and resource supply forecast should be approved
pursuant to 70A.65.120, subject to the condition that the Company must notify the
Commission in the event of any substantive changes, as that term may be defined
by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
20 (6) This matter came before the Commission at its recessed open meeting on January
23, 2023.
21 (7) After reviewing Avista's petition and forecast and giving due consideration to all
relevant matters and for good cause shown, the Commission approves Avista's
four-year demand and resource supply forecast.
ORDER
THE COMMISSION ORDERS:
22 (1) The Commission grants Avista Corporation d/b/a Avista Utilities' Petition For
An Order Approving its Four-Year Demand and Resource Supply Forecast
Pursuant to the Climate Commitment Act, subject to the condition described
in paragraph 10.
23 (2) This Order shall not affect the Commission's authority over rates, services,
accounts, valuations, estimates, or determination of costs, on any matters that
may come before it.
24 (3) The Commission retains jurisdiction over the subject matter and Avista
Corporation d/b/a Avista Utilities to effectuate the provisions of this Order.

DOCKET UE-220770 PAGE 6
ORDER 01
DATED at Lacey, Washington, and effective January 24, 2023.
WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DAVE W. DANNER, Chair
ANN E. RENDAHL, Commissioner
MILTON H. DOUMIT, Commissioner

Service Date: January 26,2023
BEFORE THE WASHINGTON
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
In the Matter of the Petition of DOCKET UE-220892 and UG-220893
AVISTA CORPORATION d/b/a AVISTA ORDER 01
UTILITIES,
Petitioner, GRANTING ACCOUNTING
PETITION
For an Accounting Order Authorizing
Deferred Accounting Treatment for Puget
Sound Energy's Increased Costs
Associated with the Updated WUTC
Regulatory Fee Approved in Senate Bill
5634 (2022)
BACKGROUND
1 On December 2, 2022, Avista Corporation d/b/a Avista Utilities (Avista or Company)
filed with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission(Commission) a
petition, assigned to Docket UE-220892 for electric and UG-220893 for natural gas,
seeking an accounting order under WAC 480-07-370 authorizing Avista to utilize
deferred accounting treatment for the Company's increased costs associated with the
updated Commission regulatory fees approved in Senate Bill 5634 (SB 5634) in 2022.
2 On January 4, 2023, Avista filed a revised petition(Revised Petition)updating the
requested interest rate from weighted average cost of debt to actual cost of debt.
3 SB 5634, codified as RCW 80.24.010, was signed into law on March 24, 2022, by
Governor Jay Inslee, and became effective on June 9, 2022. This law raised the
Commission's regulatory fee from 0.2 percent to 0.4 percent of"gross operating revenue
from intrastate operations for the preceding calendar year." These amounts are payable to
the Commission in May 2023. This increase in fees is not accounted for in current rates.
4 In its Revised Petition, Avista asks to track the costs of the updated regulatory fees in
deferred Federal Energy Regulatory Commission(FERC) account 186 - and that interest
accrue on the deferral at the Company's actual cost of debt, which will be updated semi-
annually.

DOCKET UE-220892 and UG-220893 PAGE 2
ORDER 01
5 Avista will seek recovery of this deferral in its next general rate case, and the deferral
will end after the new approved rates go into effect.
6 The threshold for granting accounting petitions is a demonstration of extraordinary
circumstances. Avista contends that the regulatory fee law is an extraordinary
circumstance because it is beyond the Company's control, and the cost is material.
7 Commission staff(Staff) recommends that the Commission grant the request for the
deferral of increased regulatory fees with interest accruing at the actual cost of debt,
updated semi-annually. Staff recommends that the semi-annual update occur on July 1
and January 1.
DISCUSSION
8 We grant Avista's Revised Petition. We agree that this regulatory fee increase is an
extraordinary circumstance because this is a cost beyond the Company's control. We
believe that tracking this cost in FERC account 186 is appropriate, and that incurring
interest at the Company's cost of debt,updated semi-annually, is fair.
9 We also agree with Staff that the actual cost of debt should be updated semi-annually on
July 1 and January 1, which will compensate the Company for the actual cost of
acquiring the money.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
10 (1) The Commission is an agency of the State of Washington vested by statute with
the authority to regulate the rates, rules, regulations,practices, accounts,
securities, transfers of property and affiliated interests of public service
companies, including electric and natural gas companies.
11 (2) Avista is a public service company regulated by the Commission, providing
service as an electric and natural gas company.
12 (3) The Commission has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and
over Avista.
13 (4) WAC 480-07-370(3) allows companies to file petitions including that for which
Avista seeks approval.

DOCKET UE-220892 and UG-220893 PAGE 3
ORDER 01
14 (5) Staff has reviewed the Revised Petition in Dockets UE-220892 and UG-220893
including related work papers.
15 (6) Staff recommends the Commission grant the Revised Petition.
16 (7) This matter came before the Commission at its regularly scheduled meeting on
January 26, 2023.
17 (8) After reviewing Avista's Revised Petition filed in Dockets UE-220892 and UG-
220893 on December 2, 2022, and giving due consideration to all relevant matters
and for good cause shown, the Commission finds that the Revised Petition is
consistent with the public interest and should be granted.
ORDER
THE COMMISSION ORDERS:
18 (1) Avista Corporation d/b/a Avista Utilities' Petition for an Accounting Order
Authorizing Deferred Accounting Treatment for Puget Sound Energy's Increased
Costs Associated with the Updated WUTC Regulatory Fee Approved in Senate
Bill 5634 (2022) is granted.
19 (2) This Order shall not affect the Commission's authority over rates, services,
accounts, valuations, estimates, or determination of costs, on any matters that may
come before it. Nor shall this Order granting Petition be construed as an
agreement to any estimate or determination of costs, or any valuation of property
claimed or asserted.
20 (3) The Commission retains jurisdiction over the subject matter and Avista
Corporation d/b/a Avista Utilities to effectuate the provisions of this Order.

DOCKET UE-220892 and UG-220893 PAGE 4
ORDER 01
DATED at Lacey, Washington, and effective January 26, 2023.
WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DAVID W. DANNER, Chair
ANN E. RENDAHL, Commissioner
MILTON H. DOUMIT, Commissioner