20160623AVU to Staff Summary of Rate Orders.pdf

1

Summary of Rate Orders
Avista Corporation Q1 2015 Purpose: This report summarizes the findings and rulings of the various state Utility
Commissions as they apply to Avista Corporation. These rate orders are available from
the different state Utility Commission websites that Avista provides service, including:

• Oregon – www.puc.idaho.gov
• Washington – www.utc.wa.gov

OREGON

Case No. UG 284 Order No. 15-0547 (02/23/15)
Background: On September 2, 2014, Avista filed for a general rate increase in Oregon for retail customers. The Commission suspended Avista’s filing until July 3, 2015 for investigations. A
public meeting to take public comments on the proposed rate increase was held on December 11,
2014. The meeting was held simultaneously in White City, and Grants Pass, Oregon, with the Commissioners participating via video conference from Salem. In addition, the Commission
received public comment via telephone, e-mail, and U.S. Mail. Following settlement discussions,
Avista, Staff, CUB, and NWIGU filed an all-party stipulation on January 21, 2015, to resolve all issues in this docket. On January 28, 2015, the parties filed joint testimony in support of their
stipulation. On January 29, 2015, Staff filed its own testimony in support of the stipulation, together with witness affidavits. The stipulation, joint testimony, and Staff’s testimony were received in evidence.
On February 23, 2015, the Commission rejected Avista’s all-party settlement stipulation, for the requested General Rate Revision. The Commission rejected the stipulation due to concerns related to proposed early rate implementation credit, rate spread, and customer count tracking
mechanism. The Judge is directed to convene a prehearing conference to set a schedule for further proceedings.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-054.pdf

Case No. UM 1012 Order No. 15-057 (02/24/15)
Background: At its public meeting on February 24, 2015, the PUC of Oregon Staff recommended the Commission issue an order setting the annual fee rate at 0.25 percent of 2014
gross operating revenues for electric, natural gas, water, and wastewater utilities.
2

Effective March 1, 2015, the Commission issued an order to impose annual Regulatory Fees upon
Public Utilities operating within the State of Oregon. The annual fee assessment rate is 0.25
percent in 2015 for electric, natural gas, water, and wastewater utilities.
http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-057.pdf
Case No. LC 61 Order No. 15-063 (03/02/15)
Background: on August 29, 2014, Avista filed its 2014 IRP. After rounds of comments filed by Staff, CUB, and Avista, the Staff presented its final recommendation on Avista’s 2014 IRP at the
February 24, 2015 Public Meeting. On March 2, 2015, the Commission issued an order in the matter of Avista’s 2014 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). The order acknowledged the IRP with certain revisions and additional
requirements as follows: 1. Supply Side Actions
a. No Major Resource Acquisition 2 Demand Side Actions
a. By May 1, 2015, in addition to those items specified in Order No. 13-159, Avista
shall file for Commission approval specific DSM targets for the next two to four years. As part of the filing, Avista should:
i. Provide Total Resource Cost (TRC) benefit/cost ratios (BCR) and utility
cost test (UCT) BCRs for each measure and program that has a TRC or UCT BCR of less than one;
ii. Provide projected achievable savings for each measure and program identified in item a. above; and. iii. Recommend which, if any, measures it is requesting an exception for
under docket UM 551, Order No. 94-590. b. Participate in NEEA’s new gas market transformation initiative, and in the next, IRP include and note specific gas market transformation savings potential that are part of
the achievable resource potential. Additional Commission Directives:
1. As part of its next IRP process, Avista must convene workshops with Staff and
stakeholders to explore how best to model major resource acquisitions and major capital
investments.
2. For the next IRP, Avista must work with Staff and stakeholders to resolve forecasting
methodology concerns, and seek to identify the most reliable methodology so that future resource needs may be clearly identified.
3. In its next IRP, Avista must include a clear presentation of how Avista decides which distribution system projects to include in the IRP, and a clear description of the included
projects, along with a justification for recommending or proceeding with the projects. 4. As part of its next IRP process, Avista must convene discussions with Staff and
stakeholders to discuss potential impacts associated with: 1) new regulations to reduce methane emissions; and 2) potential increases in natural gas prices stemming from
3

increased demand for natural gas for generation under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air
Act.
http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-063.pdf

WASHINGTON
Case Nos. UE-150204 and UG-150205
Order No. 01, 02, 03 Background: On February 9, 2015, Avista, filed with the UTC revisions to its currently effective Tariff WN U-28, Electric Service, the stated effective date is March 12, 2015. The
purpose is to increase rates and charges for electric and gas service provided to customers in
the state of Washington.
On February 20, 2015, the Commission issued a Complaint and Order suspending Tariff
Revisions and an Order of Consolidation for Dockets UE-150204 and UG-150205 in Avista’s General Rate Case. On February 20, 2015, the Commission issued a Protective Order in Dockets
Confidentiality Agreements will have to be signed and returned in order to receive confidential
materials and discovery items.
On March 16, 2015, the Commission issued a Prehearing Conference Order and Notice of
Hearing, set for October 5-8, 2015. The Procedural Schedule is found in Appendix B.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=258&year=2015&docketNumber=150205

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=285&year=2015&docketNumber=150204
http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=332&year=201
5&docketNumber=150204
1

Summary of Rate Orders
Avista Corporation Q2 2015 Purpose: This report summarizes the findings and rulings of the various state Utility
Commissions as they apply to Avista Corporation. These rate orders are available from
the different state Utility Commission websites that Avista provides service, including:

• Oregon – www.puc.idaho.gov
• Washington – www.utc.wa.gov

OREGON
Case No. UG 284
Order No. 15109 (04/09/15), 15171, 15170
Background: On September 2, 2014, Avista filed for a general rate increase in Oregon for retail customers. The Commission suspended Avista’s filing until July 3, 2015 for
investigations. A public meeting to take public comments on the proposed rate increase
was held on December 11, 2014. The meeting was held simultaneously in White City,
and Grants Pass, Oregon, with the Commissioners participating via video conference from Salem. In addition, the Commission received public comment via telephone, e-mail, and U.S. Mail. Following settlement discussions, Avista, Staff, CUB, and NWIGU filed
an all-party stipulation on January 21, 2015, to resolve all issues in this docket. On
January 28, 2015, the parties filed joint testimony in support of their stipulation. On
January 29, 2015, Staff filed its own testimony in support of the stipulation, together with witness affidavits. The stipulation, joint testimony, and Staff’s testimony were received in evidence.

The Commission issued a final order that approved the amended settlement stipulation
between Avista, Commission Staff, CUB and the Northwest Industrial Gas Users. http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-109.pdf

On June 4, 2015, the Commission issued a Fund Grant request for CUB in the amount of
$20,425.20.
http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-171.pdf

On June 4, 2015, the Commission issued a Fund Grant request for NWIGU in the amount
of $31,686.81.
http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-170.pdf
2

Case No. UG 288 Order No. 15141 (05/06/15), 15143

Background: On May 1, 2015, Avista filed a request for General Rate Revision and a motion for a general protective order. Avista states that the order is needed to protect
commercially sensitive and confidential business information related to the company's
request. Specifically, Avista anticipates parties will seek confidential information
including propriety cost data and models, commercially sensitive load and resource
projections, confidential market analyses and business projections, confidential employee data, and confidential contract information. Avista adds that the order will facilitate the
projection of relevant information and expedite the discovery process.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-141.pdf
On May 6, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Prehearing Conference and the tariff
sheets were suspended, not to exceed nine months from June 3, 2015.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-143.pdf
http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-143.pdf

Case No. LC 61 Order No. 15186 (06/09/15) Background: On August 29, 2014 Avista filed its 2014 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP).
In the matter of Avista’s 2014 IRP, the Commission issued an order to approve CUB’s
issue grant request in the amount of $5,225.30. http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-186.pdf

WASHINGTON
Case Nos. UE-150204 and UG-150205
Order No. 01(02/20/15), 02 (02/20/15), 03 (03/16/15)
Background: On February 9, 2015, Avista, filed with the UTC revisions to its currently
effective Tariff WN U-28, Electric Service, the stated effective date is March 12, 2015.
The purpose is to increase rates and charges for electric and gas service provided to
customers in the state of Washington.
3

On February 20, 2015, the Commission issued a Complaint and Order suspending Tariff
Revisions and an Order of Consolidation for Dockets UE-150204 and UG-150205 in
Avista’s General Rate Case. On February 20, 2015, the Commission issued a Protective
Order in Dockets Confidentiality Agreements will have to be signed and returned in order to receive confidential materials and discovery items.

On March 16, 2015, the Commission issued a Prehearing Conference Order and Notice
of Hearing, set for October 5-8, 2015. The Procedural Schedule is found in Appendix B.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=258&y
ear=2015&docketNumber=150205

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=285&year=2015&docketNumber=150204

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=332&y
ear=2015&docketNumber=150204

Case Nos. UE-131056
Order No. 02 (6/25/15) Background: On May 31, 2013, Avista initiated this docket by filing with the
Commission a Renewable Report under RCW 19.285.070 and WAC 480-109-210 (RPS
Report). Based on its average annual load for 2011 and 2012, Avista reported that its
2013 renewable energy target was 166,740 megawatt-hours (MWh). In Order 01 in this docket, dated Sept. 9, 2013, the Commission accepted Avista’s calculation of its 2013 target.

On June 25, 2015, the Commission issued an order for Avista’s Final 2015 Renewable
Compliance report under RCW 19.285.070 and WAC 480-109-210, the order acknowledges compliance with 2013 Renewable Energy Target.
http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=45&yea
r=2013&docketNumber=131056

Case Nos. UE-140188 & UG-140189 Order No. 06 (06/25/15)

Background: On November 25, 2014, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (Commission) entered a final order rejecting the tariff filing of Avista
4

Corporation d/b/a Avista Utilities (Avista or the Company), accepting with conditions a
full settlement stipulation (Settlement), authorizing tariff filing, and requiring compliance
filings in Dockets UE-140188 and UG-140189 (Order 05). Among other things, the
Settlement required Avista to meet with the Commission’s regulatory staff (Staff) and other interested parties to develop and implement appropriate service quality metrics,
customer guarantees and reporting, with the agreed upon tariff revisions filed on or
before June 1, 2015, with a program in place on July 1, 2015.

On May 29, 2015, Avista filed its proposed Service Quality Measures (SQM) Program (SQM Filing) language and accompanying tariffs, after discussions with Staff, Public
Counsel, and The Energy Project on six separate occasions. Staff and Public Counsel
filed responses to the Company’s SQM Filing on June 10, 2015. Avista filed comments
in reply on June 17, 2015 (Avista’s Reply).
The Commission issued a final order approving Avista’s Service Quality Measures program compliance filing.

Avista will implement customer guarantee credits-(07/01/15)

Avista will provide potential natural gas SQM report see the attached responsibility
matrix-(12/30/15)
Avista will guarantee credits borne by shareholders.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=1140&
year=2014&docketNumber=140188
http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=553&y
ear=2014&docketNumber=140189

Case Nos. UE-140188 & UG-140189
Order No. 07 (06/25/15)

Background: On November 25, 2014, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (Commission) entered a final order rejecting the tariff filing of Avista
Corporation d/b/a Avista Utilities (Avista or the Company), accepting with conditions a
full settlement stipulation (Settlement), authorizing tariff filing, and requiring compliance
filings in Dockets UE-140188 and UG-140189 (Order 05). Among other things, Order 05
required Avista to double its funding increase for the Company’s Low-Income Rate Assistance Program (LIRAP) from the amount proposed in the Settlement. The
settlement provided that the parties would work together to develop mutually agreed
upon additions and modifications to LIRAP. Order 05 provided that if the Parties could
5

not agree upon modifications or additions to the program they would file alternative or
competing proposals with the Commission no later than June 1, 2015.

On June 25, 2015, the Commission issued a final order granting the Joint Petition and approving modifications and additions to Avista’s Low-Income Rate Assistance Program
compliance filing.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=1143&
year=2014&docketNumber=140188
http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=556&y
ear=2014&docketNumber=140189

Program Modifications
The first modification provides funding as a fixed annual budget, rather than collecting
and allocating funding to Community Action Agencies on a variable monthly basis. To accomplish this, Avista will make an annual true-up filing to ensure recovery of the annual budget each year. The total LIRAP revenue requirement will continue to be set in
a GRC or other proceeding. Unspent funds will remain available for the next program
year. This change will benefit Community Action Agencies by enabling them to know
their fixed annual allocations by the end of May each year, and to budget accordingly. Second, Avista will establish an ongoing energy assistance program advisory group to
continue to monitor and explore ways to improve LIRAP. The group will hold at least
two meetings per year. The costs of convening the advisory group will be recovered
through general rates, not through Schedules 92 and 192, which fund the LIRAP electric and gas programs.
Finally, the Parties propose various other changes. Notably, administrative changes will
improve communication between Avista, the Community Action Agencies, and program
participants. Program Additions
As an addition to the current LIRAP program, the Parties propose a pilot rate discount
program for seniors and customers with disabilities. The Parties believe the addition of this program will enable LIRAP to reach more senior customers than the current program alone, lower these customers’ energy burden, and may be more effective in preventing
disconnections than a one-time grant.
Fixed-income seniors and fixed-income customers with a disability whose household income is between 126-200% of the federal poverty line (FPL) will be eligible for this
6

pilot program. The program will provide a rate discount with an average benefit of $300
per participant per program year. Up to 800 customers will be eligible to participate
from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2017.
The program’s budget is $700,000, which includes $50,000 for a third-party evaluation.
Parties propose to increase LIRAP funding by $350,000 per year to fund this two-year
pilot. A total of $210,992 will be recovered annually through electric Schedule 92, and
$113,238 through natural gas schedule 192. NWIGU, representing transportation
customers on Schedule 146, agreed to contribute $25,770 annually to LIRAP.
The Parties also filed a study published by SNAP and Eastern Washington University on
the incidence of poverty in Avista’s service territory. This study relies on data from the
American Community Survey, which provides an estimated 5-year rolling average
household income by census tract. The Parties argue that the study shows that over eight percent of households live below 50 percent of the federal poverty line (FPL), and that
over one-third of households in Avista’s service area live below 200 percent of the FPL.

In light of this high level of need, and experiences from other states, the Parties plan to
continue to discuss the addition of new LIRAP programs. Specifically, the Parties will explore the feasibility of implementing percentage of bill payment and arrearage
management plans. Percentage of bill payment plans lower the customer’s energy bill to a
set percentage of total household income. Arrearage management plans mitigate the
hardship caused by a large arrearage by establishing achievable monthly payments. The
Parties intend to investigate these program options further, and file a pilot proposal or status update by January 15, 2017.

RFP for third party evaluator due 7/16/15

LIRAP 3rd Party evaluation 12/15/17

1

Summary of Rate Orders
Avista Corporation Q3 2015 Purpose: This report summarizes the findings and rulings of the various state Utility
Commissions as they apply to Avista Corporation. These rate orders are available from
the different state Utility Commission websites that Avista provides service, including:

• Alaska – www.rca.alaska.gov
• Idaho – www.puc.state.id.us
• Montana – psc.mt.gov
• Oregon – www.puc.idaho.gov
• Washington – www.utc.wa.gov

Alaska Nothing to report

IDAHO
Case No. AVU-E-15-06 Order No. 33350 (07/30/15),
Background: On May 13, 2015, Avista Corporation and Clearwater Paper Corporation filed
a Joint Petition requesting that the Commission approve an amendment to their Electric
Service Agreement approved by the Commission in June 2013. See Order No. 32841. In their amendment dated May 4, 2015, the Parties agreed to make two modifications to their Agreement outlined, in greater detail, in the link below. The Parties requested that their
Petition be processed under Modified Procedure with an effective date of August 1, 2015. On
June 3,2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Petition and Modified Procedure requesting
public comment on the Petition no later than July 17, 2015. Commission Staff was the only party to comment and recommended the Commission approve Amendment No. 1.

On July, 30, 2015, the Commission approved the Joint Petition.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Final_Order_No_33350.pdf

Case No. AVU-E-15-01 Order No. 33286 (04/23/15), 33311 (06/02/15), 33357 (08/20/15)
Background: On January 30, 2015, Idaho Power filed a Petition asking the Commission
to reduce the length of its PURPA contracts from 20 years to two years (Case No. IPC-E-
15-01). The Commission granted Idaho Power interim relief, reducing the term for the
2

utility’s new PURPA contracts to five years while the Commission investigated the
matter. Order No. 33222. Shortly thereafter, Avista Corporation and Rocky Mountain
each filed petitions seeking the same or similar permanent and interim relief (Case Nos.
AVU-E-15-01, PAC-E-15-03). On March 13, 2015, the Commission consolidated the three cases and granted Avista and Rocky Mountain the same interim relief granted Idaho
Power. Order No. 33250.

On April 23, 2015, the Commission issued order 33286, which denied Simplot and
Clearwater’s Joint Petition for Clarification.
http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Order_No_33286.pdf

On May 7, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Public Customer Hearings. The
hearings will be held on June 24, 2015 at 7pm in the Commission Hearing Room and on June 30, 2015 at 7pm a telephonic customer hearing will be held, in the Commission
Hearing Room.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Notice_of_Public_Hearings.pdf
http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Notice_of_Public_Hearings_Errata.pdf

On June 2, 2015, the Commission allowed Ecoplexus to conditionally intervene. The
Commission denied Ecoplexus’s motion to Late File Direct Testimony. http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Order_No_33311.pdf

On August 20, 2015, the Commission issued a final order to approve Avista’s Petition to
reduce the length of its IRP based PURPA contracts to two years and to allow Avista to enter
IRP-based QF contracts in excess of two years on a case-by-case basis with appropriate
justification.
http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Final_Order_No_33357.pdf

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Final_Order_No_33287.pdf

3

OREGON
Case No. UM 903
Order No. 15-210 (07/07/15)

Background: Avista and the other two Oregon-regulated natural gas distribution companies
recover gas costs under an automatic adjustment clause known as the Purchased Gas Adjustment (PGA). The purpose of the PGA is to permit each natural gas utility to adjust revenue annually to reflect actual increases or decreases in gas costs/

On July 7, 2015, the Commission accepted that Avista’s earnings for the 12 months ended
December 31, 2014, were calculated correctly, are below the earnings threshold established in UM 903 and there should be no earnings shared in this filing.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-210.pdf

Case No. AR 588 Order No. 15-232 (08/11/15)
Background: On August 11, 2015 the Commission adopted a rule, OAR 860-027-0350, to
require regulated energy utilities to file depreciation studies no less frequently than once
every five years.
http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-232.pdf
Case No. AR 591
Order No. 15-266 (09/08/15)

Background: On July 15, 2015, we filed a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Statement of
Need and Fiscal Impact for this rulemaking with the Secretary of State, and we provided notice to all interested persons on the service lists established under OAR 860-001-0030(1)
(b) and to legislators specified in ORS 183.335(l)(d). Notice of the rulemaking was published
in the August 2015 Oregon Bulletin. The notice established a comment due date of August
24, 2015. No comments were filed.
On September 8, 2015, the Commission adopted changes to OAR 860-021-0034, 860-021-0036, 860-032-0095, 860-034-0095, 860-036-0095, and 860-037-0095 to implement 2015 Senate Bill
329 changes to 756.310. The changes to ORS 756.310 became effective on June 8, 2015. The changes increase the maximum percentage rate of gross revenues that may be imposed from 25 one-hundredths of one percent (0.25 percent) to three-tenths of a one percent (0.3 percent).

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-266.pdf
4

Case No. LC 61 Order No. 15-288 (09/22/15)

Background: On August 31, 2012, Avista Corporation (Avista or Company) filed its 2012 Natural Gas Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). Within the IRP, Avista's DSM Business Plan
anticipated that the natural gas DSM portfolio could be marginally cost effective presuming a 25
percent reduction in avoided costs. This presumed decline in avoided costs, was replaced with a new avoided cost forecast that was 50 percent lower than the original forecast leading to a non-
cost effective DSM portfolio. Avista filed to suspend its natural gas DSM.
On April 30, 2013, within Order 13-159, the Commission directed Avista to continue its DSM programs in Oregon and achieve a minimum savings of 225,000 therms in 2013and
250,000 therms in 2014. In addition, the Commission required that Avista provide additional
reporting within two years. On March 2, 2015, the Commission provided additional direction to Avista related to DSM in Order No. 15-063, which acknowledges Avista's 2014 IRP Action plan.

Avista filed the required reports on May 1, 2015, in response to the Commission Order Nos. 13-150 in LC 55 and 15-063 in LC61, Upon receipt of the reports, Staff found the reports
inadequate and was initially unable to provide a clear recommendation to the Commission based upon the information provided and asked Avista to provide additional follow-up information (Appendix B). Due to recent loss of key planning staff at the Company, Avista
requested additional time to respond to questions, over the course of a six-week period, Avista was extremely responsive to Staff's requests, answered all clarifying questions and provided
additional data to sufficiently address the requirements in the two orders.
On September 22, 2015, the Commission approved Avista’s request for 2015-2016 DSM targets
and granted cost effectiveness exceptions to the measures summarized in the following link.
http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-288.pdf

WASHINGTON
Case Nos. UE-150520
Order No. 01(07/30/15)
Background: The Utilities and Transportation Commission (Commission), in its Fifth
supplemental Order, in Docket UE-011595 (June 18, 2002), authorized Avista Corporation
dba Avista Utilities (Avista or Company) to implement an Energy Recovery Mechanism (ERM). The ERM allows for positive or negative adjustments to its rates to account for fluctuations in power costs, outside of an authorized band, for power-cost recovery in base
rates. Under the Settlement Stipulation approved by the Commission in the same order,
Avista is required to make a filing by April 1 of each year regarding the power costs it deferred the prior calendar year under the ERM.
5

On July 30, 2015, the Commission issued an order regarding Avista’s Energy Recovery
Mechanism (ERM) Annual Filing to review deferrals for Calendar Year 2014. The Order
recognizes that Avista meets the requirements in Dockets UE-011595 and UE-030751 and
Avista has properly calculated the 2014 Energy Recovery Mechanism amount. Pursuant to the
terms of the Energy Recovery Mechanism, Avista is authorized to record a 2014 rate-payer deferral or rebate amount of $4,224,011.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=21&year=2
015&docketNumber=150520

Case Nos. UE-150715
Order No. 01 (07/30/15)
Background: On May 1, 2015, Avista Corporation (Avista or Company) filed a petition for
an order approving a Lease Agreement between the Company and Mobius Science Center (Mobius), a non-profit science center that opened in Spokane in 2012. The Lease Agreement
will allow Avista to form an educational partnership with Mobius and fulfill its hydro-dam
relicensing requirements to provide educational displays on the operations and environmental
aspects of hydro power. The Lease Agreement grants Mobius occupancy of the ground floor of the Post Street Annex, which is a three-story facility. Avista will continue to use the other two floors of the Annex as a supporting facility for the Post Street substation next door. On July 30, 2015, the Commission approved the lease agreement related to the Post
Street Annex between Avista and Mobius Science Center.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=15&year=2015&docketNumber=150715

Case Nos. UE-151145
Order No. 01 (07/30/15) Background: The Energy Independence Act (EIA or Act) requires qualifying electric
utilities to obtain certain percentages of their electricity from eligible renewable resources. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (Commission) enforces
compliance with the EIA by investor-owned utilities. Ultimately, the Commission must
determine “whether the utility has generated, acquired or arranged to acquire enough
renewable energy credits or qualifying generation to comply with its renewable resource target.”

On July 30, 2015, Commission issued an order approving compliance with eligible
renewable energy target reporting requirements for 2015.
http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=59&yea
r=2015&docketNumber=151145
6

Case Nos. P-150462
Order No. 01 (08/27/15)

Background: The Commission imposes an annual pipeline safety fee pursuant to RCW
80.24.060 and RCW 81.24.090 to meet the costs of its pipeline safety program. RCW
8024.060(1) requires that every gas company and every interstate gas pipeline company subject to inspection or enforcement by the Commission must pay an annual pipeline safety fee to the Commission. RCW 81.24.090(1) requires that every hazardous liquid pipeline
company as defined in RCW 81.88.010 must pay an annual pipeline safety fee to the
Commission. The fee is determined by the fee methodology established in WAC 480-93-240
(gas) and WAC 480-75-240 (hazardous liquid).

On August 27, 2015, the Commission issued an order regarding the pipeline safety fees to be
paid to the Commission for fiscal year 2016 (July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016). Under the provisions of RCW 80.24.060 and RCW 81.24.090, and the fee methodology in WAC
480-93-240 and WAC 480-75-240, are established as set out in Exhibit A, attached to this
Order. Avista’s fees are part of the Commission Fees paid in April 2015. No other payments
are necessary. http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=6&year=20
15&docketNumber=150462

1

Summary of Rate Orders
Avista Corporation Q4 2015 Purpose: This report summarizes the findings and rulings of the various state Utility
Commissions as they apply to Avista Corporation. These rate orders are available from
the different state Utility Commission websites that Avista provides service, including:

• Alaska – www.rca.alaska.gov
• Idaho – www.puc.state.id.us
• Montana – psc.mt.gov
• Oregon – www.puc.idaho.gov
• Washington – www.utc.wa.gov

Alaska Nothing to report

IDAHO
Case No. AVU-E-15-01 Order No. 33286 (04/23/15), 33311 (06/02/15), 33357 (08/20/15), 33395 (10/08/15), 33419 (11/05/15)

Background: On January 30, 2015, Idaho Power filed a Petition asking the Commission to reduce the length of its PURPA contracts from 20 years to two years (Case No. IPC-E-
15-01). The Commission granted Idaho Power interim relief, reducing the term for the
utility’s new PURPA contracts to five years while the Commission investigated the
matter. Order No. 33222. Shortly thereafter, Avista Corporation and Rocky Mountain
each filed petitions seeking the same or similar permanent and interim relief (Case Nos. AVU-E-15-01, PAC-E-15-03). On March 13, 2015, the Commission consolidated the
three cases and granted Avista and Rocky Mountain the same interim relief granted Idaho
Power. Order No. 33250.

On April 23, 2015, the Commission issued order 33286, which denied Simplot and Clearwater’s Joint Petition for Clarification.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Order_No_33286.pdf

On May 7, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Public Customer Hearings. The hearings will be held on June 24, 2015 at 7pm in the Commission Hearing Room and on
June 30, 2015 at 7pm a telephonic customer hearing will be held, in the Commission
Hearing Room.
http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Notice_of_Public_Hearings.pdf
2

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Notice_of_Public_Hearings_Errata.pdf

On June 2, 2015, the Commission allowed Ecoplexus to conditionally intervene. The Commission denied Ecoplexus’s motion to Late File Direct Testimony.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Order_No_33311.pdf

On August 20, 2015, the Commission issued a final order to approve Avista’s Petition to
reduce the length of its IRP based PURPA contracts to two years and to allow Avista to enter
IRP-based QF contracts in excess of two years on a case-by-case basis with appropriate
justification.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Final_Order_No_33357.pdf

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Final_Order_No_33287.pdf

On October 8, 2015, the Commission granted Simplot and Clearwater’s Petition for
Reconsideration. The Commission anticipates issuing a final order within 28 days.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Order_No_33395.pdf

On November 5, 2015 Avista, Idaho Power, and Rocky Mountain Power’s petition to
modify terms and conditions of PURPA Purchase Agreements, the Commission denied
Clearwater’s and Simplot’s request to amend the final Order No. 33357.
http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Reconsideration_Order_No_33419.pdf

Case No. AVU-G-15-02
Order No. 33402 (10/23/15)
Background: On August 27, 2015, Avista filed its annual Purchased Gas Cost
Adjustment (PGA) Application. The PGA is a Commission-approved mechanism that
adjusts rates up or down to reflect changes in Avista’s costs to buy natural gas from
suppliers—including changes in transportation, storage, and other related costs. Avista
defers these costs into its PGA account, and then passes them to customers through an increase or decrease in rates. With this Application, Avista proposes to decrease its PGA rates by about $10.3 million (14.5%), effective November 1, 2015.

On September 1, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Application and Notice of
Modified Procedure setting an October 9, 2015 deadline for interested persons to
3

comment on the Application, and an October 15, 2015 deadline for Avista to file reply
comments. Commission Staff filed the only comments in the case, and supported
Avista’s Application.
On October 23, 2015, the Commission issued an order to approve Avista’s Purchased
Gas Adjustment (PGA). Avista will establish a weighted average cost of gas (WACOG)
of $0.252 per therm, and a Schedule 155 amortization rate of $0.02886 per therm. Tariffs
are for service rendered on and after November 1, 2015.
http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Final_Order_No_33402.pdf

Case No. AVU-E-15-05 and AVU-G-15-01
Order No. 33400 (10/20/15)
Background: On June 1, 2015, Avista applied to increase its general rates for electric and
natural gas service. The Company proposed a two-phase rate plan that would increase
electric billed revenues by $13.2 million (5.2%) on January 1, 2016, and by $13.7 million
(5.1%) on January 1, 2017.
On October 20, 2015, regarding Avista’s application for authority to increase its rates and
charges for electric and natural gas service the commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Settlement, a Notice of Amended Schedule and a Notice of Public and Technical
Hearings.
http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Notice_of_Proposed_Settlement_Order_No_334
00.pdf

On December 18, 2015, the Commission issued a final order to approve Avista’s
settlement stipulation to increase its rates and charges for Electric and Natural Gas
service. As part of the settlement, the electric revenues will be increased to $1.7 million
and the natural gas revenues will be increased to $2.5 million. The new tariffs will go
into effect January 1, 2016.
http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Final_Order_No_33437.pdf

Case No. AVU-U-15-01 Order No. 33401 (10/23/15) Background: On September 14, 2015, Avista applied for authority to issue and sell up to
$300,000,000 of debt securities and 1,635,000 shares of unissued Common Stock under
the Long-Term Incentive Plan.
4

On October 23, 2015, The Commission issued a final order to approve Avista’s
application to issue and sell debt securities up to $300,000,000 and to issue up to
1,635,000 shares of Common Stock.
http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Final_Order_No_33401.pdf

Case No. AVU-E-15-09
Order No. 33416 (11/04/15) Background: Pursuant to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA)
and the implementing regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC), the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission) has approved an
incremental cost Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) methodology to calculate avoided cost rates paid to certain PURPA qualifying facilities (QFs). The avoided cost rate is the
purchase price paid to QFs for purchases of QF energy and capacity.
In Order Nos. 32697 and 32802, the Commission determined that the load forecast
and natural gas forecast inputs to the IRP avoided cost methodology should be updated
annually on October 15 of each year.
On November 4, 2015, the Commission issued an order to approve Avista’s annual
update to its load and gas price forecast and long-term contract status for purposes of its
incremental cost IRP (Integrated Resource Plan) methodology. The recent energy load
forecast remains, on average, a 0.6 percent annual average growth rate. The peak forecast growth rated decreased from 0.7 percent to 0.6 percent. These will go into effect
October 15, 2015.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Final_Order_No_33416.pdf

Case No. AVU-G-15-03 Order No. 33422 (11/20/15), 33444 (12/24/15)

Background: On October 28, 2015, Avista filed an Application for authority to: (1) resume natural gas energy efficiency programs and projects to residential (including low-
income), commercial and industrial natural gas customers under Schedule 190 (Natural
Gas Efficiency Programs); and (2) fund these programs by increasing its “Energy
Efficiency Rider” surcharge rates in tariff Schedule 191. Application at 1. Avista
proposes that the gas demand-side management (DSM) programs “be offered through prescriptive rebates to customer segments for eligible weatherization and high efficiency equipment measures as well as custom incentives for 27 non-residential projects.” Id.
Avista asks that the case be processed by Modified procedure, and that new Schedule 191
Rider rates take effect on January 1, 2016.
In 2012, Avista filed and the Commission approved an application to suspend Avista’s natural gas DSM programs. In its 2012 application, Avista advised the Commission that
5

new natural gas costs were about 50% lower than existing avoided costs and that these
lower gas costs render the “natural gas energy efficiency portfolio cost-ineffective going
forward.” Order No. 32650 at 1. After evaluating a number of cost-effectiveness tests,
Avista now seeks to re-establish those programs.
On November 20, 2015, The Commission issued a Notice of Application and a Notice of
Modified procedure in Avista’s application to resume natural gas efficiency programs
and increase the rider surcharge in schedules 190 and 191, dealing with Demand Side
Management (DSM) natural gas efficiency programs. Comments are due no later than December 10, 2015.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Notice_of_Application_Order_No_33422.pdf

On December 24, 2015, the Commission issued an order to approve Avista’s application
to resume natural gas efficiency programs and increase the rider surcharge in schedules
190 and 191. Tariff Schedules 190 and 191 will become effective January 1, 2016 and
will increase the monthly bill of the average gas customer using 61 therms by about $1.11
per month. http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Final_Order_No_33444.pdf

Case No. GNR-U-15-01 Order No. 33426 (12/07/15)
Background: The Commission’s Customer Relations Rules for Gas, Electric and Water
Utilities (IDAPA 31.21.01.106) and the Customer Relations Rules for Telephone
Companies (IDAPA 31.41.01.104) both provide for the payment of interest on customer deposits. Pursuant to both of these rule sets, the interest rate on deposits is determined by calculating the 12-month average interest rate for one-year treasury bills for the previous
November 1 through October 31. The resulting rate is then rounded to the nearest whole
percent. The calculated rate will be in effect for the following calendar year. Using the
weekly rates as posted by the U.S. Department of Treasury, the average interest rate for one-year treasury bills for the 12-month period from November 1, 2014 through October 31, 2015, is 0.26%. Consistent with our previous findings, we accept Staff’s
position that zero is not a “whole percent” interest rate. Accordingly, public utilities shall
pay 1.0% annual interest on all customer deposits held pursuant to IDAPA Rules
31.21.01.106 and 31.41.01.104 for calendar year 2016. This interest rate is the same as the interest rate for the years 2010 through 2015.
On December 7, 2015, the Commission issued an order regarding the interest rate on
deposits collected from customers of gas, electric, telephone and water public utilities for
calendar year 2016. The Commission ordered a 1.0% annual interest rate to be paid
6

during the 2016 calendar year. The rate on deferred accounts using the customer deposit
rate will also be 1.0% for calendar year 2016.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Final_Order_No_33426.pdf

OREGON
Case No. UF 4294 Order No. 15-305 (10/06/15)
Background: On October 6, 2015, the Commission approved Avista’s application to issue an incremental $300 million of debt securities, and an incremental 1,635,000 shares of common
stock through its Long Term Incentive Plan (LTIP).

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-305.pdf
Case No. UM 1356 (8)
Order No. 15-306 (10/06/15)

Background: On October 6, 2015, the Commission approved Avista’s request for reauthorization to defer costs related to intervenor funding grants effective November 1,
2015.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-306.pdf
Case No. UM 1497(5)
Order No. 15-319 (10/19/15)

Background: Avista requested reauthorization to use deferred accounting for purchased gas cost differences. Due to the volatility of the price of natural gas purchased and
transported for customer use, the associated costs are difficult to establish with certainty,
which necessitates the use of deferred accounting to accurately capture the costs for later
incorporation in rates.
October 19, 2015, the Commission approved Avista’s application for reauthorization to defer gas cost-related differences with the PGA (Purchased Gas Adjustment) mechanism,
for accounting purposes, for the 12-month period beginning November 1, 2015.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-319.pdf

7

Case No. UG 289
Order No. 15-322 (10/19/15) Background: The Commission accepted Avista’s changes in the cost of purchased gas
and amortization rate for the Purchased Gas Adjustment balancing account and rates will
become effective with service on and after November 1, 2015.
http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-322.pdf

Case No. UG 290 Order No. 15-327 (10/19/15)
Background: Avista requested to update the rate increments in its Schedule No. 476, for
intervenor Funding Grants in Oregon, to reflect currently deferred account balances, in accordance with Order No. 07-397, which requires the costs associated with intervenor
funding be allocated to the customer class on whose behalf the intervenor is acting.

October 19, 2015, the Commission accepted the filing to update rates on Intervenor
Funding and they will become effective with service on and after November 1, 2015. The residential amortization rate will increase by 22%.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-327.pdf

Case No. UG 291 Order No. 15-328 (10/19/15)

Background: On July 31, 2015, Avista requested to revise Schedule 478, DSM Cost Recovery. The Company updates this schedule annually with its Purchased Gas
Adjustment (PGA) filing. The Company is proposing to increase the DSM cost recovery
rate by $0.00423 (i.e. from $0.01789 per therm to $0.02212 per therm). The proposed
rate combines the effect of amortizing residual balances from prior periods with DSM
costs that the Company incurred during the twelve months ending June 30, 2015. The Commission approved updates to Avista’s Demand Side Management (DSM) Cost Recovery. Avista will increase the DSM cost recovery rate from $0.01789 per therm to
$0.02212 per therm. The increase will go into effect on November 1, 2015.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-328.pdf
8

Case No. UM 779 Order No. 15-370 (11/17/15)

Background: The Commission issued an order to approve a late-payment rate of no greater than 1.8 percent monthly on overdue customer accounts and to approve an annual
interest rate of 0.3 percent on customer deposits for calendar year 2016.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/edockets/orders.asp?OrderNumber=15-370

Case No. UG 288 Order No. 15-392 (12/09/15)

Background: On December 3, 2015, the Citizens' Utility Board of Oregon (CUB) filed a Request for Payment from Avista’s, Issue Fund Grant. Section 7 .3 of the Third Amended
and Restated Intervenor Funding Agreement (Agreement), adopted by the Commission in
Order No. 15-335, governs the procedures for payment of Issue Fund Grants. CUB was
automatically pre-certified to receive Issue Fund Grants under Section 5.2(a) of the
Agreement and under OAR 860-001 -0120(3)(a).
On December 9, 2015, the Commission approved CUB’s request for Avista to pay
$19,800 from the 2015 Issue Fund and $20,451 from the 2016 Issue Fund within 30 days
of December 9, 2015. The grant will be assessed to Avista’s residential customers.
http://apps.puc.state.or.us/edockets/orders.asp?OrderNumber=15-392

WASHINGTON
Case Nos. UE-151822 Order No. 01(10/29/15)
Background: On September 11, 2015, Avista filed a statement of a planned securities
issuance and application for an order affirming compliance with RCW 80.08.040. In its
application, Avista proposes to issue up to $300,000,000 of Debt Securities, and 1,635,000
authorized but unissued shares of Common Stock. The application was filed pursuant to RCW 80.08.040.
On October 29, 2015, the Commission approved Avista’s proposal to issue and sell up to
$300,000,000 of Debt Securities and 1,635,000 authorized by unissued shares of
Common Stock, the Commission issued an order establishing compliance with RCW
80.08.040, Securities.
http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=9&year
=2015&docketNumber=151822
9

Case Nos. UE-132045 Order No. 02 (10/29/15)

Background: Electric utilities with 25,000 or more customers are required, under the Energy Independence Act (EIA or Act) 1, to set and meet energy conservation targets. In
pursuit of all available, cost-effective, reliable, and feasible conservation, electric utilities
must provide progress information and reporting.

On October 29, 2015, the Commission approved Avista’s 2014-2023 Ten-Year Achievable Electric Conservation Potential of 394,200 MWh and Its 2014-2015 Electric
Biennial Conservation Target of 58,231 MWh, under RCW 19.285.040 and WAC 480-
109-120.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=83&year=2013&docketNumber=132045

Case Nos. UE-152406
Order No. 02 (12/30/15) Background: On December 22, 2015, Avista filed a revision to its currently effective
Tariff WN U-28, designated as 11th Revision of Sheet 93, Power Cost Surcharge –
Washington. The purpose of the filing is to align the expiration of the current Energy
Recovery Mechanism (ERM) rebate with the effective date of the base rates to be established through Docket UE-150204.
On December 30, 2015, the Commission granted Avista’s petition to allow less than
statutory notice in connection with Tariff revisions. The filing aligned the expiration of
the current Energy Recovery Mechanism (ERM) rebate with the effective date of the base rates to be established through Docket UE-150204 (2015 GRC).
http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=8&year
=2015&docketNumber=152406
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Avista Corporation Project No. 2545-118
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME UNDER TOTAL DISOLVED GAS
ATTAINMENT PLAN
(Issued February 19, 2015)
1.On January 8, 2015, Avista Corporation filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a request for a one year extension of time to complete the Long Lake dam total dissolved gas spillway deflector project portion of their Total Dissolved Gas Water Quality Attainment Plan. The project is located on the Spokane
River in Spokane, Lincoln, and Stevens Counties, Washington, and in Kootenai and
Benewah Counties, Idaho.
LICENSE REQUIREMENTS AND BACKGROUND
2.License1 Article 401(a)(10) and section 5.4(D) of the project’s Washington water
quality certification requires the licensee to develop a plan to minimize total dissolved
gas (TDG) levels associated with spills at the Long Lake Development. The licensee filed
its Total Dissolved Gas Water Quality Attainment Plan with the Commission on July 16,
2010, which was approved in the Order2 issued on December 14, 2010, in conjunction
with the licensee’s TDG monitoring plan.
3.On April 11, 2013, Avista Corporation (licensee) filed a request with the
Commission to amend its Water Quality Attainment Plan implementation schedule for
the Long Lake Development. The licensee’s request was approved by the Order
Amending Total Dissolved Gas Attainment Plan for the Long Lake Development Under
Article 4013 issued August 13, 2013. Under the schedule revised in 2013, the licensee
1 127 FERC ¶ 61,265 (issued June 18, 2009).
2 Order Modifying and Approving Total Dissolved Gas Attainment and
Monitoring Plans for the Long Lake Development-Article 401. 133 FERC ¶ 62,252
(issued December 14, 2010).
3 144 FERC ¶ 62,127.
20150219-3040 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 02/19/2015
Project No. 2545-118 - 2 -
would formulate design plans and specifications and award a bid contract under phases
IV and V in 2014; construct the preferred alternative under phase VI in 2015-2016; and
conduct testing, performance evaluations, and define a spillgate protocol under phase VII
in 2017-2018.
LICENSEE’S REQUEST
4.The licensee is requesting a one year extension of time to complete the Long Lake
Dam total dissolved gas spillway deflector project in order to secure permitting for
building a temporary access road along the north river bank and within the river channel
so that construction crews can access the base of the dam. The additional time will allow
for one additional year to complete phase V (award construction bid and permit project)
of the project in 2015. This will also push phase VI (construction) to 2016-2017, phase
VII (testing, performance evaluation, and define spillgate protocol) to 2018-2019, and the effectiveness monitoring phase to 2018-2020. The licensee provided an updated timetable in their January 8, 2015, filing that outlines the implementation schedule for each phase of the project. The licensee states that the updated implementation schedule will still allow them to complete construction, testing, performance evaluation, and
defining a spillgate protocol for the project within the 10 year compliance period outlined
in the Washington Department of Ecology’s (Ecology) water quality certification.
CONSULTATION
5.The licensee provided a copy of their request for an extension of time to Ecology
and the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on November 13, 2014. The licensee received
approval of their proposal on November 21, 2014, and January 8, 2015, from Ecology
and the Tribe.
DISCUSSION
6.The licensee’s request for a one year extension of time to implement their Long
Lake Dam total dissolved gas spillway deflector project will allow the licensee to
complete the permitting process, which is expected to take 9 months, in order to build a
temporary access road to access the base of the dam. The licensee’s request is reasonable
and is supported by the state water quality certification conditioning agency, and should
be approved.
The Director orders:
(A) Avista Corporation’s request, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission on January 8, 2015, for the Spokane River Project No. 2545, to amend the implementation schedule of its Long Lake Development Total Dissolved Gas Attainment
Plan to extend the phase V, Phase VI, and phase VII completion dates by one year to
2015, 2017, and 2019 respectively, is approved.
20150219-3040 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 02/19/2015
Project No. 2545-118 - 3 -
(B) This order constitutes final agency action. Any party may file a request for
rehearing of this order within 30 days from the date of its issuance, as provided in section
313(a) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 825l (2012), and the Commission’s
regulations at 18 CFR § 385.713 (2014). The filing of a request for hearing does not
operate as a stay of the effective date of this order, or of any other date specified in this
order. The licensee’s failure to file a request for rehearing shall constitute acceptance of
this order.
Thomas J. LoVullo
Chief, Aquatic Resources BranchDivision of Hydropower Administration and Compliance
20150219-3040 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 02/19/2015
Document Content(s)
P-2545-118.DOC........................................................1-3
20150219-3040 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 02/19/2015

150 FERC ¶ 62,211
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME UNDER ORDER MODIFYING AND
APPROVING WATER QUALITY ATTAINMENT PLAN
(Issued March 27, 2015)

1. On March 9, 2015, Avista Corporation filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) a request for a 60 day extension of time to file its annual
report pursuant to Order Modifying and Approving Water Quality Attainment Plan
(Order).1 The project is located on the Spokane River in Spokane, Lincoln, and Stevens
counties, Washington, and in Kootenai and Benewah counties, Idaho.

LICENSE REQUIREMENTS AND BACKGROUND
2. License2 Appendix (B) contains Washington Department of Ecology’s (Ecology)
401 Clean Water Certificate. Section 5.6(C) of the project’s water quality certification
requires the licensee to develop a Dissolved Oxygen Water Quality Attainment Plan.

3. The licensee filed the Dissolved Oxygen Water Quality Attainment Plan (WQAP)
with the Commission on October 8, 2012. The Commission approved the licensee’s plan
in the Order issued December 19, 2012. The licensee proposed in the plan to
demonstrate ongoing compliance with the WQAP by documenting activities described in
the WQAP, including a summary of each year’s baseline monitoring, implementation
activities, effectiveness of the implementation activities, proposed actions for the
upcoming year (including new mitigation measures), and ongoing habitat evaluation
results (using collected data and the habitat module of the CE-QUAL-W2 model). The
licensee states that its annual reports will embody an adaptive management approach by
assessing (as appropriate) newly-available information, new technologies, and factors
impacting the schedule, in addition to other relevant items. The licensee states that it will
consult with Ecology and seek its approval on potential actions proposed for the
1 141 FERC ¶ 62,205 (issued December 19, 2012).
2 127 FERC ¶ 61,265 (issued June 18, 2009).
Doc. No. 2015-0092
Project No. 2545-158 - 2 -
upcoming year, and will have final reports available for Ecology’s approval by February
1 each year, starting in 2014.

4. Ordering Paragraph (B) of the December 19, 2012, Order requires the licensee to
file the annual report with the Commission by April 1, beginning in 2014, including any
comments or recommendations received from the agencies, and the licensee’s response to
the comments. The Commission also reserves the right to modify the plan or project
operations and facilities based on the results of the reports to ensure compliance with
license requirements.

LICENSEE’S REQUEST
5. The licensee is requesting a 60 day extension of time to file its Dissolved Oxygen
Water Quality Attainment Report pursuant to the Order issued December 19, 2012. The
licensee states that the report was submitted to Ecology for a 30 day review on January
29, 2015, and that Ecology requested additional time to review the report on February 27,
2015. The additional time will allow Ecology enough time to complete their review of
the report as well as allow the licensee an opportunity to respond to the comments prior
to filing the report with the Commission.
DISCUSSION
6. The licensee’s request for a 60 day extension of time to file the Dissolved Oxygen
Water Quality Attainment Report will accommodate Ecology’s request for additional
time to review the report as well as allow the licensee adequate time to respond to the
comments. The licensee’s request is reasonable and is supported by the state water
quality certification conditioning agency, and should be approved.
The Director orders:
(A) Avista Corporation’s request, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission on March 9, 2015, for the Spokane River Project No. 2545, to extend the
due date for the Dissolved Oxygen Water Quality Attainment Annual Report, pursuant to
the Order Modifying and Approving Water Quality Attainment Plan issued December 19,
2012, is approved. The annual report is due June 1, 2015.

(B) This order constitutes final agency action. Any party may file a request for
rehearing of this order within 30 days from the date of its issuance, as provided in section
313(a) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 825l (2012), and the Commission’s

Project No. 2545-158 - 3 -
regulations at 18 CFR § 385.713 (2014). The filing of a request for hearing does not
operate as a stay of the effective date of this order, or of any other date specified in this
order. The licensee’s failure to file a request for rehearing shall constitute acceptance of
this order.

Thomas J. LoVullo
Chief, Aquatic Resources Branch
Division of Hydropower Administration
and Compliance

151 FERC ¶ 62,226
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Avista Corporation Project No. 2545-091
ORDER MODIFYING AND APPROVING FIVE-YEAR FISHERY ENHANCEMENT
AND PROTECTION PLAN
(Issued June 26, 2015)
1. On April 10, 2015, Avista Corporation (licensee) filed a Five-Year Fishery Enhancement and Protection Plan with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) pursuant to Article 401(b) of the license for the Spokane River Hydroelectric Project.1 The project is located on the Spokane River in Spokane, Lincoln,
and Stevens counties, Washington, and in Kootenai and Benewah counties, Idaho.
LICENSE REQUIREMENTS AND BACKGROUND
2. License Article 401(b), in part, requires the licensee to file any revisions to certain
plans with the Commission for approval. This includes the Five-Year Fishery
Enhancement and Protection Plan (Plan), which is required by the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) Water Quality Certification (WQC).2 Per the WQC, the
Plan must be updated every five years. The first iteration of the Plan covered the
timeframe between 2010 and 2014 and did not require Commission approval. The
licensee’s April 10, 2015, filing represents the second iteration of the Plan and covers the
time period between 2015 and 2019. Since the second iteration covers a different time
period and proposes different activities from the first iteration of the Plan, it requires
Commission approval, along with documentation of consultation with the DEQ, Idaho
Department of Fish and Game (DFG), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
3. The Plan is required to identify, prioritize, and describe fish habitat protection and enhancement activities, fish population assessment and monitoring activities, and
1 Order Issuing New License and Approving Annual Charges for Use of
Reservation Lands. 127 FERC ¶ 61,265 (issued June 18, 2009).
2 The Plan is required by Condition 7(a) and Exhibits A and B of the WQC,
located in Appendix B of the license order.
20150626-3028 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/26/2015
Doc. No. 2015-0198
Project No. 2545-091 - 2 -
education/outreach activities that will be implemented under the Plan. The Plan should
give priority to projects that benefit multiple salmonid species and includes provisions to
address the public education and outreach program requirements specified in Article 409.
LICENSEE’S PLAN
5. The licensee’s Plan identifies general categories of measures that the licensee
would implement to enhance and protect fish habitat, assess and monitor fish populations,
and educate and reach out to the public. All actions under the Plan would be
accomplished through the use of annual funds made available by the licensee in
accordance with the WQC. Activities proposed in the Plan include riparian habitat
restoration and protection projects; acquisition or other long-term protection of private
lands containing bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout habitat; collection of required or
relevant baseline data; suppression of exotic non-native fish populations; fish stocking programs to deflect recreational angling pressure from wild trout populations; and identification of strategies to prevent illegal harvest of wild rainbow trout from the Spokane River. Some of these activities fall under the public education and outreach program required by Article 409. All activities are explained in greater detail in the
licensee’s April 10 filing.
6. The Plan discusses selection and priority criteria that the licensee, in consultation
with the resource agencies, would use to select potential projects. Specifically, the
selection criteria would include the following: projects that are associated with the Post
Falls Development for bull trout and/or westslope cutthroat trout in Coeur d’Alene Lake
basin or wild rainbow trout in the Spokane River, downstream of Post Falls Dam;
projects having significant potential to restore or enhance habitat for adfluvial trout
species listed above; projects that benefit multiple salmonid species; projects that provide
for recreational fishery enhancements and evaluation; and, any other projects deemed
appropriate by the licensee and resource agencies. Upon selecting projects based on
these criteria, the licensee proposes to further prioritize projects using a more detailed
ranking system included as an appendix to the Plan.
7. While the Plan includes proposed projects to be undertaken during each year of
the Plan, the licensee will develop annual work plans with the resource agencies during
the first quarter of every year. The licensee would seek approval from the resource agencies on the annual work plans by April 30 of each year as to ensure that the activities in that year’s annual work plan could be implemented on schedule.
8. With regard to reporting, the licensee’s Plan includes a provision to file a
summary report following the conclusion of the five-year Plan period. The licensee
proposes to file the reports with the DFG, DEQ, and FWS.
20150626-3028 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/26/2015
Project No. 2545-091 - 3 -
AGENCY CONSULTATION
9. By letter dated February 13, 2015, the licensee provided the Plan to the DEQ,
DFG, and FWS for review and comment. By letter dated March 30, the DFG approved
the Plan. The DEQ and FWS did not provide comments on the Plan.
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
10. The licensee’s Plan outlines a comprehensive and diverse program to enhance
westslope cutthroat trout, bull trout and wild rainbow trout in the Spokane River
downstream of the Post Falls Development. The framework in which the licensee will
implement the Plan, including the project selection and prioritization criteria that it will
apply, and the development of annual work plans, should be an effective means of
coordinating with the resource agencies to carry out valuable restoration and protection
projects.
11. As proposed, the licensee does not include a provision in its Plan to file its five-year summary report with the Commission. In order to keep the Commission apprised of actions taking place under the Plan, the licensee should be required to file a copy of its summary report with the Commission. Given that the licensee is required to file subsequent iterations of the Plan with the Commission for approval, it is reasonable to
require the licensee to file its summary report from the previous five-year period with the
Commission at the same time that it files the next iteration of the Plan, rather than
requiring the licensee to file the documents separately.
12. A deadline for filing the report and next iteration of the Plan should be established
in order to allow the Commission to track the licensee’s compliance with this
requirement. Given that the licensee’s Plan covers the period between January 1, 2015
and December 31, 2019, the licensee should file the report and next iteration of the Plan
with the Commission for approval by April 30, 2020. This deadline should provide the
licensee with sufficient time to develop the report and next iteration of the Plan and
provide it to the resource agencies for review and comment. The licensee’s filing with
the Commission should include documentation of consultation with the resource
agencies, including its responses to any agency comments. For any comments that it
does not incorporate into the Plan, it should include its reasons, using project-specific
information, in its filing with the Commission.
13. The licensee’s Plan satisfies the requirements of Article 401(b), and as modified, should be approved.
The Director orders:
(A) Avista Corporation’s (licensee) Five-Year Fishery Enhancement and
Protection Plan, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on April 10, 2015,
20150626-3028 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/26/2015
Project No. 2545-091 - 4 -
pursuant to Article 401(b) for the Spokane River Hydroelectric Project No. 2545, as
modified in paragraph (B), is approved.
(B) The licensee must file its summary report for the 2015-2019 Five-Year
Fishery Enhancement and Protection Plan and its 2020-2024 Five-Year Fishery
Enhancement and Protection Plan with the Commission for approval by April 30, 2020.
The licensee’s filing with the Commission must include documentation of consultation
with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Idaho Department of Fish and
Game, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, including its responses to any agency
comments. For any comments that it does not incorporate into the plan, it should include
its reasons, using project-specific information, in its filing with the Commission.
(C) This order constitutes final agency action. Any party may file a request for
rehearing of this order within 30 days from the date of its issuance, as provided in section 313(a) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 825l (2012), and the Commission’s regulations at 18 CFR § 385.713 (2015). The filing of a request for hearing does not operate as a stay of the effective date of this order, or of any other date specified in this order. The licensee’s failure to file a request for rehearing shall constitute acceptance of
this order.
Thomas J. LoVullo
Chief, Aquatic Resources Branch
Division of Hydropower Administration
and Compliance
20150626-3028 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/26/2015
153 FERC ¶ 62,156
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

ORDER APPROVING UPDATED COEUR D’ ALENE RESERVATION WETLAND
AND RIPARIAN HABITAT PLAN

(Issued December 2, 2015) 1. On September 29, 2015 Avista Corporation, licensee for the Spokane River Hydroelectric Project No. 2545, filed an updated Coeur d’ Alene Reservation Wetland and Riparian Habitat Plan (updated plan), pursuant to the Order Approving the Coeur
d’Alene Reservation Wetland and Riparian Habitat Plan Pursuant to Paragraph (G), and
Appendix D, Condition No. 8 (plan).1 The project is located on the Spokane River in
Spokane, Lincoln and Stevens Counties, Washington and in Kootenai and Benewah
counties, Idaho. The project occupies lands within the Coeur d’ Alene Indian reservation
administered by the U. S. Bureau of Indian Affairs and lands administered by the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service.
Background
2. On June 18, 2009 the Commission issued a new license for the project.2
Paragraph (G) of the Order issuing license states that the license is subject to the
conditions filed by the U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) under section 4(e) of the
Federal Power Act. Condition No. 8 of those 4(e) conditions required the licensee to file
for Commission approval, a plan prepared in collaboration with the Coeur d’Alene Tribe
(Tribe) to provide for the restoration and/or replacement of at least 1,368 acres of
equivalent in-kind emergent, scrub-shrub and/or forested lands, riparian habitat and
associated uplands, preferably within the Reservation. The plan was to describe proposed
restoration and/or acquisition of replacement lands and related operation and maintenance activities.
1 133 FERC ¶ 62,016, issued October 10, 2010.
2 Order Issuing New License and Approving Annual Charges for Use of
Reservation Lands (127 FERC ¶ 61,265).

Doc. No. 2015-0363
Project No. 2545-127 - 2 -
3. The plan was submitted by the licensee and approved by the Commission on June
18, 2010 and October 5, 2010, respectively. The plan sets forth a schedule for the
licensee and the Tribe to restore and/or replace at least 500 acres by 2015, an additional
500 acres by 2020, and the remaining 368 acres by 2025. The plan also set forth a
schedule for the licensee and Tribe to submit an updated version of the plan every five
years for approval by the Interior and the Commission. This order outlines the review of
the first 5-year updated plan.
Licensee’s Updated Plan
4. One significant update to the plan includes increasing the requirement of acres to
restore and/or replace from the original 1,368 to 1,424. The increase of 56 acres comes
from an agreement between the licensee and the Tribe in the Erosion Control
Implementation Plan (ECIP), submitted to the Commission on October 29, 2014, to
restore and/or replace 56 additional acres through the updated plan in lieu of implementing erosion control measures on the Lower St. Joe River. The ECIP was approved by the Interior and the Commission3 on October 10, 2014 and November 20, 2014, respectively.
5. A second significant update was the acquisition by the licensee of 656 acres in the
Hangman Creek watershed. The 656 acres were comprised of five properties and
purchased for $1,517,754. A management plan was drafted for the purchased acres
including: restoration of native trees and shrubs; herbicide treatments of invasive plants;
installation of protective fencing; and monitoring. The management plan was approved
by the Interior on April 9, 2014 and the licensee was credited with 508 replacement acres
under 4(e) condition No. 8.
Agency Consultation
6. In accordance with the 2010 Order approving the plan, the licensee is required to
submit the 5-year updated plan for approval by the Interior prior to filing with the
Commission. The 5-year updated plan was submitted to the Interior on August 4, 2015
and approved on September 2, 2015.
Discussion and Conclusions
7. The Commission recognizes the successful efforts by the licensee in working with
the Tribe to fulfil the requirements of section 4(e) condition No. 8. The licensee has been
credited with 508 acres toward the new goal of 1,424 and is on schedule to complete the
3 Order Approving Coeur d’ Alene Reservation Erosion Control Implementation
Plan (149 FERC ¶ 62,124).

Project No. 2545-127 - 3 -
requirement by 2025. Therefore, the updated plan is in compliance with section 4(e)
condition No. 8 of the license and should be approved.

The Director orders:

(A) Avista Corporation’s updated Coeur d’ Alene Reservation Wetland and
Riparian Habitat Plan, filed September 29, 2015 pursuant to the Order approving the
original Coeur d’ Alene Reservation Wetland and Riparian Habitat Plan as part of the
license for the Spokane River Hydroelectric Project No. 2545, is approved.

(B) This order constitutes final agency action. Any party may file a request for
rehearing of this order within 30 days from the date of its issuance, as provided in section
313(a) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 825l (2012), and the Commission’s
regulations at 18 C.F.R. § 385.713 (2015). The filing of a request for rehearing does not
operate as a stay of the effective date of this order, or of any other date specified in this
order. The licensee’s failure to file a request for rehearing shall constitute acceptance of
this order.

Steve Hocking
Chief, Environmental and Project Review
Division of Hydropower Administration
and Compliance

1

Summary of Rate Orders
Avista Corporation Q1 2016 Purpose: This report summarizes the findings and rulings of the various state Utility
Commissions as they apply to Avista Corporation. These rate orders are available from
the different state Utility Commission websites that Avista provides service, including:

• Alaska – www.rca.alaska.gov
• Idaho – www.puc.state.id.us
• Montana – psc.mt.gov
• Oregon – www.puc.idaho.gov
• Washington – www.utc.wa.gov

Alaska Nothing to report

IDAHO
Case No. AVU-E-15-05 and AVU-G-15-01 Order No. 33455 (01/25/16)
Background: On June 1, 2015, Avista applied to increase its general rates for electric and
natural gas service. The Company proposed a two-phase rate plan that would increase electric billed revenues by $13.2 million (5.2%) on January 1, 2016, and by $13.7 million
(5.1%) on January 1, 2017.

On October 20, 2015, regarding Avista’s application for authority to increase its rates and
charges for electric and natural gas service the commission issued a Notice of Proposed Settlement, a Notice of Amended Schedule and a Notice of Public and Technical
Hearings.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Notice_of_Proposed_Settlement_Order_No_334
00.pdf

On December 18, 2015, the Commission issued a final order to approve Avista’s
settlement stipulation to increase its rates and charges for Electric and Natural Gas
service. As part of the settlement, the electric revenues will increase to $1.7 million and the natural gas revenues will be increased to $2.5 million. The new tariffs will go into
effect January 1, 2016.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Final_Order_No_33437.pdf
2

Craig Kerwin filed a Petition for Reconsideration in the matter of Avista’s request to increase
rates and charges for electric and natural gas service. Mr. Kerwin states that the increase is due to
inflated executive compensation. The Commission issued an order to deny Mr. Kerwin’s petition.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Reconsideration_Order_No_33455.pdf

Case No. AVU-E-16-01 & AVU-G-16-01 Order No. 33459 (01/29/16) Background: On January 13, 2016, Avista applied for an order authorizing it to record,
as a regulatory asset, the costs it incurs to offer a fee-free payment program to its
residential customers. Avista requested an Accounting Order that will let it defer and record the costs so it will have the opportunity to recover those costs through future rates.
The Commission issued a Notice of Application and a Notice of Modified Procedure
comments were due no later than March 14, 2016.
http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Notice_of_Application_Order_No_33459.pdf

Case No. AVU-G-15-03 Order No. 33464 (02/09/16) Background: On November 20, 2015, the Commission solicited public comment on
Avista’s proposals to resume various natural gas demand-side management (DSM)
programs. Two public commenters provided the Commission with highly detailed and technical comments opposing the Application. In the Commission’s Order their remarks were analyzed and summarized together as the comments of “Technical Commenters.”
They generally argued that the Application warranted heightened scrutiny, offered a
detailed analysis of Avista’s proposal, and provided an alternative view of the proposed
DSM programs. Their comments provided the Commission with additional analysis and perspective and the Commission lauded the efforts. Ultimately, however, the Commission concluded that Avista had demonstrated that restarting the DSM programs
and the surcharge were reasonable.
In approving Avista’s Application, the Commission allowed certain modifications to the
previous iteration of the Company’s natural gas DSM programs. For instance, the Commission approved the use of Utility Cost Test (UCT) as the benchmark measurement for cost-effectiveness, and allowed the use of “gross”, rather than “net” savings estimates
in the Company’s cost-effectiveness calculations.

3

The Commission issued an Order of Reconsideration. The Commission clarified some
portions of the order and stated that Avista has met its burden of showing that approval of
the DSM Application is fair, just and reasonable and is in the public interest.
http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Reconsideration_Order_No_33464.pdf

OREGON

Case No. UG 288 & UM 1753 Order No. 16-059 (02/19/16), 16-076 (02/29/16), 16-109 (03/15/16)

Background: Avista’s request for General Rate Revision.
The Commission approved the Issue Fund Grant from CUB in the matter of Avista’s
request for General Rate Revision 2015. Avista will pay $4,549.00 by March 18, 2016.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2016ords/16-059.pdf
In the matters of Avista’s request for General Rate Revision (UG 288) and application for
authorization to defer expenses or revenues related to the Natural Gas Decoupling
Mechanism (UM 1753), the Commission approved a revenue increase of $4.5 million,
new rates were effective March 1, 2016 (UG 288), and approved the application for deferred accounting. This was a Preliminary Order.
http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2016ords/16-076.pdf

The Commission issued a Final Order. The Commission approved an increase in revenue
requirement by $4,460,000, representing a 4.9 percent increase to the company’s
previous rates. The Decoupling Mechanism will implement a revenue-per-customer
decoupling mechanism. To implement this mechanism, Avista filed an application for
deferred accounting (UM 1753).
http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2016ords/16-109.pdf

Case No. UM 1012 Order No. 16-067 (02/23/16)
Background: Commission Staff requested an order to establish the annual fee level for
electric, gas, water, and wastewater utilities at 2.75 mills per dollar (0.275 percent).
4

The Commission issued an order setting the annual fee rate at 0.275 percent of 2015
gross operating revenues for electric, natural gas, water, and wastewater utilities.
http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2016ords/16-067.pdf

Case No. UM 1759
Order No. 16-122 (03/23/16)
Background: Avista filed a request to defer 90 percent of the transactional fees, up to a
cap of $150,000, associated with Avista’s planned debit and credit card fee free payment
program for residential customers.

The Commission approved Avista’s request for accounting purposes only, the deferral period will commence with Avista’s implementation of the fee free payment program and
will end 12 months later.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2016ords/16-122.pdf

WASHINGTON
Case No. UE-150204 & UG-150205
Order No. 5, 6 (01/06/16) Background: Avista’s request for General Rate Revision 2015

On January 6, 2016, the Commission approved Avista’s partial settlement stipulation
filed on May 1, 2015 including the proposed capital structure of 9.5 percent return on equity, 7.29 percent rate of return, and 48.5 percent equity component. Avista will file revised tariff sheets with natural gas rates that will recover $10.8 million, for a 6.3
increase in rates and electric rates that will recover $8.1 million less in revenue, for a 1.63
percent rate decrease.
On January 19, 2016, Staff filed a Motion to Reconsider with the Commission and ICNU and Public Counsel filed a Motion for Clarification. Rates will stay in effect until the
Commission makes a ruling. On February 3, 2016, the Commission will conduct an
order conference, in this matter. Accounting specialists from Avista, Staff, ICNU, and
Public Counsel will replicate their respective electric revenue requirement and attrition adjustment calculations.
http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=1885&
year=2015&docketNumber=150204

5

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=1888&
year=2015&docketNumber=150204
On February 19, 2016, the Commission issued an order denying the Joint Motion for
Clarification, denying the Petition for Reconsideration, and denying the Motion to
Reopen the Record.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=1968&year=2015&docketNumber=150204

Case No. UE-152076 Order No. 1 (01/28/16) Background: Electric utilities with 25,000 or more customers are required under the
Energy Independence Act (EIA or Act) to set and meet energy conservation targets every
two years. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (Commission) promulgated rules implementing the EIA. These rules further require that each utility
must file a report with the Commission identifying its ten-year achievable conservation
potential and its biennial conservation target every two years.

On October 30, 2015 Avista filed its Biennial Conservation Plan (BCP) identifying a 2016-2025 ten year achievable conservation potential of 391,000 megawatt-hours (MWh)
and a 2016-2017 biennial conservation target of 72, 464 MWh.

On January 5, 2016 Avista filed a revised BCP, where Avista identified a 2016-2025
achievable conservation potential of 383, 063 MWh and a 2016-2017 two year achievable conservation potential of 60, 212 MWh.
On January 28, 2016, the Commission issued an order approving Avista’s 2016-2025
Achievable Conservation Potential and its 2016-2017 Biennial Conservation Target.
http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=69&yea
r=2015&docketNumber=152076

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=67&yea
r=2015&docketNumber=152076

6

Case No. A-140166 Order No. 2 (02/25/16)

Background: RCW Title 80 and RCW Title 81 authorize the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (Commission) to impose, set, increase, or decrease certain
fees on regulated companies. The following statutes set out specific authority for
imposing regulatory fees according to the industries over which the Commission has
jurisdiction.
On February 25, 2016, the Commission issued an order for Electric and Natural Gas
Companies to pay 0.1% of the first fifty thousand dollars of gross operating revenue, plus
0.2% of any gross operation revenue in excess of the fifty thousand dollars. Fees are due
to the Commission on May 2, 2016 because May 1 is a Sunday.
http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=6&year
=2014&docketNumber=140166

Case No. UG-152394 Order No. 1 (02/25/16)
Background: On December 16, 2015, Avista filed a Petition for an Order Authorizing
Approval of Changes to the Company’s Natural Gas Line Extension Tariff, Limited
Waiver of WAC 480-90-223 (1), and Accounting Ratemaking Treatment (Petition). Avista requested approval to make changes to its natural gas line extension tariff, Tariff WN U-29, Schedule 151, including 1) a modification to the calculation for line extension
allowances, 2) a limited waiver of WAC 480-90-223(1) related to natural gas advertising,
and 3) accounting and ratemaking treatment related to the use of any excess single-family
residential line extension allowance. Avista proposed these changes be approved on a temporary basis, for a pilot period of three years, with a subsequent review to determine their effectiveness.

On February 25, 2016, the Commission approved the Gas Line Extension Tariff and
accounting ratemaking treatment on a temporary basis for a three-year period. Avista must file with the Commission semi-annual reports showing the impact of the increased allowance and rebates during the three-year pilot period from March 1, 2016 to February
28, 2019.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=23&year=2015&docketNumber=152394

7

Case No. UG-151148 Order No. Multiparty Settlement Stipulation (02/25/16)

On July 7, 2015, Staff and Public Counsel performed an on-site audit of Avista’s conservation incentive and non-incentive expenditures. Prior to the on-site audit, Staff
reviewed over 1000 expenditures, and selected 34 electric and natural gas line items for
comprehensive on-site review. Public Counsel selected 10 additional line items for
review, including:
o Invoice dollar match to line-item expenditures;
o Existence of proper supporting documentation for expenditures;
o Appropriate Washington allocation of expenditures;
o Overall appropriateness of expenditures; and o Presence of proper internal control mechanisms.
All line item expenditures were supported by invoices, and supporting documentation
was provided upon request. All reviewed expenditures were found to be appropriately
allocated to Washington. However, Staff and Public Counsel discovered seven issues that
warranted further investigation and discussion. In the matter of Avista’s proposed revisions to the electric tariff rider, which provides funding for demand side management
(DSM) programs as well as evaluation, measurement, and verification, the Commission
approved and adopted the multiparty settlement agreement.

On February 26, 2016, the Commission approved Avista’s proposed revisions to the
electric tariff rider, which provides funding for demand side management (DSM)
programs as well as evaluation, measurement, and verification, and adopted the
multiparty settlement agreement.
http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=115&y
ear=2015&docketNumber=151148

Case No. UE-160228 & UG-160229 Order No. 1 (03/07/16), 2 (03/09/16) Background: Avista’s request for General Rate Revision 2016

On March 7, 2016, the Commission issued a complaint and Order Suspending Tariff Revisions and an Order of Consolidation.
http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=320&y
ear=2016&docketNumber=160228

8

On March 9, 2016, the Commission issued a Protective Order

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=326&year=201
6&docketNumber=160228\
Case No. UE-160100 Order No. 1 (03/15/16)

Background: On January 20, 2016, Avista Corporation, (Avista or Company) filed with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (Commission) a petition requesting an order authorizing deferred accounting treatment of its remaining
undepreciated net book value of its existing electric meters (Petition). The Company
proposes an investment project that would retire and replace existing electric meters with
new Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) meters.1 Under the Company’s proposal, approximately 253,000 electric customers in the state of Washington would receive new meters. The Company also plans to upgrade its existing natural gas meters with digital
communication modules.

On March 4, 2016, Avista filed with the Commission an amended petition seeking an accounting order authorizing deferral of the remaining net book value of its existing
electric meters as the meters are removed from service, rather than immediately, to a
regulatory asset account, Other Regulatory Assets – 182.3 (Amended Petition). If the
Amended Petition is approved, the Company intends to execute contracts with its
selected AMI vendors for the advanced meters and supporting software. In its Amended Petition, Avista states that if the Company’s Petition is granted, the installation of
advanced meters and related infrastructure to support AMI will begin immediately on a
four or five year schedule commencing in early 2017.

On March 15, 2016, the Commission granted Avista’s petition for an accounting order
authorizing deferred accounting treatment related to the undepreciated net book value of
the Company’s existing electric meters.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=81&year=2016&docketNumber=160100

Case No. UE-160071 & UG-160072
Order No. 1 (03/24/16)
Background: On January 12, 2016, Avista Corporation (Avista or Company) filed with
the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (Commission) a petition
requesting an order authorizing accounting and ratemaking treatment of fees for credit
9

and debit card payments made by residential customers (Petition). Avista seeks to defer,
for up to 36 months, all fees paid by Avista related to offering a fee-free program for
payment of bills by Washington residential customers that use credit and debit cards.
Absent approval of this deferral, the company states that it will not move forward with a fee-free program. Avista has also sought similar treatment in Oregon and Idaho.

On March 24, 2016, the Commission issued an order to grant Avista’s petition to defer all
fees paid by Avista related to offering a fee-free program, in both Electric and Gas dockets, for payment of bills by Washington residential customers that use credit and
debit cards.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=14&yea
r=2016&docketNumber=160071

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=14&yea
r=2016&docketNumber=160072

1

Summary of Rate Orders
Avista Corporation Q2 2016 Purpose: This report summarizes the findings and rulings of the various state Utility
Commissions as they apply to Avista Corporation. These rate orders are available from
the different state Utility Commission websites that Avista provides service, including:

• Alaska – www.rca.alaska.gov
• Idaho – www.puc.state.id.us
• Montana – psc.mt.gov
• Oregon – www.puc.idaho.gov
• Washington – www.utc.wa.gov

Alaska Nothing to report

IDAHO
Case No. AVU-E-16-03 (GRC) Order No. 33536 (06/07/16)
Application to increase electric rates.
MONTANA
Nothing to report

OREGON
Nothing to report

WASHINGTON
Case No. PG-160292
Order No. 1 (04/07/16)
Pipe replacement Plan 2015 - 2017

154 FERC ¶ 62,041
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Avista Corporation Project No. 2545-117
ORDER APPROVING 2015 TO 2019 FIVE-YEAR WETLAND AND RIPARIAN
HABITAT PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN
(January 20, 2016)
1. On September 30, 2015 Avista Corporation, licensee for the Spokane River Hydroelectric Project No. 2545, filed a 2015 to 2019 Five-Year Wetland and Riparian Habitat Protection and Enhancement Plan (updated plan), pursuant to Article 401 of the
license for the project1 and Section IV of the Water Quality Certificate (Section IV) that
is included as Appendix A of the license. The project is located on the Spokane River in
Spokane, Lincoln and Stevens Counties, Washington and in Kootenai and Benewah
Counties, Idaho. The project occupies lands within Coeur d’ Alene Indian Reservation
administered by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, and lands administered by the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management and the U. S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service.
Background
2. On June 18, 2009 the Commission issued a new license for the project. Section IV
required the licensee to develop a Five-Year Wetland and Riparian Habitat Protection and
Enhancement Plan (plan) for approval by Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
(Idaho) after consultation with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (Idaho FG).
Article 401 of the license states that any plan developed pursuant to Section IV must be
approved by the Commission prior to implementation. The plan was approved by the
Commission on October 5, 2010.2 Section IV also requires the licensee to file a summary
report and updated plan to Idaho, Idaho FG and U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
every five years. The summary report should include a summary of the activities
conducted the previous five years and results achieved, the overall results achieved to
1 Order Issuing New License and Approving Annual Charges for Use of
Reservation Lands (127 FERC ¶ 61,265), issued June 18, 2009.
2 Order Approving Five-Year Wetland and Riparian Habitat Protection and
Enhancement Plan (133 FERC ¶ 62,017).
20160120-3025 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/20/2016
Doc. No. 2016-0019
Project No. 2545-117 - 2 -
date, and the general nature of the activities that will be implemented during the next
five-year period. The updated plan should describe measures to be implemented within
the next five years. This order outlines the review of the first report and updated plan.
Licensee’s Report and Updated Plan
3. The report describes the activities and expenditures associated with Shadowy
St. Joe Wetland and Riparian Restoration Project. Activities included: installation of a
water control structure and rock overflow channel; control measures of invasive species;
and restoration of native trees and shrubs. Expenditures for the project included
$378,478.00, $90,000, and $43,623 for the licensee, Idaho FG, and Ducks Unlimited,
respectively.
4. The updated plan cites a current carry-over project budget of $158,462 to begin
the 2015-2019 period. The current budget will be supplemented with $75,000 each year
starting in 2016. The updated plan describes measures for continued invasive species control at the recently restored Shadowy St. Joe Wetland and Riparian Restoration Project. Additionally, the updated plan lists three previously identified sites and two new sites to be further evaluated for restoration potential in 2015-2019. Annual work plans will be developed as sites are evaluated and selected.
Agency Consultation
5. Article 401 of the 2009 Order issuing a new license requires the licensee to submit
the five-year updated plan to Idaho FG and FWS for review and comment and then to
Idaho for approval, prior to filing with the Commission. The updated plan was submitted
to Idaho FG and FWS on August 4, 2015 and approved by Idaho on September 25, 2015.
Discussions and Conclusions
6. The licensee and its partners have successfully implemented restoration of 124
high priority acres at Shadowy St. Joe Wetland and Riparian Restoration Project. The
licensee plans to continue restorations efforts at the site as well as evaluate other
identified sites for restoration potential in 2015-2019. The updated plan is in compliance
with license Article 401, and Section IV of Appendix A of the license and should
therefore be approved.
20160120-3025 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/20/2016
Project No. 2545-117 - 3 -
The Director orders:
(A) Avista Corporation’s 2015-2019 Wetland and Riparian Habitat Protection
and Enhancement Plan, filed September 30, 2015 pursuant to Article 401 of the license
for the Spokane River Hydroelectric Project No. 2545, is approved.
(B) This order constitutes final agency action. Any party may file a request for
rehearing of this order within 30 days from the date of its issuance, as provided in section
313(a) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 825l (2012), and the Commission’s
regulations at 18 C.F.R. § 385.713 (2015). The filing of a request for rehearing does not
operate as a stay of the effective date of this order, or of any other date specified in this
order. The licensee’s failure to file a request for rehearing shall constitute acceptance of
this order.
Steve Hocking
Chief, Environmental and Project Review
Division of Hydropower Administration
and Compliance
20160120-3025 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/20/2016
155 FERC ¶ 62,045 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
ORDER AMENDING PROJECT BOUNDARY
(Issued April 18, 2016)
1. On March 15, 2016, Avista Corporation, licensee for the Spokane RiverHydroelectric Project No. 2545, filed a request to remove a 0.15 acre parcel of land fromthe project boundary. The project is located on the Spokane River in Spokane, Lincoln,and Stevens counties, Washington; and in Kootenai and Benewah counties, Idaho. Theproject occupies lands within Coeur d’ Alene Indian Reservation administered by the
U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, and lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management and the U. S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service.
2. According to the licensee, this 0.15-acre parcel of land was included in the project
boundary as a remnant of the original Monroe Street Hydroelectric Development
transmission line right-of-way. The parcel has not served any project purposes since
before the new powerhouse was built in the 1990s and is more than 75-feet from project
waters. The parcel of land does not include federal or state land as it is currently owned
by the licensee and managed by the City of Spokane (the City). The lands surrounding
the proposed parcel for removal are owned by the City, with the exception of a narrow
section that has a physical connection to the licensee’s Huntington Park. The small area
adjacent to Huntington Park is not accessible to, or used by the public for recreation due
to its woody and steep terrain from either the park or the Spokane Falls Boulevard which
boarders the areas other side. Additionally, there are no federally listed species of
concern within the area of proposed removal.
3. The licensee proposes to remove the land from the project boundary and ifapproved by the Commission, transfer in fee the 0.15 acre parcel to the City. The City is
currently addressing storm water issues and determined that acquiring the land will aide
in these efforts. Removing the land would ensure that the boundary only includes
property that is necessary for the safe and effective operation of the project.
4. Removing the land from the project boundary as discussed above at the Spokane
River Project would not adversely affect project operation as the parcel has not been used
for project purposes since the construction of the new powerhouse and is essentially
surrounded by City property. The removal of the parcel from the project boundary will
Doc. No. 2016-141289
Project No. 2545-173 - 2 -
not affect recreation at Huntington Park as the area is a steep cliff which recreationalists
at the park cannot access. Additionally, its removal does not pose an adverse effect on
wildlife or cultural resources as there are no federally listed or species of concern nor are
there historic resources in the area. Given that the removal of land does not conflict with
the operation or recreational values at the project, and its removal from the project
boundary is purely administrative, the licensee's proposal should be approved.
The Director orders:

(A) Avista Corporation’s application to remove lands from its project boundary,
filed on March 15, 2016, for the Spokane River Hydroelectric Project No. 2545, is
approved.

(B) Within 90 days of the issuance date of this order, Avista Corporation must file, for Commission approval, revised Exhibit G drawing(s) affected by the revision to the project boundary approved in paragraph (A). The Exhibit G drawing(s) must comply with sections 4.39 and 4.41 of the Commission’s regulations.
(C) This order constitutes final agency action. Any party may file a request for
rehearing of this order within 30 days from the date of its issuance, as provided in section
313(a) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 825l (2012), and the Commission’s
regulations at 18 C.F.R. § 385.713 (2015). The filing of a request for rehearing does not
operate as a stay of the effective date of this order, or of any other date specified in this
order. The licensee’s failure to file a request for rehearing shall constitute acceptance of
this order.

Robert J. Fletcher, Chief
Land Resources Branch
Division of Hydropower Administration
and Compliance

155 FERC ¶ 62,049 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
ORDER APPROVING UPDATED LAND USE MANAGEMENT PLAN
(Issued April 19, 2016)
1. On March 9, 2016, Avista Corporation (licensee) filed an updated Spokane RiverLand Use Management Plan (plan) pursuant to Article 419 of the license for the SpokaneRiver Project No. 2545.1 The project is located on the Spokane River in Spokane,Lincoln, and Stevens counties, Washington; and in Kootenai and Benewah counties,Idaho. The project occupies lands within Coeur d’ Alene Indian Reservation
administered by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, and lands administered by the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the U. S. Department of Agriculture’s
Forest Service.
2. Article 419 requires the licensee to file a Land Use Management Plan to protect
the scenic quality and environmental resources of the Spokane River and Coeur d’Alene
Lake. The plan must include provisions to review and update the plan every five years.
The plan must be prepared in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game,
Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation, the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, Washington Department
of Natural Resources, and the Coeur d’Alene Tribe.
3. The licensee’s most recent Land Use Management Plan was approved via
Commission order on March 9, 2011. Article 419 and the licensee’s proposed plan did
not provide a specific due date for the plan updates; as such, the March 2011 Order
requires the licensee to file the five year updates by March 9.2
1 Order Issuing New License and Approving Annual Charges for Use of Reservation Lands (127 FERC ¶ 61,265), issued June 18, 2009.
2 Order Modifying And Approving Spokane River Land Use Management Plan
Pursuant To Article 419 (134 FERC ¶ 62,227), issued March 9, 2011.
Doc. No. 2016-141294
Project No. 2545-172 - 2 -
4. The updated plan describes land use within the project including recreation,
terrestrial, and cultural resources. The licensee includes cultural and natural resource
protection policies that will apply to the management and use of licensee owned lands, as
well as, public access management. The updated plan lists land use categories and an
estimate of acreages for each category for conservation, public recreation, private
recreation, and closed/restricted lands. Descriptions of these categories identify
allowable and prohibited uses. Updated maps of the land use categories were included in
the plan. Site-specific and resource-specific plans and programs relevant to land use
management and resource protection on project lands, such as a fire and fuel management
program and control of terrestrial noxious weeds are included.
5. Under the noxious weed control program, the licensee will survey and map
terrestrial noxious weeds, coordinate with weed boards, implement site-specific weed
control actions, monitor the effectiveness of these actions annually, and prepare annualreports summarizing weed management activities and their effectiveness. The reports
will be made available to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources, and Idaho Department
of Fish and Game upon request. A five-year summary report will be prepared and
included in the review and update of the plan submitted to the appropriate agencies and
the Commission for review.
6. The licensee will also implement a permit, lease, and easement program subject to
the regulations and obligations imposed by its license. The updated plan includes
requirements for private recreation permits, recreation facility management leases and
easements, and annual monitoring and review. The licensee also includes guidelines for
any requests for special exceptions for requests of proposals for facilities and
developments on licensee lands that are not consistent with the land use management
goals, objectives, and policies.
7. The March 9, 2016 proposed plan update includes only minor editorial revisions
and revisions to the guidelines for special exemption requests (Section 7.2). The
proposed plan update also incorporates updated maps which include the additional land
previously approved at the Long Lake and Nine Mile Dam Overlooks.3 The Terrestrial
Noxious Weed Summary Report summarizing weed management implemented by the
licensee from 2011 through 2015, as required by the previously approved plan was also
included in the filing.
3 Order Modifying and Approving Recreation Plan Amendment and Trailer Park
Wave Access Site Plan (143 FERC ¶ 62,186), issued June 12, 2013. The Commission
approved Revised Exhibit G drawings incorporating the additional land into the project
boundary via Order Modifying and Approving Revised Exhibit G Drawings
(144 FERC ¶ 62,077) issued July 29, 2013.
Project No. 2545-172 - 3 -
8. A draft of the plan and Terrestrial Noxious Weed Summary Report was sent to the
appropriate agencies for review and comment. Comments were received from the Coeur
d’Alene Tribe, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, Idaho Fish and
Game, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Idaho Department of Parks and
Recreation, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U. S. Forest Service, and Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife. All of the agency recommendations and comments
were either incorporated into the final plan or appropriately addressed by the licensee;
documentation of the consultation and incorporated comments is included in the filing.
9. The updates incorporated by the licensee are minor in nature and did not change
the intent or requirements of the previously approved plan. Updates to the maps included
in the plan were necessary as land was added to the project due to recreational
improvements identified in the Spokane River and Post Falls Hydroelectric
Developments Recreation Plan. The Commission approved the revised Exhibit Gdrawings which depict the additional lands in the Order Modifying and Approving
revised Exhibit G drawings in 2013.
10. The updated plan will continue to help protect the scenic quality and
environmental resources at the project. The filed plan complies with the requirements of
Article 419 and should be approved.
The Director orders:
(A) The Spokane River Land Use Management Plan five-year update, filed
March 9, 2016, pursuant to license Article 419 for the Spokane River Project No. 2545, is
approved.
(B) This order constitutes final agency action. Any party may file a request for
rehearing of this order within 30 days from the date of its issuance, as provided in section
313(a) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 825l (2012), and the Commission’s
regulations at 18 C.F.R. § 385.713 (2015). The filing of a request for rehearing does not
operate as a stay of the effective date of this order, or of any other date specified in this
order. The licensee’s failure to file a request for rehearing shall constitute acceptance of
this order.
Robert J. Fletcher, Chief
Land Resources Branch
Division of Hydropower Administration
and Compliance
154 FERC ¶ 62,061
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
ORDER APPROVING 2013 AND 2014 ANNUAL REPORTS AND 2014 AND 2015
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS PER ARTICLE 402, ANNUAL THREATENED
AND ENDANGERED SPECIES PLANS PER ARTICLE 432, AND ANNUAL FISHWAY PLANS PER ARTICLE 433
(Issued January 28, 2016)
1. On April 15, 2014 and March 26, 2015, Avista Corporation (licensee) filed its
2013 Annual Report and 2014 Implementation Plans and 2014 Annual Report and 2015
Implementation Plans, respectively, pursuant to license Article 402 for the Clark Fork
Hydroelectric Project No. 2058.1 Also included with the licensee's annual reports were
its annual Threatened and Endangered (T&E) Species Plans required by license Article
432 and its annual Fishway Plans required by license Article 433. The project consists of
the Noxon Rapids and Cabinet Gorge developments, and is located on the Clark Fork
River in Bonner County, Idaho and Sanders County, Montana and does not occupy
federal lands.
BACKGROUND
2. License Article 402 requires, in part, that an Administrative Plan and Annual
Report be filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) on or
before April 15 of each year, for Commission approval, and address all the resource
protection, mitigation and enhancement measures in license articles 404 through 430 that
were implemented during the previous calendar year, and all proposed implementationplans for the current calendar year.
1 Order Issuing New License. 90 FERC ¶ 61,167 (issued February 23, 2000).
Doc No. 2016-141380
Project No. 2058-014, et al. 2
3. License Article 432 requires, in part, that the licensee file on or before April 15 of
each year, for Commission approval, a T&E Species Plan that addresses the licensee's
compliance with the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement issued by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on August 23, 1999, and included as Appendix D
in the Order Issuing New License. Further, Article 432 states that the plan shall include,
at a minimum, any modifications to project facilities or operations proposed to minimize
the taking of bull trout.
4. Similarly, license Article 433 requires, in part, that the licensee file on or before
April 15 of each year, a Fishway Plan that addresses the licensee's compliance with the
fishway prescriptions contained in Appendix C of the Order Issuing New License. The
plan is required to include, at a minimum, a detailed description of any fish passage
devices or measures, including experimental trap and truck programs, and any proposed modifications to project facilities or operations.
LICENSEE'S FILINGS AND PLANS
5. The licensee’s filings include its 2013 and 2014 annual reports and 2014 and 2015
annual implementation plans. The annual reports contain an account of activities
conducted under license articles 404 through 443, which included continued efforts to
manage cultural, recreation, terrestrial, and aquatic resources at the project. The annual
implementation plans include specific measures that would be implemented to enhance
water and terrestrial resources, including the annual T&E species and fishway plans and
reports under license articles 432 and 433, respectively. They also provide budget
summaries for implementing the various proposals.
6. The licensee’s 2014 annual report identified implementation of various activities
to benefit aquatic, terrestrial and cultural resources. Among other activities, 63 adult bull
trout were captured in the lower Clark Fork River below Cabinet Gorge Dam were
transported to Montana, which represents the highest number of adults transported in any
year to date; the second year of testing and evaluation of the permanent weir trap on
Graves Creek was completed and showed the trap was efficient in capturing juvenile bull
trout; work continued in the preparation for the Cabinet Gorge permanent fishway with
permit acquisition and infrastructure development; construction of the Cabinet Gorge
Fish Handling and Holding Facility was nearly completed; and modifications to the total dissolved gas abatement structures on Cabinet Gorge spillway #2 were completed and
successfully tested.
7. Among the activities identified under the 2014 T&E species and fishway plans and
associated reports, the licensee continued to implement its rapid response genetic analysis
program for processing bull trout samples and transporting fish to appropriate locations
based on genetic analysis, which included the 63 adult bull trout captured and genetically
Project No. 2058-014, et al. 3
assigned and transported to Montana tributaries. With regard to the basin-wide 5-year
pathogen survey, the current requirement to lethally sample 60 bull trout for pathogens
annually was being discussed as part of ongoing efforts to reach agreement and emend
the Clark Fork Settlement Agreement (CFSA) to resolve pathogen and other outstanding
issues related to the proposed construction and operation of the permanent fishway at
Cabinet Gorge Dam.
8. Regarding the Cabinet Gorge Dam permanent fishway, the licensee continued to
work with the project Management Committee (MC), which includes the FWS, Montana
Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP), and Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG),
toward resolution of several issues associated with the proposed construction of the
upstream fishway. Most notably, this included draft changes to the Montana
Administrative Rule to reach agreement on the bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout pathogen sampling/policy issue. Accordingly, MC group representatives and their
attorneys worked on drafting an amendment to the CFSA which would memorialize the
groups’ agreement as to the outstanding issues related to permanent upstream fishway
construction and operation, including Cabinet Gorge Dam minimum flow, funding for
operations of the fishway, timing of Noxon Dam fishway construction, long-term
resolution of the pathogen and Montana import permit issue, assurances regarding the
satisfaction of the licensee’s mitigation obligations, and overall approval language for
fishway construction and design. According to the licensee’s 2014 annual report, the
parties were still awaiting FWS’s comments and edits regarding the draft CFSA
amendment.
9. The licensee’s Cabinet Gorge Fish Handling and Holding Facility construction
was at the 90 percent completion level at the end of 2014 with final completion scheduled
for early 2015. The Noxon Rapids Dam permanent production fishway and fish handling
facility was at the 30 percent preliminary engineering design report and accompanying
drawing level. However, due to the aforementioned unresolved issues related to the
Cabinet Gorge permanent fishway, the licensee and the resource agencies agreed to
postponing further work on the fishway, until such time that real-time pathogen testing
techniques are available or pathogens are no longer an issue in the Clark Fork drainage,
no new work associated with the Noxon fishway and fish handling facility occurred in 2014.
10. Among the elements of the 2015 T&E species and fishway plans, the licensee
proposes to continue to implement its rapid response genetic analysis program; continue
capture of adult bull trout for genetic analysis and associated transport; continue ongoing
bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout pathogen sampling in Idaho to fulfill MFWP
requirements to allow upstream fish passage; initiate the westslope cutthroat trout
experimental transport passage project; and begin utilization of the Cabinet Gorge Fish
Handling and Holding Facility. In its filing, the licensee states that the final construction
Project No. 2058-014, et al. 4
contract documents for the design of the Cabinet Gorge Dam permanent fishway would
be completed in 2015 pending resolution of the aforementioned outstanding issues with
the FWS related to the proposed CFSA amendment.
COMMENTS ON THE ANNUAL REPORTS AND PLANS
11. The licensee prepared its reports and plans in consultation with the project MC,
including the FWS, MFWP, and IDFG. The 2013 annual report and 2014
implementation plans were submitted to Committee members for a 30-day review period
and were discussed at the March 2014 MC meeting. The licensee states that the 2014
implementation plans were approved by the MC, including the FWS. Regarding the
2013 annual report, the IDFG provided comments which were incorporated into the final
2013 annual report filed with the Commission. By letters dated March 20 and April 9,
2014 and included in the licensee’s filing, the FWS provided various comments regarding the 2013 annual report, which largely pertained to the outstanding issues regarding
upstream fish passage facilities and the upstream fish transport program. By letters dated
April 11 and 17, 2014 and also included in the licensee’s filing, the licensee responded to
the FWS’ letters. In response to the FWS’s March 20, 2014 letter, the licensee added
additional information to the 2013 annual report regarding the capture and release of
three adult bull trout below Cabinet Gorge Dam in April and May 2013. However, the
licensee declined to make remaining changes identified in the FWS’s March 20 and April
9, 2014 letters due to the fact that they pertain to the previously identified outstanding
issues regarding upstream fishways.
12. The licensee’s 2014 annual report and 2015 implementation plans were also
prepared in consultation with the project MC, submitted to Committee members for a 30-
day review period, and discussed at the March 2015 MC meeting. According to the
licensee, one comment on the 2014 annual report was received from the FWS which was
incorporated into the final 2014 annual report filed with the Commission. The 2015
annual implementation plans were approved by the MC, including the FWS. With regard
to the outstanding issues related to the Cabinet Gorge fishway, which address long-term
upstream passage of bull trout, associated pathogen assessments and permitting
requirements, agreement on minimum flows below Cabinet Gorge Dam and associated
fishway design components and operations, and agreement on the appropriate source of funding for fishway operations, the licensee asserts that these issues do not warrant
Commission action at this time. Rather, the licensee continues to work toward resolution
of these matters through the proposed draft amendment to the CFSA which is pending
review by the FWS, and ultimately MC approval.

Project No. 2058-014, et al. 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
13. The licensee is reporting on activities conducted in 2013 and 2014 under license
articles 404-443, which includes annual T&E species and fishway reports and plans
under license articles 432 and 433. The licensee also provides summaries of all aquatic,
terrestrial, cultural, and recreation activities planned for the 2014 and 2015 calendar
years. Although we recognize that various matters regarding installation of permanent
upstream fish passage facilities at Cabinet Gorge Dam remain unresolved, the
Commission’s October 16, 2013 order2 requires the licensee to file semi-annual progress
reports. These reports are intended to keep the Commission apprised of the status and
associated progress regarding resolution of these matters, which appear to be a
satisfactory means, at least in the interim, of ensuring continued progress toward
resolution of these matters or until the licensee’s proposed CFSA amendment is filed with the Commission.
14. Review of the licensee’s 2013 and 2014 annual reports and 2014 and 2015 implementation plans indicate that they were developed in consultation with the Management Committee and meet the requirements of license Article 402. In addition,
review of the 2014 and 2015 annual threatened and endangered species and fishway plans
also indicate the they satisfy the requirements of license articles 432 and 433,
respectively. Accordingly, the licensee’s 2013 and 2014 annual reports and 2014 and
2015 implementation plans should be approved.
The Director orders:
(A) Avista Corporation’s (licensee) 2013 Annual Report and 2014
Implementation Plans, and 2014 Annual Report and 2015 Implementation Plans for the
Clark Fork Project, filed April 15, 2014 and March 26, 2015, respectively, pursuant to
license Article 402, are approved.

(B) The licensee's 2014 and 2015 Annual Threatened and Endangered Species
Plans and Annual Fishway Plans satisfy the requirements of license articles 432 and 433,
respectively, and are approved.

2 Order Modifying and Approving 2012 Annual Report and 2013 Annual
Implementation Plans Per Article 402, Annual Threatened and Endangered Species Plan
Per Article 432, and Annual Fishway Plan Per Article 433. 145 FERC ¶ 62,038.

Project No. 2058-014, et al. 6
(C)This order constitutes final agency action. Any party may file a request for
rehearing of this order within 30 days from the date of its issuance, as provided in section
313(a) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 8251 (2012), and the Commission’s
regulations at 18 C.F.R. § 385.713 (2015). The filing of a request for rehearing does not
operate as a stay of the effective date of this order, or of any other date specified in this
order. The licensee’s failure to file a request for rehearing shall constitute acceptance of
this order.
Thomas J. LoVullo
Chief, Aquatic Resources Branch Division of Hydropower Administration
and Compliance
151 FERC ¶ 62,046
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Spokane Energy, LLC Docket No. EC15-82-000
Avista Corporation
ORDER AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION AND
DISPOSITION OF JURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES
(Issued April 21, 2015)
On March 2, 2015, as supplemented on April 8, 2015, Spokane Energy, LLC (Spokane Energy) and Avista Corporation (Avista) (collectively, Applicants), filed anapplication under section 203 of the Federal Power Act (FPA)12 requesting Commissionauthorization for the disposition of jurisdictional facilities resulting from a transaction under which Spokane Energy will assign and transfer its interests in an Agreement for
Long-Term Purchase and Sale of Firm Capacity (Capacity Contract) to its parent
company, Avista (Proposed Transaction). The jurisdictional facility associated with the
Proposed Transaction is the Capacity Contract.
According to Applicants, Spokane Energy is a Washington limited liability
company whose principal place of business is in Spokane, Washington. Spokane Energy,
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Avista, was formed for the sole purpose of holding the
Capacity Contract which is the subject of this Application. Spokane Energy is authorized
to sell electric energy and capacity at wholesale and at market-based rates. Applicants
state that Spokane Energy does not own, operate, or control any electric transmission,
distribution, or generation assets.
Applicants state that Avista (formerly known as the Washington Water Power
Company (Washington Power)) is a corporation created and organized under the laws of
the State of Washington with its principal office in Spokane, Washington. Avista is an
investor-owned utility engaged in the business of generating, transmitting, and
distributing electric power to wholesale and retail customers and transmitting electric power on behalf of third parties. Avista is authorized by the Commission to engage in
sales of capacity and energy at cost-based and market-based rates. Applicants state that
Avista also offers open-access transmission services pursuant to its Commission-
1 Applicants are reminded to specify whether they are applying under 203(a)(1) or
203(a)(2).
2 16 U.S.C. § 824b (2012).
20150421-3025 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 04/21/2015
Docket No. EC15-82-000 - 2 -
approved Open Access Transmission Tariff. Avista is also engaged in the distribution of
natural gas in certain portions of Washington, Idaho, and Oregon.
According to Applicants, the Capacity Contract was originally between
Washington Power and Portland General Electric Company (Portland General). The
Capacity Contract was originally executed in 1992 and will expire by its terms on
December 31, 2016. The Capacity Contract is a “right-to-capacity” agreement, whereby
Washington Power was to make 150 megawatts of capacity available to Portland General
at rates specified in the Capacity Contract. Applicants state that Portland General
schedules energy out of this capacity when it needs such and later returns an equal
amount of energy.
According to Applicants, in 1998 Washington Power assigned its rights and obligations under the Capacity Contract and all of the transmission rights necessary to perform under the Capacity Contract to Spokane Energy. After the assignment, Spokane Energy met its obligations under the Capacity Contract through a matching agreement it entered into with Enron Power Marketing, Inc. (Enron) (which was later assumed by
Peaker LLC (Peaker)), under which Enron and later Peaker delivered the required
capacity and energy to Spokane Energy from specific generators providing the energy,
and accepted return energy from Spokane Energy on the Washington Power/Avista
system. Enron in turn entered into a matching agreement with Washington Power (later
assumed by Peaker and Avista, respectively) under which Washington Power/Avista
provided the required capacity and energy to Enron/Peaker from specific generators
providing the energy and accepted return energy from Enron/Peaker on Washington
Power’s/Avista’s system. Washington Power/Avista also provided Spokane Energy with
any necessary scheduling and billing services under a services agreement.
Applicants state that in consideration of the assignment, Spokane Energy provided
Washington Power a lump sum payment based on the present value of the stream of
payments under the Capacity Contract. Spokane Energy received the lump sum amount
from a funding vehicle (Trust) which did not take title to any power or own any facilities
for the sale of power at wholesale or for the transmission of power. According to
Applicants, in exchange for the amount Spokane Energy received from the Trust, the
Trust was to be repaid with all but $1.00/kilowatt-month of the amounts received by Spokane Energy from Portland General under the Capacity Contract.
According to Applicants, the proceeds from the Capacity Contract through
December 31, 2014, repaid the Trust in full. Accordingly, Applicants submit that after
December 31, 2014, the contracts that were required to facilitate this arrangement are no
longer necessary and there is no longer any reason for Spokane Energy to hold the
Capacity Contract. Therefore, Spokane Energy and Avista intend to terminate their
contracts with Peaker, and Spokane Energy proposes to assign the Capacity Contract
back to Avista. After the assignment, Avista will directly meet its obligations under the
20150421-3025 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 04/21/2015
Docket No. EC15-82-000 - 3 -
Capacity Contract. Applicants state that Avista already provided the capacity and energy
and receives the return energy under the Capacity Contract through the various contracts
(described above) between and among Avista, Spokane Energy, and Peaker. According
to Applicants, the reassignment of the Capacity Contract back to Avista will provide for
more efficient administration of the Capacity Contract.
According to Applicants, the Proposed Transaction is consistent with the public
interest and will have no adverse effect on competition, rates, or regulation. Applicants
state that the Proposed Transaction raises no concerns with respect to horizontal or
vertical market power in wholesale markets because the proposed transfer will not result
in any increase in control over, or ownership of, generation or transmission facilities.
Therefore, Applicants state that while the Proposed Transaction involves a disposition of
jurisdictional facilities, it does not raise any generation or vertical market power concerns.
According to Applicants, the Proposed Transaction will not have an adverse effectwith respect to rates. Avista does not propose to change rates for service as a result of the
Proposed Transaction. Specifically, Avista will continue to record an amortization of the
portion of the lump sum payment received to Account 447.74 (power sales) and an
appropriate portion to Account 447.71 (transmission) through the year 2016. Applicants
add that revenues from the Capacity Contract will also be recorded monthly in Accounts
447.74 and 447.71.
Applicants state that the Proposed Transaction will not have an adverse effect with
regard to regulation. The Commission’s regulatory jurisdiction over Avista will continue
after the assignment. Applicants add that Avista will continue to be subject to the
jurisdiction of the state utility commissions with regard to any retail ratepayers.
Applicants state that, based on facts and circumstances known to them or that are
reasonably foreseeable, the Proposed Transaction will not result in, at the time of the
closing or in the future, cross-subsidization of a non-utility associate company or the
pledge or encumbrance of assets of a traditional public utility that has captive customers
or that owns or provides transmission service over jurisdictional facilities for the benefit
of an associate company. Applicants state that the Proposed Transaction does not include any non-utility associate company. Moreover, the Proposed Transaction does not result
in any new pledge or encumbrance of utility assets for the benefit of any associate
company. Therefore, Applicants state that the Proposed Transaction does not raise any
concerns with respect to cross-subsidization.
Applicants add that the Proposed Transaction does transfer facilities (the Capacity
Contract) from Spokane Energy (a public utility that does not have any captive
customers) to its parent, Avista (a traditional public utility that does have captive
customers). However, Applicants state that Avista currently performs the obligations
20150421-3025 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 04/21/2015
Docket No. EC15-82-000 - 4 -
under the Capacity Contract through a series of contractual arrangements between and
among Avista, Peaker, and Spokane Energy. Applicants submit that the Trust has been
repaid, so those contractual arrangements are no longer necessary. Accordingly,
Applicants state that if the Commission approves the Proposed Transaction and the
proposed assignment becomes effective, Avista will hold the Capacity Contract such that
its obligations will be directly pursuant to the Capacity Contract rather than the complex
contractual arrangements that currently exist.
Further, Applicants verify that the Proposed Transaction will not at the time of
completion or in the future result in: (1) any new issuance of securities by a traditional
public utility associate company that has captive customers or that owns or provides
transmission service over jurisdictional transmission facilities, for the benefit of an
associate company; (2) any new pledge or encumbrance of assets of a traditional public utility associate company that has captive customers or that owns or provides transmission service over jurisdictional transmission facilities, for the benefit of an associate company; or (3) any new affiliate contract between a non-utility associate company and a traditional public utility associate company that has captive customers or
that owns or provides transmission service over jurisdictional transmission facilities,
other than non-power goods and service agreements subject to review under sections 205
and 206 of the FPA.
The filings were noticed on March 4, 2015, and April 8, 2015, with comments,
protests, or interventions due on or before March 24, 2015 and April 20, 2015,
respectively. None were received. Notices of intervention and unopposed timely filed
motions to intervene are granted pursuant to the operation of Rule 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.3 Any opposed or untimely filed motion
to intervene is governed by the provisions of Rule 214.
Information and/or systems connected to the bulk system involved in this
transaction may be subject to reliability and cybersecurity standards approved by the
Commission pursuant to FPA section 215. Compliance with these standards is
mandatory and enforceable regardless of the physical location of the affiliates or
investors, information database, and operating systems. If affiliates, personnel or
investors are not authorized for access to such information and/or systems connected to the bulk power system, a public utility is obligated to take the appropriate measures to
deny access to this information and/or the equipment/software connected to the bulk
power system. The mechanisms that deny access to information, procedures, software,
equipment, etc., must comply with all applicable reliability and cybersecurity standards.
3 18 C.F.R. § 385.214 (2014).
20150421-3025 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 04/21/2015
Docket No. EC15-82-000 - 5 -
The Commission, North America Electric Reliability Corporation or the relevant regional
entity may audit compliance with reliability and cybersecurity standards.
Order No. 652 requires that sellers with market-based rate authority timely report
to the Commission any change in status that would reflect a departure from the
characteristics the Commission relied upon in granting market-based rate authority.4 The
foregoing authorization may result in a change in status. Accordingly, the Applicants are
advised that they must comply with the requirements of Order No. 652. In addition, the
Applicants shall make any necessary filings under section 205 of the FPA to implement
the Proposed Transaction.
After consideration, it is concluded that the Proposed Transaction is consistent
with the public interest and is authorized, subject to the following conditions:
(1)The Proposed Transaction is authorized upon the terms and conditions and for the purposes set forth in the application;
(2)The foregoing authorization is without prejudice to the authority of the
Commission or any other regulatory body with respect to rates, service,
accounts, valuation, estimates or determinations of costs, or any other
matter whatsoever now pending or which may come before the
Commission;
(3)Nothing in this order shall be construed to imply acquiescence in any
estimate or determination of cost or any valuation of property claimed or
asserted;
(4)The Commission retains authority under sections 203(b) and 309 of the
FPA to issue supplemental orders as appropriate;
(5) If the Proposed Transaction results in changes in the status or upstream
ownership of the Applicants’ affiliated qualifying facilities, an appropriate
filing for recertification pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 292.207 (2014) shall be
made;
(6) Applicants must inform the Commission of any change in circumstances
that would reflect a departure from the facts the Commission relied upon in
4 Reporting Requirement for Changes in Status for Public Utilities with Market-
Based Rate Authority, Order No. 652, 70 Fed. Reg. 8,253 (Feb. 18, 2005), FERC Stats. &
Regs. ¶ 31,175, order on reh’g, 111 FERC ¶ 61,413 (2005).
20150421-3025 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 04/21/2015
Docket No. EC15-82-000 - 6 -
authorizing the Proposed Transaction;
(7) Applicants shall make appropriate filings under section 205 of the FPA,
as necessary, to implement the Proposed Transaction; and
(8) Applicants shall notify the Commission within 10 days of the date that
the disposition of jurisdictional facilities has been consummated.
This action is taken pursuant to the authority delegated to the Director, Division of
Electric Power Regulation - West, under 18 C.F.R. § 375.307 (2014). This order
constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.713(2014).
Steve P. Rodgers
Director
Division of Electric Power Regulation - West
20150421-3025 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 04/21/2015
Document Content(s)
EC15-82-000.DOC.......................................................1-6
20150421-3025 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 04/21/2015
151 FERC ¶ 61,123
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Before Commissioners: Norman C. Bay, Chairman;
Philip D. Moeller, Cheryl A. LaFleur,
Tony Clark, and Colette D. Honorable.
Avista Corporation Docket No. EL15-19-000
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR DECLARATORY ORDER
(Issued May 14, 2015)
1.On November 10, 2014, Avista Corporation (Avista) filed a petition for declaratory order under Rule 207 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, and sections 366.3(b)(l)(i) and 366.3(d) of the Commission’s regulations,1 requesting
exemption from certain requirements under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of
2005 (PUHCA 2005).2 In this order, we find that PUHCA 2005, by its terms, exempts
Avista from these requirements, and we grant Avista’s petition.
I.Background
2.Avista states that it is an investor-owned utility that engages in, among other
things, the production, transmission, and distribution of electric energy in Washington
and Idaho, and in the local distribution of electric energy in Washington, Idaho, and
Oregon. Avista is a public utility under the Federal Power Act (FPA), and it owns
Spokane Energy, LLC, which, at the time the petition was filed, was a public utility
whose sole purpose is to hold an agreement for long-term purchase and sale of firm
capacity.3 Avista states that Spokane Energy, LLC does not own any transmission or
generation facilities. Avista states that it became a holding company under PUHCA 2005
1 18 C.F.R. §§ 385.207(a), 366.3(b)(1), 366.3(d), and 366.4(b)(3) (2014).
2 42 U.S.C. §§ 16451-63 (2012).
3 The Commission authorized Spokane Energy, LLC to assign the long-term purchase and sale firm capacity agreement to Avista. Spokane Energy LLC, 151 FERC ¶ 62,046 (2015). As a result, Spokane Energy, LLC is no longer a public utility under either the FPA or PUHCA 2005, and is no longer relevant to our analysis of Avista’s
petition.
20150514-3030 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 05/14/2015
Docket No. EL15-19-000 2
as a result of acquiring Alaska Energy and Resources Company (Alaska Energy), the
owner of Alaska Electric Light and Power (Alaska Light and Power), which is an electric
utility company under PUHCA 2005.4 Avista states that it completed this acquisition on
July 1, 2014.
II.Petition
3.Avista states that the issue its petition presents is whether Avista and its associate
companies qualify for an exemption under section 366.3(b)(1)(i) of the Commission’s
regulations, which provides for exemptions from certain requirements of the
Commission’s regulations under PUHCA 2005.
4.Avista notes that section 366.2 of the Commission’s regulations generally
provides that, unless otherwise exempted by Commission rule or order, each holding
company and associate company within the holding company system must maintain and
make available to the Commission “such books, accounts, memoranda, and other records
as the Commission determines are relevant to costs incurred by a public utility or natural gas company that is an associate company of such holding company and necessary or
appropriate for the protection of utility customers with respect to jurisdictional rates.”5
Avista states that section 366.3(b)(1)(i) of the Commission’s regulations provides an
exemption from these requirements if the Commission finds that the books, accounts,
memoranda, and other records are not relevant to the jurisdictional rates of a public utility
or natural gas company.6
4 Alaska Energy also owns AJT Mining Properties; and Snettisham Electric
Company. Snettisham Electric Company is currently a single purpose entity that holds an
option agreement that gives it an option to purchase the Snettisham hydroelectric project
from the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority.
5 Petition at 5 (quoting 18 C.F.R. § 366.2(a) (2014)). The Commission’s
accounting and recordkeeping requirements under PUHCA 2005 are set forth in sections
366.21, 366.22, and 366.23 of the Commission’s regulations. 18 C.F.R. §§ 361.21-.23
(2014); see also 18 C.F.R. pt. 367 (2014).
6 Avista also notes that an exemption from any such requirements will not “limit[]
the Commission’s authority under the FPA or the [Natural Gas Act].” Petition at 5
(quoting Repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 and Enactment of the
Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005, Order No. 667, FERC Stats. & Regs.
¶ 31,197, at P 204 (2005), order on reh’g, Order No. 667-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,213, order on reh’g, Order No. 667-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,224 (2006), order
on reh’g, Order No. 667-C, 118 FERC ¶ 61,133 (2007)).
20150514-3030 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 05/14/2015
Docket No. EL15-19-000 3
5.Avista maintains that the books, accounts, memoranda, and other records of its
non-public utility associate companies, including Alaska Energy and Alaska Light and
Power, are not relevant to the jurisdictional rates of Avista because no improper cross-
subsidization exists between and among, any public utility and any associate company
within Avista’s holding company system. Avista states that any costs associated with a
non-public utility company in the Avista holding company system are allocated to that
company and are not included in jurisdictional rates. Consequently, Avista requests an
exemption from sections 366.21, 366.22, and 366.23 of the Commission’s regulations.7
6.Avista adds that as part of its acquisition of Alaska Energy, it sought
authorizations from the state public utility commissions of Washington, Idaho, Oregon,
Montana, and Alaska. Avista states that it represented in its applications that there would
be no cross-subsidization between Avista and its subsidiary companies, including Alaska
Light and Power. It also represented that Alaska Energy and Alaska Light and Power will continue to operate as separate entities, and that Alaska Light and Power will operate as a stand-alone utility, continuing its electric utility operations with its existing management team.8
7.Avista states that its state commissions issued the necessary approvals for the
acquisition of Alaska Energy. It also states that some state commissions conditioned
their approval upon additional controls. For example, the Public Utility Commission of
Oregon conditioned its approval upon Avista agreeing to further ring fencing controls.
Avista states that, in accordance with the conditions that certain state commissions have
required, it agreed to: (i) maintain a capital structure of no less than 40 percent common
equity; (ii) not ask for rate recovery in Oregon of any costs associated with Alaska
Energy, including premium or goodwill; and (iii) not ask for rate recovery in Oregon for
any Alaska Energy acquisition transaction costs or acquisition period incremental
executive bonuses.9
8.Avista states that all costs associated with the due diligence and other activities
related to its acquisition of Alaska Energy prior to closing the acquisition on July 1, 2014
were tracked and assigned to a non-utility account. Avista states that following the
acquisition, to the extent it incurs any costs (e.g., employee time, plant, etc.) to support
Alaska Energy or Alaska Light and Power, it will track and assign those costs to Alaska
Energy or Alaska Light and Power, respectively. Avista also states that, to the extent any
7 Petition at 5-6.
8 Id.at 7.
9 Id.at 8.
20150514-3030 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 05/14/2015
Docket No. EL15-19-000 4
associate company, including Alaska Energy and Alaska Light and Power, incurs any
costs (employee time, plant, etc.) to support any Avista operations, such costs will also be
tracked and assigned to Avista. Avista expects assignment of costs both to and from
Alaska Light and Power to be small because Alaska Light and Power will continue to
operate as a stand-alone utility.10
9.Avista states that by instituting this direct assignment protocol, it has taken steps
to ensure that any costs associated with Alaska Energy and its subsidiaries will be
properly tracked and assigned to the appropriate entity. According to Avista, there will
as a result be no improper cross-subsidization between and among, on the one hand,
Avista and, on the other hand, any of the non-public utility associate companies within
Avista’s holding company system. In addition, Avista states that any costs associated
with a non-public utility company within Avista’s holding company system will be
allocated to such entity and will not be included in any public utility’s jurisdictional rates.11
10.Finally, Avista states that the exemption it seeks will not affect the Commission’s independent ability to obtain access to any books and records under the FPA and the Natural Gas Act and will not affect any applicable state commission’s ability to access
books and records pursuant to such state commission’s authority.12
III.Notice of Filing
11.Notice of Avista’s petition was published in the Federal Register, 79 Fed. Reg.
69,459 (2014), with interventions and protests due on or before December 10, 2014.
None was filed.
IV.Discussion
12.We find that PUHCA 2005, by its terms, exempts Avista and its holding company
system from the statute’s books and records requirements. Consequently, Avista and its
holding company system are also exempt from sections 366.21, 366.22, and 366.23 of the
Commission’s regulations, which implement the books and records requirements of
PUHCA 2005. To explain why this is the case, we must consider how the relevant
provisions of PUHCA 2005 apply in Avista’s case.
10 Id.at 8-9.
11 Id.at 9.
12 Id.at 10.
20150514-3030 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 05/14/2015
Docket No. EL15-19-000 5
13.Sections 366.21, 366.22, and 366.23 of the Commission’s regulations implement
the requirements of section 1264 of PUHCA 2005. The scope of those regulations is thus
dependent on the scope of the requirements that section 1264 establishes. Section
1264(a) of PUHCA 2005 requires that
each holding company and each associate company thereof
shall, maintain, and shall make available to the Commission,
such books, accounts, memoranda, and other records as the
Commission determines are relevant to costs incurred by a
public utility or natural gas company that is an associate
company of such holding company and necessary or
appropriate for the protection of utility customers with respect
to jurisdictional rates.13
14.The facts that Avista presents in its petition show that Avista and its holding company system are exempt from the requirements of section 1264, and thus from sections 366.21, 366.22, and 366.23 of the Commission’s regulations, by operation of the statute itself. In brief, the reason that Avista and its holding company system are exempt from these requirements is that the requirements pertain to costs incurred by a public
utility or natural gas company that is an associate company of a holding company, and
Avista, the holding company in this case, has no associate companies that are public
utilities or natural gas companies, as defined in PUHCA 2005.
15.An “associate company” of a holding company under PUHCA 2005 is a company
in which the holding company, directly or indirectly, owns, controls, or holds with power
to vote 10 percent or more of the outstanding voting securities.14 PUHCA 2005 defines a
“holding company” as “any company that directly or indirectly owns, controls, or holds,
with power to vote, 10 percent or more of the outstanding voting securities of a public-
utility company or of a holding company of any public-utility company. . . .”15 Avista
13 42 U.S.C. §16452(a) (2012) (emphasis supplied).
14 See id.§ 16451(2) (defining an “‘associate company’ of a company” as “any
company in the same holding company system with such company”); § 16451(9)
(defining “‘holding company system’ as a “holding company, together with its subsidiary
companies”); and§ 16451(16)(A) (defining “‘subsidiary company’ of a holding
company” as “any company, 10 percent or more of the outstanding voting securities of which are directly or indirectly owned, controlled, or held with power to vote, by such
holding company”).
15 Id.§ 16451(8)(A)(i).
20150514-3030 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 05/14/2015
Docket No. EL15-19-000 6
became a holding company through its acquisition of Alaska Energy, a holding company,
and its indirect acquisition Alaska Light and Power, which qualifies as a public-utility
company under PUHCA 2005 because it is an electric utility company under the statute.16
However, while Alaska Light and Power is a public-utility company, it is not a public
utility under PUHCA 2005.
16.PUHCA 2005 defines a “public utility” as “any person who owns or operates
facilities used for transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce or sales of
electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce.”17 Alaska Light and Power is
located in Alaska, and it therefore does not own or operate facilities used for transmission
of electric energy in interstate commerce or sales of electric energy at wholesale in
interstate commerce.18 Avista has no other associate companies that are public utilities
under PUHCA 2005, and it has no associate companies that are natural gas companies
under the statute. Consequently, Avista has no books and records that “are relevant to costs incurred by a public utility or natural gas company that is an associate company”19
of Avista and thus no books and records to which the requirements of PUHCA 2005 and sections 366.21, 366.22, and 366.23 of the Commission’s regulations apply.
17.Avista is itself a public utility under PUHCA 2005, and its rates are subject to the
jurisdiction of the Commission. However, the books and records requirements of
PUHCA 2005 do not apply to Avista. To be subject to PUHCA 2005 requirements,
books and records must be “relevant to costs incurred by a public utility or natural gas
company that is an associate company of [a] holding company . . . .”20 While Avista is
both a public utility and a holding company under PUHCA 2005, it is not an associate
company of a holding company. Its books and records therefore do not fall within the
requirements of PUHCA 2005. This does not, however, create any regulatory gap.
16 See id.§ 16451(14) (defining a “public-utility company” as “an electric utility
company or a gas utility company”) and § 16451(5) (defining an electric utility company
as “a company that owns or operates facilities used for the generation, transmission, or
distribution of electric energy for sale”).
17 Id.§ 16451(13).
18 See, e.g., Electricity Market Transparency Provisions of Section 220 of the
Federal Power Act, 140 FERC ¶ 61,232, at P 23 (2012) (noting that utilities located entirely in Alaska are electrically isolated from the contiguous United States).
19 42 U.S.C. § 16452(a) (2012).
20 Id.
20150514-3030 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 05/14/2015
Docket No. EL15-19-000 7
Avista is subject to the books and records maintenance and access requirements set forth
in section 301 of the FPA.21 These are comparable to those applicable under PUHCA
2005 and include authority to examine the books and records of Alaska Energy and
Alaska Light and Power.22 Indeed, the Commission has stated that “PUHCA 2005 is
primarily a ‘books and records access’ statute and does not give the Commission any new
substantive authorities.”23 The Commission’s authority under section 301 of the FPA to
access the books and records of both Avista and companies in the Avista holding
company system demonstrates this point.
18.Finally, we note that while Avista is exempt from section 1264 of PUHCA 2005
and related Commission requirements, Avista remains subject to the authority that state
commissions have under PUHCA to access its books and records and those of other
companies in the Avista holding company system.24 Moreover, as a holding company,
Avista remains subject to the requirements of sections 366.4(d) and (e) of the Commission’s rules. These sections require Avista to notify the Commission of any material change in facts that may affect its exemption and specify that Avista and its subsidiaries may no longer be able to rely on the exemption if they fail to conform with any material facts or representations presented in their petition.25
The Commission orders:
(A)The petition for declaratory order is hereby granted, as discussed in the
body of this order.
(B)In accordance with the requirements of the Commission’s regulations,
Avista is required to notify the Commission of any material change in facts that may
21 16 U.S.C. § 825 (2012).
22 See id. § 825(c). In fact, the Commission’s regulations under PUHCA 2005
require public utilities under that statute to use the same record retention requirements as those that apply to public utilities under the FPA. See 18 C.F.R. § 368.2 (2014).
23 Order No. 667, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,197 at P 4.
24 See 42 U.S.C. § 16453 (2012).
25 18 C.F.R. § 366.4(d)-(e) (2014).
20150514-3030 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 05/14/2015
Docket No. EL15-19-000 8
affect its exemption. Avista and its subsidiaries may not rely upon the exemption if they
fail to conform with any material facts or representations presented in Avista’s petition.
By the Commission.
( S E A L )
Kimberly D. Bose,Secretary.
20150514-3030 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 05/14/2015
Document Content(s)
EL15-19-000.DOCX......................................................1-8
20150514-3030 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 05/14/2015
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20426
OFFICE OF ENERGY MARKET REGULATION
In Reply Refer To:
Avista Corporation
Docket No. ER10-2290-004
June 17, 2015
Mr. Michael G. Andrea
Senior CounselAvista Corporation1411 E. Mission AvenueMSC-23Spokane, Washington 99202
Reference:Notice of Change in Status
Dear Mr. Andrea:
On May 8, 2015, you filed on behalf of Avista Corporation (Avista) a notice of
change in status stating that its affiliate, Spokane Energy, LLC, has assigned its interest
in a long-term purchase and sale agreement to Avista.1 You state that this assignment
does not affect the conditions the Commission relied upon when granting Avista market-
based rate authority.
Your filing was noticed on May 8, 2015, with comments, protests or interventions
due on or before May 29, 2015. None was filed.
Pursuant to the authority delegated to the Director, Division of Electric Power
Regulation - West, under 18 C.F.R. § 375.307, and based on your representations, the
notice of change in status is accepted for filing.
This action does not constitute approval of any service, rate, charge, classification,
or any rule, regulation, or practice affecting such rate or service provided for in the filed
documents; nor shall such action be deemed as recognition of any claimed contractual
right or obligation affecting or relating to such service or rate; and such acceptance is
without prejudice to any findings or orders which have been or may hereafter be made by
1 The related acquisition and disposition of jurisdictional facilities was authorized
by the Commission in Spokane Energy, LLC, 151 FERC ¶ 62,046 (2015).
20150617-3024 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/17/2015
Docket No. ER10-2290-004 - 2 -
the Commission in any proceeding now pending or hereafter instituted by or against
Avista.
This order constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the
Commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order, pursuant to
18 C.F.R. § 385.713.
Questions regarding the above order should be directed to:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Attn: Melissa Lozano
Phone: [phone]
Office of Energy Market Regulation
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20426
Sincerely,
Steve P. Rodgers, Director
Division of Electric Power
Regulation - West
20150617-3024 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/17/2015
Document Content(s)
ER10-2290-004.DOC.....................................................1-2
20150617-3024 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/17/2015
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426
OFFICE OF ENERGY MARKET REGULATION
Avista Corporation
Docket No. ER15-2551-000
September 29, 2015
Avista Corporation
1411 East Mission Ave.–MSC-23
Spokane, WA 99202
Attention:Karen K. SchuhSenior Regulatory Analyst
Reference:Average System Cost Filing

Dear Ms. Schuh:
On August 28, 2015, Avista Corporation (Avista) submitted its Average System
Cost (ASC) filing for sales of electric power to Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
for the fiscal year 2016-2017 exchange period related to a Residential Exchange Program
with BPA. Under the Residential Exchange Program, BPA acquires power from Avista
at Avista’s ASC and in exchange, sells an equivalent amount of power to Avista at BPA’s
Priority Firm Exchange Rate. The Northwest Power Act authorizes BPA to determine
utilities’ ASC based on a methodology developed by BPA in consultation with the
Northwest Power and Conservation Council, BPA, customers and state regulatory
agencies in the Pacific Northwest. Waiver of the Commission’s notice requirement
pursuant to section 35.11 of the Commission’s regulations (18 C.F.R. § 35.11) is
granted,1 and the ASC filing for sales of electric power to BPA is accepted for filing
effective October 1, 2015, as requested.

This filing was noticed on August 28, 2015, with comments, protests, or motions to intervene due on or before September 18, 2015. No protests or adverse comments
were filed. Notices of intervention and unopposed timely filed motions to intervene are
granted pursuant to the operation of Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and

1 Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, et al., 60 FERC ¶ 61,106, reh’g
denied, 61 FERC ¶ 61,089 (1992).
20150929-3027 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 09/29/2015
Docket No. ER15-2551-000 - 2 -
Procedure (18 C.F.R. § 385.214). Any opposed or untimely filed motion to intervene is
governed by the provisions of Rule 214.
This acceptance for filing shall not be construed as constituting approval of the
referenced filing or of any rate, charge, classification or any rule, regulation or practice
affecting such rate or service contained in your filed documents; nor shall such
acceptance be deemed as recognition of any claimed contractual right or obligation
associated therewith; and such acceptance is without prejudice to any findings or orders
which have been or any which may hereafter be made by the Commission in any
proceeding now pending or hereafter instituted by or against Avista.
This action is taken pursuant to the authority delegated to the Director, Division of
Electric Power Regulation - West under 18 C.F.R. § 375.307. This order constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.713.
Sincerely,
Steve P. Rodgers, Director
Division of Electric Power
Regulation – West
20150929-3027 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 09/29/2015
Document Content(s)
ER15-2551-000.DOC.....................................................1-2
20150929-3027 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 09/29/2015
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426
OFFICE OF ENERGY MARKET REGULATION
Avista Corporation
Docket Nos. ER13-94-008
ER15-422-004
Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
Docket Nos. ER13-99-008 ER15-429-004
May 12, 2016Avista Corporation1411 E. Mission AveMSC-16
Spokane, WA 99202
Perkins Coie LLP
The PSE Building
10885 NE 4th St
Suite 700
Bellevue, WA 98004
Attention:Michael G. Andrea
Counsel for Avista Corporation
Donald G. Kari
Counsel for Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
Reference:Order No. 1000 Compliance Filing
Dear Mr. Andrea and Mr. Kari:
On April 4, 2016, Avista Corporation (Avista) and Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
(Puget Sound) (collectively, ColumbiaGrid Public Utilities) submitted compliance filings
to revise their respective Attachment Ks and Order 1000 Functional Agreement, as
directed by the Commission.1 The revisions are in satisfactory compliance with the Fifth
Compliance Order and are accepted for filing, effective April 5, 2016, as requested.
1 Avista Corp., et al.,154 FERC ¶ 61,165 (2016) (Fifth Compliance Order).
20160512-3008 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 05/12/2016
Docket No. ER13-94-008, et al - 2 -
The filings were noticed on April 4, 2016, with comments, protests or
interventions due on or before April 25, 2016. No protests or adverse comments were
filed. Notices of intervention and unopposed timely filed motions to intervene are
granted pursuant to the operation of Rule 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (18 C.F.R § 385.214). Any opposed or untimely filed motion to intervene is
governed by the provisions of Rule 214.
This action does not constitute approval of any service, rate, charge, classification,
or any rule, regulation, contract, or practice affecting such rate or service provided for in
the filed documents; nor shall such action be deemed as recognition of any claimed contractual right or obligation affecting or relating to such service or rate; and such action is without prejudice to any findings or orders which have been or may hereafter be made by the Commission in any proceeding now pending or hereafter instituted by or against Avista or Puget Sound.
This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated to the Director, Division of
Electric Power Regulation – West, under 18 C.F.R. § 375.307. This order constitutes
final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30
days of the date of issuance of this order, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.713.
Sincerely,
Steve P. Rodgers, Director
Division of Electric Power
Regulation - West
cc: All Parties
20160512-3008 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 05/12/2016
Document Content(s)
ER13-94-008.DOC.......................................................1-2
20160512-3008 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 05/12/2016
1 STATE OF ALASKA
2 THE REGULATORY COMMISSION OF ALASKA
3
4 Before Commissioners: T .W. Patch, Chairman
Stephen McAlpine
5 Robert M. Pickett
Norman Rokeberg
6 Janis W. Wilson
7 In the Matter of the Application Filed by Lynn)
Canal Transmission Corporation for a Certificate) U-15-109
8 of Public Convenience and Necessity )
_______________________________ ) ORDER NO. 3
9
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND EXTENDING
10 TIMELINE FOR DETERMINATION OF REQUESTS FOR WAIVER
11 BY ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE JAMES L. WALKER:
12 Lynn Canal Transmission Corporation (Lynn Canal) applied for a
13 certificate of public convenience and necessity (certificate) to provide high voltage
14 electric transmission service between the Lena Cove Substation owned by Alaska
15 Electric Light & Power Company (AEL&P) and Coeur Alaska, Inc.'s Kensington Mine, in
16 the vicinity of Juneau, Alaska.1 Lynn Canal requested waiver of the commission
17
18
22
23
25
26
requirement that certificate applications include a proposed tariff and certain pro forma
financial schedules.2 The commission issued public notice of the Application, with
comments due by September 24,2015.3
1Application for New Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity by the
Lynn Canal Transmission Corporation, filed August 28, 2015 (Application), at 3-4,
Attachment F-1.
2Lynn Canal Transmission Corporation Supplemental Filing Regarding:
U-15-109, filed September 2, 2015, at 4; Lynn Canal Transmission Corporation
Supplemental Filing 2 Regarding: U-15-109, filed September 2, 2015, at 4-5 Uointly
Requests for Waiver).
3Notice of Utility Application, dated September 3,2015.
U-15-1 09(3) -(10102/2015)
Page 1 of 3
1 AEL&P filed comments suggesting that the Application should be rejected,
2 in part because the Application cannot be properly analyzed without a proposed tariff
3 and the pro forma financial schedules4 Lynn Canal was required to respond to the
4 AEL&P Comments by October 5, 2015.5 Lynn Canal filed a motion requesting an
5 additional thirty days, until November 4, 2015, to respond to the AEL&P Comments.6
6 Lynn Canal, as the only party to this proceeding, consented under AS 42.05.175(f) to a
7 thirty-day extension of the deadline for issuance of a final order in this proceeding
8 commensurate with its request for a thirty-day extension of the time in which to file a
9 response to the AEL&P Comments.?
10 The commission is required by AS 42.05.175(a)(1) to issue a final decision
11 regarding an application for a certificate not later than 180 days after a complete
12 application is filed . Under 3 AAC 48.648(b)(2), the commission cannot determine
13
14
15
16
25
26
whether the Application is complete until after ruling on the Requests for Waiver. If the
Requests for Waiver are granted , the Application was complete on August 28, 2015, the
day it was filed B A final order in this proceeding would then be due by February 24,
2015. If either of the Requests for Waiver is denied, the Application will be incomplete
until Lynn Canal files the required documents.
The commission desires to give Lynn Canal a full opportunity to respond
to the AEL&P Comments. With Lynn Canal's consent to extend the statutory timeline
for issuance of a final order in this proceeding, the commission has the scheduling
flexibility to accommodate Lynn Canal's request for an additional thirty days to respond
4Comments of Alaska Electric Light and Power Company, filed September 24,
2015 (AEL&P Comments).
50 rder U-15-1 09(2), Order Requiring Filing, dated September 25, 2015.
6Motion for Exten sion of Time Regarding: Order U-1S-109(2), filed
September 29, 2015.
?Correspondence from J. Custer, filed October 1,2015.
83 AAC 48.648(b).
U-15-109(3) -(10102/2015)
Page 2 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
25
26
to the AEL&P Comments. Therefore, I grant Lynn Canal's motion for extension of time .
Lynn Canal shall respond to the AEL&P Comments by November 4, 2015.
Under 3 AAC 48.648(c), the commission is required to issue a decision on
Lynn Canal's Requests for Waiver by October 24, 2015. Having granted Lynn Canal
until November 4, 2015 to respond to the AEL&P Comments, I find good cause9 to
modify this requirement and extend the time for deciding the Requests for Waiver to
December 4, 2015.
ORDER
THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FURTHER ORDERS :
1. The Motion for Extension of Time Regarding: Order U-15-109(2), filed
September 29,2015, by Lynn Canal Transmission Corporation, is granted.
2. Lynn Canal Transmission Corporation shall file a response to the
Comments of Alaska Electric Light and Power Company, filed September 24, 2015, by
November 4, 2015.
3. The timeline for issuing a decision on the waiver requests of Lynn
Canal Transmission Corporation under 3 AAC 48.648(c) is extended to December 4,
2015.
DATED AND EFFECTIVE at Anchorage, Alaska, this 2nd day of October, 2015.
(SEAL)
93 AAC 48.805(a).
U-15-1 09(3) -(10102/2015)
Page 3 of 3
mes L. Walker
Administrative Law Judge
.'ft/
ORDER NO. 1"'4 .... 4 3 ii .... "''
ENTERED DEC 1 6 2014
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
OF OREGON
In the Matter of
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF
OREGON
Rulemaking to Streamline eFiling and
Other Housekeepin Chan es
AR583
ORDER
DISPOSITION: RULE MODIFICATIONS ADOPTED
I. INTRODUCTION
In this order, we amend rules to streamline the procedures for filing and serving documents
in contested cases and other formal proceedings. The amendments eliminate the need to file
paper copies in most instances, and generally eliminate the need for stakeholders to provide
service of filings on other parties.
We will hold a workshop in Portland with our stakeholders to address any questions about
the new eFiling rules prior to implementation.
11. BACKGROUND
On September 15, 2014, we filed a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Hearing and Statement
ofNeed and Fiscal Impact with the Secretary of State. On September 17, 2014, we provided
notice of the rulemaking and copies of the proposed amendments to all interested persons on
the service lists established under OAR 860-001-0030(1)(b) and to legislators specified in
ORS 183.335(1 )( d). The Secretary of State published notice of the rulemaking in the
October 2014 Oregon Bulletin.
We held a rulemaking hearing on October 30, 2014. We accepted comments on the proposed
amendments through November 21, 2014.
ORDER NO.
Portland General Electric (PGE); PacifiCorp, dba Pacific Power; Idaho Power Company,
Northwest Natural Gas Company, dba NW Natural; the Citizens' Utility Board of Oregon
(CUB); the Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities (ICNU); and Sierra Club filed
comments to the proposed amendments.
III. DISCUSSION
Most rulemaking participants generally support the proposed amendments. Their comments
raised specific issues regarding due process, filing of confidential documents, service of
voluminous documents, use of shared workspace, and dispute resolution. We address each
issue below.
A. Due Process -Amenirnents to OAR 860-001-0180
Currently, a party to a contested case proceeding must file paper and electronic copies of
documents with the Commission, and serve copies of all filings on each party. A party must
also file a certificate of service with the Commission attesting that copies had been served on
other parties.
Under the proposed rules, a party is required, in most instances, to file only an electronic
copy of the document with the Commission. The filing of the electronic copy also
effectuates service, so that the filing party is not required to directly serve the parties or file a
certificate of service. The Commission, rather than the filing party, is responsible for serving
the documents on other parties.
J. Comments
PacifiCorp believes that eliminating the requirement that a party directly serve other parties
raises due process concerns. PacifiCorp is concerned that the delay between filing of a
document and the Commission's subsequent service on other parties may cause confusion
about the timeliness of service and the calculation of due dates for responsive pleadings.
PacifiCorp notes that the Commission currently emails parties a notice of filing after it has
received a filing, but explains that parties often receive the notice hours, if not a day or two,
after the document was filed with the Commission.
2. Discussion
We adopt the amendments as proposed. The changes will greatly reduce the need for a party
to file paper copies and provide service to other parties. We will bear responsibility for
providing service and will do so by posting the documents to eDockets and notifying parties
with an email link to the posting.
In conjunction to these amendments, we are making changes to our internal processes that
address PacifiCorp's due process concerns. PacifiCorp is correct that the current email
2
notice of a filing does not occur contemporaneously with the filing of the document. This is
due to the fact that we treat the physical (paper) copy-not the electronic copy-as the
official filing, and do not notify parties of the filing until we receive the paper copy. Once
the amended rules are effective, we will treat the electronic copy of a document as the
official filing, and will provide service to other parties within minutes of receipt. The notice
of filing also serves as the certificate of service by providing evidence of when service was
made.
We are also making changes to the Filing Center to ensure that parties receive timely service
of filings. We are moving the Filing Center from the Commission Office to the
Administrative Hearings Division, where additional staff will be available to process filings.
In addition, although we discourage parties from making last minute filings, the Filing Center
will be staffed with personnel who work past 5 p.m. so that any unavoidable last minute
filings may be processed and served timely.
B. Filing and Service of Confidential Documents -Amendments to OAR 860-001-
0170(l)(f) and (g), OAR 860-001-0180(2)(a), and OAR 860-001-0540(2)
The proposed amendments require a party to file and serve physical copies of any document
that contains information that has been designated as confidential. The rules further require
that the documents must be received on or before the filing due date to be considered timely.
·I. Comments
Several rulemaking participants contend the proposed filing and service deadline for
confidential documents creates a logistical problem. They explain that, due to the reluctance
to send confidential information electronically, a party would need to mail the confidential
documents two days before the actual due date to ensure that they are timely received. They
request the rule continue to require redacted copies be filed on the due date and allow
confidential documents to be delivered later.
2. Discussion
We acknowledge the participant's concerns and modify the rules to continue the current
practice and allow confidential copies to be received within two business days of the date the
redacted versions were filed or served.
3
C. Filing of Voluminous Documents -Amendments to OAR 860-001-0170(3) and
OAR 860-001-0180(2)(b)
The proposed amendments require a party to file and serve physical copies of any filing that
is more than 100 pages in size. The amendments also require the filing party to contact the
Filing Center to determine the number of physical copies of voluminous documents to be
filed with the Commission.
a. Comments
The participants raise two issues related to the filing of voluminous documents. First, POE
and PacifiCorp recommend that the requirement for physical service of voluminous filings be
eliminated. Both utilities believe that the ultimate intent of eFiling is to reduce the need for
paper copies, and note that most parties have already opted out of receiving physical service
of documents regardless of the size of the filing.
ICNU and CUB oppose PGE's and PacifiCorp's recommendation. ICNU notes that PGE's
most recent rate case filing exceeded 800 pages in length. ICNU and CUB believe that a
utility has greater resources to serve copies of voluminous filings rather than requiring
intervenors to print the filings themselves.
Second, PacifiCorp recommends that the number of required physical copies be stated in the
rules. PacifiCorp contends it is administratively burdensome for a party to contact the Filing
Center every lime a filing exceeds 100 pages.
b. Discussion
We will retain the 100 page threshold for paper filings and service. We share the goal of
reducing the amount of paper filings, but will continue-at this time-to require a party to
file and serve voluminous filings.
We adopt, in part, PacifiCorp' s recommendation to adopt specified numbers of copies
required for voluminous filings. For general rate cases and integrated resource plans, a utility
must supplement electronic initial, amended, and supplemental application filings with 20
physical copies. We decline to establish specific numbers required for other voluminous
filings, however, given variety of possible filings. Accordingly, we retain the language to
require the filing party to coordinate with the Filing Center to determine the number of
copies required for miscellaneous voluminous documents.
4
"-:"
.;\rr ~1 lHi /;
ORDER NO.'[ ,,r,~1' "~1·
D. Dispute Resolution -Amendments to OAR 860-021-0015, OAR 860-034-0060,
OAR 860-036-0025, and OAR 860-037-0025
The proposed amendments make certain changes to rules governing disputes between a
customer and a utility. Among other things, the changes clarify the process for determining
whether a customer is entitled to continued or restored service pending the resolution of an
informal or formal complaint. The changes also delegate certain authority to our Consumer
Services Division and Administrative Law Judges.
I. Comments
NW Natural, PGE, Idaho Power, and PacifiCorp believe that the proposed amendments to the
dispute resolution processes go beyond housekeeping changes necessary to implement new
eFiling requirements. These utilities propose that these changes-particularly the delegation
of authority to the Consumer Services Division and ALJs-be addressed in a separate
rulemaking to allow a sufficient opportunity for review and discussion.
2. Discussion
We agree that identified amendments address matters outside the scope of eFiling
requirements and do not adopt them. We make changes to the rules only as necessary to be
consistent with other rule changes.
E. Use of Shared Workspace -OAR 860-001-0480(5) and OAR 860-001-0540(2)
We are currently developing a shared online workspace for parties to post and access data
requests and discovery. The proposed amendments address the use of this shared workspace
in Commission proceedings.
I. Comments
The rulemaking participants raise two issues and two questions about the use of an online
workspace. First, PacifiCorp believes that the use of an online workspace should be limited
to discovery, and recommends the Commission not adopt proposed language allowing parties
to post workpapers used to support testimony. Second, PacifiCorp recommends that rules
governing the online workspace provide guidelines regarding service. PacifiCorp notes that,
because the Commission may limit the number of online workspace users to reduce costs, the
service list in each proceeding may not match the online workspace user list.
PacifiCorp and PGE also ask whether all parties will receive notice of and be able to view all
non-confidential data requests and responses.
5
ORDER NO.
2. Discussion
We do not adopt PacifiCorp's request to limit the use of the online workspace to discovery.
PacifiCorp does not explain why parties should be allowed to post workpapers associated
with a data response, but not workpapers used to support testimony.
We also conclude there is no need to adopt PacifiCorp's request to add language regarding
service. We have no plans to limit the number of online workspace users. All party
representatives listed on a service list will receive nolice of filings posted to the workspace.
Finally, we make one revision in response to questions about notice and access to the online
workspace. The workspace that we expect to implement will not provide automatic notice
upon posting. Rather, the posting party will be prompted to indicate whether it would like to
"share" the posting. This prompt, if selected, will provide notice of the posting to all parties,
who will then be able to view the posting. Accordingly, we add language to clarify that
service is satisfied upon the uploading of the papers to the workspace and electing to share
that upload with the parties:
F. Miscellaneous Provisions
We address other miscellaneous recommendations as follows:
1. Portable Data Storage Device-OAR 860-001-0070(3), OAR 860-001-
0170(1)(a) & (c)
We adopt NW Natural's recommendation to add language throughout our rules to permit the
use of other types of portable storage devices, such as a USB flash drive, to submit electronic
filings.
2. Commission Address -OAR 860-001-0000
We adopt, in part, PacifiCorp's recommendation to remove our physical address from the
rules and replace it with a reference to our internet home page for the most up-to-date
information on how best to contact us.
3. Data Responses-OAR 860-001-0540
We do not adopt PacifiCorp's request to change the deadline for filing data responses from
14 days back to 10 business days. As PacifiCorp notes, we changed the deadline to 14 days
from 10 business days in a prior rulemaking. We adhere to our prior decision and retain the
14-day deadline.
6
ORDER NO. ·f! ·;;.
4. Doubled-Sided Copies -OAR 860-001-0140(3)
We adopt Sierra Club's request to retain language encouraging that documents be printed on
both sides of the page on recycled paper when possible. We had proposed deleting this
language given the rulemaking's general move to electronic filings, but agree the request
should be retained for those situations when physical filing and service is required.
IV. CONCLUSION
We adopt the rule amendments consistent with this order, and make other editorial changes
throughout for clarity. The adopted rules are set forth in Appendix A.
IV. ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The changes to OAR 860-001-0020, 860-001-0070, 860-001-0140, 860-001-0150,
860-001-0160, 860-001-0170, 860-001-0180, 860-001-0300, 860-001-0310,
860-001-0340, 860-001-0350, 860-001-0410, 860-001-0420, 860-001-0480,
860-001-0540, 860-016-0000, 860-016-0020, 860-016-0021, 860-016-0025,
860-016-0030, 860-016-0050, 860-021-0015, 860-022-0005, 860-022-0047,
860-023-0151, 860-025-0060, 860-027-0300, 860-028-0070, 860-029-0100,
860-032-0002, 860-032-0005, 860-033-0006, 860-034-0060, 860-034-0300,
860-036-0025, 860-036-0605, 860-037-0025, 860-037-0410, 860-038-0400,
860-038-0420, and 860-082-0085; and new rule 860-001-0400 are adopted.
7
ORDER NO. .,J ·,;,.',·, '" .~, 3::, t
'·'
2. The rule changes become effective upon filing with the Secretary of State.
DEC 1 6 2114 Made, entered, and effective
~~~~~~~~~~~~
~&cw~
Susan K. Ackerman
Chair
/ t __ co~ssioner l;JJi~
Stephen M. Bloom
Commissioner
A person may petition the Public Utility Commission of Oregon for the amendment or repeal
of a rule under ORS 183.390. A person may petition the Oregon Court of Appeals to
determine the validity of a rule under ORS 183.400.
8
860-001-0020
DIVISION 1
GENERAL
Hours of Operation, Location, and Contact Information, Hours of Operation
(1) The Commission's loeation and eontaet infarmntion is:
(a) Physieal Location: Publie Utility Commissian of Oregon 550 Capitol St N.E.
Suite 215 Salem OR 97301 2567
(b) Consumer Services 8eetion/Consumer Complaiats:
Salem: [phone]
Oregon outside SaJem: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Consumer Complaint Proeedure on the website:
http :Uwww.pue.state.or.u.s/PUC/eonsume1•-/eomppro.shtml
(e) Telephone/Fax (for other than eensumer issues):
Gommission Reception: [phone]
Administrative Hearings Divisien: [phone] or [phone] Fax: (503) 378
6-1@
TTY (Oregon Relay 8et'Viee): [phone]
TTY RSPF Programs (OTAP, TDAP, OTRS): [phone]
(d) Website homepage: http:Hwww.pue.state.or.us/
(e) Filing Center: Electronic mail: [e-mail] Phone: (503) 373
0886 Fax: [phone]
(i) Mailing b.ddress: Publie Utility Commission of Oregon Attn: Filing Center PO
Box 2148 Salem OR 97308 2148
(g)-Delivery Address: Publie Utility Commission of Oregon Attn: Filing Center 550
.Capital St NE Suite 215 Salem OR 97301 2567
(2)-0ffice Hours: Commission offices are open to the public between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, except on legal holidays as defined in ORS 187.010 or when
the Commission's office is closed by a Department of Administralive Services directive.
(2) Location and general contact information: The information included in this
section is current at the time of rule adoption, but may change. Current information
and additional contact information is available on the Commission's website: ·
http://www.puc.state.or.us
(a) Physical Location: 3930 Fairview Industrial Drive SE, Salem, OR 97302
(b) Mailing Address: PO Box 1088, Salem, 0 R 97308-1088.
(c) Telephone:
(A) Local to Salem: [phone], TTY (Oregon Relay Service): (800)-735-2900;
(B} Consumer Services: [phone];
(C} Telephone Assistance Programs: [phone], TTY [phone].
Stat. Auth.: ORS 756.040 & 756.060
Stats. Implemented: ORS 756.040 & 756.500 -756.575
Hist.: PUC 5-2010, f. & cert. ef. 10-22-10
Appendix A
Page 1 of 74
860-001-0070
Confidential Information
ORDER NO. "~ f. ii ~~·
(1) This rule applies to information submitted under a claim of confidentiality under the
Public Records Law, but does not apply to information designated as confidential under a
protective order in a contested case proceeding.
(2) At the time of submission, a person may designate a document or portion of a
document as containing confidential information. A designation must be made in good faith
and be limited to information that qualifies for protection. The person asserting
confidentiality must state the legal basis for the claim of confidentiality.
(3) Unless otherwise provided by Commission order, confidential information submitted
under this rule must be clearly labeled on each electronic page as confidential and
identified as confidential in the document name, or printed on yellow paper, separately
bound, and placed in a sealed container or provided on a portable data storage device
clearly labeled with the word CONFIDENTIAL and placed in a sealed container.
Spreadsheets containing confidential information must be labeled with "confidential" in
the header or footer. To the extent practicable, the provider must place only the portions of
the document that contain confidential information in the container. The confidential
information on each page must be clearly marked by inserting [Confidential] before and after
the portion of information that is confidential. The container must be marked
"CONFIDENTIAL." Multiple sealed containers may be mailed in one package.
( 4) Confidential information submitted to the Commission is exempt from public
disclosure to the extent provided under the Public Records Law, ORS 192.410 through
192.505.
(5) Any failure to comply with the requirements in this rule may result in the submission
not being treated as including confidential information or being returned to the provider for
correction and resubmission.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 756.040 & 756.060
Stats. Implemented: ORS 192.420-192.505, & 756.040
Hist.: PUC 5-2010, f. & cert. ef. 10-22-10
Filing Requirements
860-001-0140
General
(1) The Commission requires the use of its Filing Center for the filing of documents
in agency proceedings. Contact information for the Filing Center is as follows:
(a) Electronic mail: [e-mail].
(b) Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone].
(c) Mailing Address: Filing Center, Public Utility Commission of Oregon, PO Box
1088, Salem, OR 97308-1088.
(d) Delivery Address: Filing Center, Public Utility Commission of Oregon, 3930
Fairview Industrial Drive SE, Salem, OR 97302.
filDocuments submitted to the Commission must include the name of the person
submitting the document, the person's physical and electronic mail addresses, and the
Appendix A
Page 2 of74
ORDER NO. 1 !~
person's telephone number. If applicable, the name of the business or organization that
person represents must also be included.
(2-J) If possible, documents should fit on an 8-112-_by-) I-inch page and have at least 1
inch margins when printed.
(~ When the filing or serving of physical copies is required, Deeuments sheuld be
printed en beth sides if possible. T!he Commission encourages the use of recycled paper
and printing on both sides of the page.-Tariff filings oflOO pages or more must be filed
single-sided.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 756.040 & 756.060
Stats. Implemented: ORS 756.040 & 756.500 -756.575
Hist.: PUC 5-2010, f. & cert. ef. 10-22-10
860-001-0150
Filing Dates
(1) Except as modified by statute or by these rules in this -Oivision, a document is filed on
the date received by the Commission at Salem, Oregon, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5
p.m.; Pacific Time.
(2) The period of time for doing an act governed by these rules is determined by
excluding the first day and including the last day. For example, if a motion is ~filed on
September 18, then any response (due 15 days after servieefiling of the motion) must be filed
by October 3. If the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday as defined in ORS
187.010, or when the Commission office is closed by a Department of Administrative
Services directive, then the filing is due on the next business day.
(3) Filings that are incomplete or not in substantial compliance with these rules,
Commission orders, ALJ rulings, or statutes may be declined or conditionally accepted. The
Commission must provide the reason for declining or conditionally accepting a filing to the
filer.
( 4) Documents required to be filed within a specified time but that fail to substantially
comply with these rules may be accepted as conditionally received to meet the filing
deadline.
(5) Conditionally received filings are not considered officially filed until brought into
substantial compliance with these rules, the Commission's orders, ALJ rulings, and statutes.
Conditionally received filings may be rejected unless brought into compliance within one
business day of notice of the deficiency. A filer must file an amended or corrected filing
to bring a conditionally accepted filing into compliance.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 756.040 & 756.060
Stats. Implemented: ORS 756.040 & 756.500 -756.575
Hist.: PUC 5-2010, f. & cert. ef. 10-22-10
Appendix A
Page 3of74
ORDER NO. •'ti 4,
860-001-0160
Filing Requirements in Rulemaking Proceedings
(1) Written comments on proposed rules and other documents submitted in rulemaking
proceedings must be filed with the Commission's Filing Center at the address listed in
OAR 860-001-092G140. Filing by electronic mail is preferred, but physical documents
will be accepted.
(a) Doeaments may be filed by mail, personal delivery, eleetronie mail, or any other
means of delivery.
(!b) To be considered by the Commission, a document must be received by the deadline
for the submission of written comments specified in the notice of proposed rulemaking.
(!!e) Documents must include the docket number assigned by the Commission to the
rulemaking proceedings.
(2) Written comments on a proposed rule must comply with OAR 860-001-0210(3).
Stat. Auth.: ORS 756.040 & 756.060
Stats. Implemented: ORS 756.040 & 756.500 -756.575
Hist.: PUC 5-2010, f. & cert. ef. 10-22-10
860-001-0170
Filing Requireme.,.ts in Contested Case and Declaratory Ruling Proceedings
(1) Every pleading or other document submitted to the Commission in contested case or
declaratory ruling proceedings must be filed electronically with the Commission's Filing
Center on or before the date due. The filing mast include an eleetrenie copy of the signed
eertifieate of senriee described in OAR 860 091 9180(5). All filings must be labeled with
the applicable docket number, a description of the filing, and the date filed. Electronic copies
of non-confidential documents must not be password protected, or have any PDF security
features enabled. ·
(a) Documents may be elec1ronically filed by sending the filing as an attachment to an
electronic mail message addressed to the Commission's Filing Center, Q! by personally
delivering or mailing a eompaet disk (CD) or DVDportable data storage device to the
Filing Center, or by uploading the filing on the Commission's website. If a GD-or
D¥Dportabkdata storage device is delivered or mailed to the Filing Center, it must be
received on or before the date due to be considered timely filed.
(b) Electric copies of documents must be in text-searchable format and provided in either
Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, or .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format, unless otherwise
permitted by the ALJ. A party mast provide a Microsoft ~ro1·d Yersion of any doellment,
if pessible, upon the ALJ's request.
(c) An electronic mail message to the Filing Center and its attachments filffig
submitted as an attaehment to an eleetnmie mail message must be less than 20 megabytes
in size! and include the docket oomber, pmty name, and title of the filing in the subjeot line
of the electronic mail message. Filings larger than 20 megabytes may be divided into
multiple electronic mail messages. Each message must be numbered sequentially, and
the subject line of the message must include "E-niail x of y,'' where x equals the message
Appendix A
Page 4 of74
ORDER NO. 'tt ,t,\;, f! )~ '.>::..~·
number and y equals the total number of messages. Filings larger than 20 megabytes
may also be provided to the Filing Center on a portable data storage device.
( d) Filings larger than 20 megabytes may be divided into multiple eleetronie mail
messages. Eaeh message must be numbered sequentially, and the subjeet line of the
message must inelude "Email x ofy," where x equals the message number and y equals
the total number of messages. Filings larger than 20 megabytes mast also be previded
to the Filing Center on CD er DVD. The CD er DVD must be sent to the Filing Center
with the eriginal filing as deseribed iH seetien (l)The subject line of each electronic mail
message to the Filing Center must include the docket number (if one is assigned), the
party name or identifier, and the title or type of filing. For example, for a brief filed by
the Citizens' Utility Board of Oregon in UE XX:X, the subject line is UE XXX CUB
Brief; and for a new application from NW Natural for financing authorization, the
subject line is NWN New UF Application.
( e) If a document relates to multiple dockets that are officially consolidated, then the filer
should file the document should be filed in the lead docket only. If a document relates to
multiple dockets that are not officially consolidated, then the filer must file.the document
must be filed eleetronieally in each docket, even if all dockets are following the same
procedural schedule.
(f) When electronically filing a redacted version of a filing that contains confidential
information, the filer must file the confidential version so that it is received by the Filing
Center within 2 business days after the date the redacted version was electronically
filed. If a document eontains confidential informatien, then a redaeted version will be
aeeepted for eleet:ronie filing, but only if the original eonfidential document is
personally delh'ered er sent by first elass mail, postage prepaid, to the Filing Center 011
the date the redacted document was electranieally filed.
(g) When filing a document that is entirely confidential, the filer must electronically
file a cover letter. The file must file the confidential version so that it is received by the
Filing Center within 2 business days after the date that the cover letter was
electronically filed. If an entire filiHg is cenfidential, thea a cover letter will be accepted
fer eleetreeie filing, but only if the ol'iginal confidential document is personally
delivered or sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the FiliDg Center eD the date
the eover letter was eleetPeDically filed.
(2) The signed eriginal of any flleading or othe:r deeument filed in eon-tested ease or
deela.ratory ruling proceedings must be se1lt by first class mail, postage prepaid, or
personal delivery te the Cemmission's Filing Center at the address listed in OAR 860
001 0020.
(a) The original deeument must be personally delivered or mailed on the date the
eleetre11ie eopy of the document is filed.
(b) The original document must be signed and dated and inelude tile eriginal, signed
eertifieate of service as deseribed in OAR 860 001 0180(5).
(e) The erigiaal document and the copies reCJ:uired in section (3) must be seat in the
same envelope or-eontaiaer if possible. 8inmltaneous filings in multiple dockets must be
sent in separate envelopes er eentainers fur each docket. l\iultiplc eft'lelopes or
Appendix A
Page 5of74
"'ii'
ORDER NO. 'r~: .... ,£\·
eontainers submitted in the same docket may be cnelosed in one mailing Ol' delivery
package.
a,;;) Parties must supplement an electronic filing with physical copies of certain
filings. For general rate revisions filed under OAR 860-022-0019, integrated resource
plans filed under OAR 860-038-0080, the utility must provide 20 physical copies. For
filings of more than 100 pages, parties must coordinate with the Filing Center to
determine the number of physical copies to be filed.the following documents, the
specified numbei· of copies must be sent with the original document:
(a) lllitiating and Responsive Pleadings, including Comments: 5 copies.
(b) General rate revisions filed HB:der OAR 86D 022 OD19:
(A:) Utility initial filing: 3D copies; and
(B) \Vork papers: 3 paper eopies if l'easonably eapable of being l'ept'odaeed in
written format; if not, 3 eopies on CD Ol' DVD.
(e) Motions and Replies: 2 eopies.
(d) Testimony filed tmder OAR 860 OfH 0480: 5 copies.
(e) Briefs filed under OAR 860 001 0651}: 5 copies.
(t) Applications for AlloeatioB: of Territory filed unde1· OAR 860 025 0000 through
860 025 0050, 860 034 0440 through 860 034 0495, Ol' 860 036 0900 th1·ough 860 036
0925: 3 copies.
(g) Financing applications filed under OAR 860 027 0020 thl'eugh 860 027 0035,
860 036 0715 throagh 860 036 0725, or 860 037 0515 tlnougb 860 037 0525: 3 copies.
(h) Affiliated interest applieations filed under 01A..R 860 027 0040 through 860 021-
0044, 860 036 0730 through 860 036 0738, or 860 037 0530 through 860 037 0545: 3
copies.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 756.040 & 756.060
Stats. Implemented: ORS 756.040 & 756.500 -756.575
Hist.: PUC 5-2010, f. & cert. ef. 10-22-10
860-001-0180
Service in Contested Case and Declaratory Ruling Proceedings
(1) The Commission maintains an official service list for each contested case and
declaratory ruling proceeding. The service list is posted on the Commission's website or may
be obtained by contacting the CommissionFiling Center.
(a) Each party must identify at least one party representative to receive service, and may
identify no more than three party representatives to receive service.
(b) Parties may designate party representatives in an initiating pleading, peti1ion to
intervene, or separate document. Parties must notify the CommissionFiling Center and all
other parties in writing of any change in contact information.
(2) Except as otherwise provided by statute or rule, aA party completes service of
any document by filing it electronically with the Filing Center. mu.st serve by eleetronie
mail copies of all documents filed in contested ease el' declaratory ruling proeecdings on
every party re1uesentative included on the offieial serviee list.
Appendix A
Page 6of74
.,·,
~ -n
ORDER NO. , 1 /.;'.\>
filA party must also need only serve physical copies of a document in person, by first­
class mail, or by any other reasonable means of delivery if:
(a) The document contains information that has been designated as confidential under a
general protective order, and the protective order requires service of physical copies;-;
Parties must use eleetroeie serviee ta ser.'e a redaeted cop)' of the doeument and
pro-vide physieal copies of the eonfideHtial portions of the document. Sewiee must
eonform with the requirements in the applieable general proteetive order;
(b) The filing is more than 100 pages, unless the party has requested not to receive
physical agrees to reeeive eleetronie service of voluminous filings; &F
(c) A party has requested and received permission i-om the ALJ to receive physical
service of all documents; or
(d) Physical service is required by rule or statute.
(3) SeFViee is eonsidercd timely if the eleetron:ie mail is sen:t on the day the doeument
is filed. Ser.'iee by eleetronie mail is eomplete when the eleetronie mail message leaves
the sender's eleetronie mail server. Parties providing service by eleetronie mail are
eneouraged to request eleetronie return reeeipts and must take all reasoBable steps ta
ensuPe sueeessful delivery.
(4) Service of physical copies of a document is considered timely ifthe copy is deliveffd
in person on the date received within two business days of the date the document is™
filed with the CommissionFiling Center, or the eepy is mailed by first elass mail, postage
pre paid, on the dftte the doeument is filed with the Commission.
(5) If service of physical copies is required in a contested case or declaratory ruling
proceeding, then the filer must include a certificate of service with its filing to the Filing
Center. The certificate must include the means of physical service, date of physical
service, a list of the party representatives and addresses served, and a certifying
signature.A eertifieate of seFViee must be filed with every pleading or other doeument
filed iB eontested ease OF deelaratory ruling proceedings. The eertifieate of seFViee
fftUSt;.
(a) Inelude a signed eertifieation that the doeument was seFVed on Rll party
Pepresentatives ineluded in the offieial seFViee list for the proeeedings;
(b) List the nft:Hles of the party Fepresentatives served;
(e) State the means of serviee to eaeh party representative and the eleetronie OF
physieal athJress served; and
(d) State the date of serviee.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 756.040 & 756.060
Stats. Implemented: ORS 756.040 & 756.500 -756.575
Hist.: PUC 5-2010, f. &cert. ef. 10-22-10
Appendix A
Page 7 of74
ORDER NO.
Contested Case and Declaratory Ruling Proceedings
860-001-0300
Practice Before the Commission
Participation in Contested Case and Declaratory Ruling Proceedings; Intervention
( 1) Under ORS 774.180, the Citizens' Utility Board has the right to intervene in any
Commission proceedings by filing a notice of intervention that includes the names and
addresses of the representatives to be included on the service list.
(2) Any other person may file a petition to intervene in contested case proceedings before
the Commission. A sSample petition to intervene forms may be obtained by contacting the
Administrative Hearings Division at [e-mail] or [phone]futmd
at http://www.pae.state.ar.as/PUC/admin _hearings/Petition_ te _Intervene_ Farm.shtml.
The petition to intervene must contain the following information:
(a) The petitioner's name and contact information, including telephone number, physical
address, and electronic mail address;
(b) The name and contact information of the petitioner's attorney or authorized
representative, including telephone number, physical address, and electronic mail address;
(c) If the petitioner is an organization, the number of members in and the purpose of the
organization;
(d) The nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceedings;
( e) The issues petitioner intends to raise at the proceedings; and
(f) Any special knowledge or expertise of the petitioner that would assist the Commission
in resolving the issues in the proceedings.
(3) Staff and parties named in the pleading initiating Commission action are original
parties and need not petition to intervene. All original parties must provide the Commission
with the names and contact information, including telephone number, physical address, and
electronic mail address, of the party representatives to be included on the service list.
(4) Any person may file a petition to intervene in declaratory ruling proceedings before
the Commission. In addition to the requirements in section (2) of this rule, the petition to
intervene must also state whether the intervenor accepts:
(a) The statement of facts as set forth in and for the purposes of the petition for
declaratory ruling; and
(b) The statement of the questions presented in the petition for declaratory ruling.
(SJ The petitioner must serve the petitian ta intervene eB the ether parties ta the
praeeediBgs.
~6) A party may object to a petition to intervene. Objections must be filed within 10
days of service the filing of the petition to intervene unless otherwise directed by an ALI.
The petitioner may file a reply to an objection within 7 days of seA'ieethe filing of the
objection.
C§.'7) If the Commission or ALI finds the petitioner has sufficient interest in the
proceedings and the petitioner's appearance and participation will not unreasonably broaden
the issues, burden the record, or delay the proceedings, then the Commission or ALI must
grant the petition. The Commission or ALI may impose appropriate conditions upon any
Appendix A
Page 8 of 74
!i ~ r .. ORDER NO. 11 r~,
intervenor's participation· in the proceedings, such as restricted access to confidential
information. The ALJ may rule on a petition to intervene at a prehearing conference.
(18) A person may ask to be listed as an "interested person" in !!_Parlicular proceedings.
An interested person receives electronic mail notifications of filings made and documents
issued by the Commission or ALJ in that particular proceeding.eopies of the orders,
nlliHgs, notiees, or other documeHts issued by the Commission or ALJ iH the
proceeding, but dees not :reeei"le doeumeHts filed by Staff or other parties. An interested
person is not a party to the proceedings, and is not entitled to file pleadings, present evidence
for the record, conduct cross-examination of witnesses, become a signatory to a protective
order, or file briefs.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 756.040 & 756.060
Stats. Implemented: ORS 183.417, 756.040 & 756.500-756.575
Hist.: PUC 5-2010, f. & cert. ef. 10-22-10
860-001-0310
Representation and Ethical Conduct
(1) All persons appearing in proceedings in a representative capacity must conform to the
standards of ethical conduct required of attorneys appearing before the courts of Oregon. If a
person does not conform to these standards, then the Commission may decline to permit the
person to appear in a representative capacity in any proceedings.
(2) Except for Staff, a party to contested case proceedings may be represented by an
authorized representative who is not an attorney.
(a) A party's initial pleading in the proceedings must designate the party's authorized
representative.
(b) The ALJ has authority to limit an authorized representative's presentation of
evidence, examination, and cross-examination of wi•1esses, or presentation of factual
arguments to ensure the orderly and timely development of the hearing record. The ALJ may
not allow an authorized representative who is not an attorney to present legal argument
except to the extent authorized in ORS 183.457.
( c) Changes to the designation of authorized representative must be made by written
notice to the CemmissioHFUing Center with eopies sen'ed oil the other parties to the
rrneeeffittgs.
(3) Staff may represent the Commission in a contested case hearing in the following
proceedings:
(a) Actions initiated by the Commission to recover telecommunications assislive devices,
the value of devices which the recipients fail to return, or the cost of repairing equipment that
the recipient returned in a damaged condition; and
(b) Denial or termination of Oregon Telephone Assistance Program benefits.
( 4) Staff acting under the provisions of section (3) may not give legal advice to the
Commission and may not present legal argument in contested case hearings, except to the
extent authorized by this section.
(a) "Legal Argument" includes arguments on:
(A) The jurisdiction of the Commission to hear the contested case;
Appendix A
Page 9 of74
ORDER NO.
(B) The constitutionality of a statute or rule or the application of a constitutional
requirement to the Commission
(C) The application of court precedent to the facts of the particular contested case
proceeding.
(b) "Legal Argument" does not include presentation of motions, evidence, examination
and cross-examination of witnesses or presentalion of factual arguments or arguments on:
(A) The application of the statutes or rules to the facts in the contested case;
(B) Comparison of prior aclions to the Commission in handling similar situations;
(C) The literal meaning of the statutes or rules directly applicable to the issues in the
contested case;
(D) The admissibility of evidence; and
(E) The correctness of procedures being followed in the hearing.
(5) If the ALJ determines that statements or objections made by Staff appearing under
section (3) involve legal argument as defined in this rule, the ALJ will provide reasonable
opportunity for Staff to consult with the Attorney General and permit the Attorney General to
present argument at the hearing or to file written legal argument within a reasonable time
after conclusion of the hearing.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 756.040 & 756.060
Stats. Implemented: ORS 183.452-183.458, 756.040 & 756.500 -756.575
Hist.: PUC 5-2010, f. & cert. ef. 10-22-10; PUC 1-2014, f. & cert. ef. 1-9-14
860-001-0340
Ex Parte Communications
(1) Ex parte communications are discouraged and, if made, must be disclosed to ensure
an open and impartial decision-making process.
(2) Except as provided in this rule, an ex parte communication is any oral or written
communication that:
(a) Is made by a person directly to a Commissioner or presiding ALJ outside the presence
of any or all parties of record in pending contested case or declaratory ruling proceedings;
(b) Is made without notice to or an opportunity for rebuttal by all parties; and
( c) Relates to the merits of an issue in the proceedings.
(3) For purposes of this rule, a contested case or declaratory ruling proceeding is pending
when the Commission or ALJ issues the first scheduling notice.
( 4) A person who has an ex parte communication must promptly notify the presiding ALJ
that the communication occurred.
(5) Upon notice of or receipt of an ex parte communication, the presiding ALJ must
promptly notify the parties of record of the communication and place the following in the
record:
(a) The name of each person who made the communication and the person's relationship,
if any, to a party in the case;
(b) The date and time of the communication;
(c) The circumstances under which the communication was made;
( d) A summary of the matters discussed;
Appendix A
Page 10 of74
ORDER NO.
(e) A copy of any written communication; and
(f) Other relevant information concerning the communication.
(6) The presiding ALJ may require the person responsible for the ex parte communication
to provide the disclosure and notice of the communication required by this rule.
(7) Within 10 days of the servieefiling date of the notice, a party may file a written
rebuttal of the facts or contentions contained in the ex parte communication, with serviee on
the parties of reeord in the proeeeding.
(8) The provisions of this rule do not apply to communications that:
(a) Address procedural issues, such as scheduling or status inquiries, or requests for
information having no bearing on the merits of the case;
(b) Are made to a Commissioner or presiding ALJ by a member of Staff who is not a
witness in the proceedings;
( c) Are made to a Commissioner or presiding ALJ by an Assistant Attorney General who
is not representing Staff in the proceedings;
(d) Are made in rulemaking proceedings conducted under ORS 183.325 through 183.410;
or
( e) The presiding ALJ determines are not subject to this rule, including communications
i'om members of the public that are made part of the administrative file or communications
that are the subject of in camera proceedings.
(9) To avoid inadvertent ex parte communications, a person planning to meet individually
with a Commissioner or ALJ must indicate whether the discussion will relate to pending
proceedings and, if so, which proceedings.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 756.040 & 756.060
Stats. Implemented: ORS 183.417, 183.462, 756.040 & 756.500 -756.575
Hist.: PUC 5-2010, f. & cert. ef. 10-22-10
860-001-0350
Settlements
(1) In all Commission contested case proceedings, some or all of the parties may enter
into a settlement of any or all issues at any time during the proceedings.
(2) A settlement discussion is any communication between two or more parties for the
purpose of resolving issues pending in contested case proceedings. Examples of
communications not constituting settlement discussions for purposes of this rule include
communications primarily for the purpose of discovery and communications occurring
before initiation of docketed proceedings.
(3) Without the written consent of all parties, any statement, admission, or offer of
settlement made during settlement discussions is not admissible in any Commission
proceedings, unless independently discoverable or offered for other pUiposes allowed under
ORS 40.190.
( 4) Parties may agree in writing that ~he information exchanged exclusively within the
context of any settlement discussion is confidential.
(5) Subject to the signing of an applicable confidentiality agreement, all parties may
attend a meeting in which Staff participates to discuss settlement. Staff must provide to all
Appendix A
Page 11 of 74
ORDER NO. .·;! -... f t-: i i) <-~~· 'i:d "~;
parties to the proceedings reasonable prior notice of any settlement meeting in which Staff
intends to participate. The notice must include the time and place of the settlement meeting,
the party or parties involved, and the issues to be discussed. Once Staff has given notice of a
settlement meeting involving a particular issue, additional notice of continuing settlement
meetings involving the same issue need only be provided to parties attending the initial
meeting or parties who request continuing notice. Persons who are not associated with a
party may not attend a settlement meeting without the consent of all participating parties.
(6) For purposes of ORS 192.502(4), the Commission obligates itself to protect from
disclosure any document submitted in confidence during settlement discussions.
(7) Settlements must be memorialized in a written silpulation signed by the settling
parties, served en the parties an the sef'Viee list for the deeket, and filed for review by the
Commission. With the stipulation, the parties must file:
(a) An explanatory brief or written testimony in support of the stipulation, unless waived
by the Commission or ALJ; and
(b) A motion to offer the stipulation and any testimony as evidence in the proceeding,
together with wiEess affidavits in support of the testimony.
(8) Within 15 days of the filing of a stipulation, a party may file written objections to the
stipulation or request a hearing. Upon request or its own motion, the Commission or ALJ
may set another time period for objections and request for hearing. Objections may be on the
merits or based upon failure of Staff or a party to comply with this rule. The Commission or
ALJ may hold a hearing to receive testimony and evidence regarding the stipulation. The
Commission or ALJ may require evidence of any facts stipulated. The parties must be
afforded notice and an opportunity to submit proof if such evidence is requested.
(9) A stipulation is not binding on the <:Sommission. The Commission may adopt or reject
a stipulation, or propose that a stipulation be modified prior to approval. If the Commission
proposes to modify a stipulation, the Commission must explain its decision and, if necessary,
provide the parties sufficient opportunity on the record to present evidence and argument to
support the stipulation. No further hearing need be held when a review' hearing has already
been held under section (8) of this rule and the Commission or ALJ determines that the issues
were fully addressed in the prior hearing.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 756.040 & 756.060
Stats. Implemented: ORS 183.417, 756.040 & 756.500 -756.575
Hist.: PUC 5-2010, f. & cert. ef. 10-22-10
860-001-0400
General
Pleadings and Motions
The Commission treats pleadings and motions differently.
{1) Pleadings are used to address formal requests to initiate a proceeding or for
Commission authorization. There are two types of pleadings.
(a) Initiating pleadings include applications, petitions, and complaints.
(b) Responsive pleadings include answers, protests, responses, and replies.
Appendix A
Page 12of74
ORDER NO.
(2) Motions are requests seeking a ruling in a Commission proceeding. There are
two types of motions.
(a) Substantive motions address the rights or duties of a party or seek summary
determination of any or all issues in the proceeding, such as a motion to dismiss.
(b) Procedural motions address the means by which the Commission regulates its
proceedings; for example, a motion to modify a schedule.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 756.040 & 756.060
Stats. Implemented: ORS 183.417, 756.040 & 756.500 -756.575
Hist.: New
860-001-0410
Pleadings Requirements
(1) All pleadings must be signed by the person filing the pleading or an authorized
representative. By signing a pleading, the signatory makes the certification in ORCP l 7C.
For elecronic filings, a person may use any identifier that is adopted by the person with the
intent to authenticate a document (for example, "ls/John Doe").
(2) Applications, petitions, complaints, and other initiating pleadings must include:
(a) The filer's name and contact information, including telephone number, physical
address, and electronic mail address;
(b) The name and contact information, including telephone number, physical address, and
elec1rnnic mail address of any other party named in the filing;
( c) A clear and concise statement of the authorization, action, or relief sought;
( d) Appropriate references to the statutory provision or other authority under which the
filing is made; and
(e) Other information as required by the Commission's rules.
(3) Answers, protests, and other responsive pleadings must be in writing and must
include:
(a) The filer's name and address;
(b) The identification of the initiating pleading to which the response is made, including
the docket number if one had been assigned; and
( c) A specific response to the pleading including, if necessary, an answer to material
allegations and affirmative defonses.
(4) Unless otherwise directed by the Commission or ALJ, responses must be filed within
the following timeframes:
(a) An answer to a complaint, application, or petition must be filed within 20 days after
the pleading is servetffiled.
(b) An answer to a consumer complaint under OAR 860-021-0015 must be filed within
15 days after the Commission serves the complaint.
(c) An answer to a petition to intervene must be filed within 10 days after servieefiling of
the petition.
(d) An answer to a complaint under OAR 860-029-0100 must be filed within 10 days
after the Commission serves the complaint.
Appendix A
Page 13 of74
"' ORDERNO · ..... 1111 ·' . 'i\ .!;, ,,
( e) An answer to any other type of pleading must be filed within 15 days after the
pleading is senretlfiled.
(5) A reply to a responsive pleading is not permitted unless otherwise allowed by the
Commission or ALJ.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 756.040 & 756.060
Stats. Implemented: ORS 756.040 & 756.500-756.575
Hist.: PUC5-2010, f. & cert. ef. 10-22-10
860-001-0420
Motions, Responses, and Replies
(1) A .. motion is a Fequest to the Commission or ALJ for a ruling er atheF aetion. A
motion must be made in writing unless otherwise allowed by the Commission or ALJ.
(2) For plU'poses of these rttles, "substantive motions" addFess the rights oF duties of
a party or seek summary dctcrminatien of any fff 9Jl issues in the pl'eeeedings.
Substantive metions inelude a motian to dismiss. "PFeeedu.ral motians" address the
means by whieh the Commissien regu.lates its proeeedi-ngs; fur t*ample, a motion to
modify a sehedu.le.
(3f-Before filing a procedural motion, the moving party must make a good faith effort to
confer with other parties to seek agreement about the subject of the motion. A procedural
motion must describe the effort to confor and the result of the effort.
(J.4) A motion against an initiating or responsive pleading under OAR 860-001-0400
must be fi Jed within 10 days after the pleading is senretlfiled.
(16) A party may file a response to a motion. A response to a substantive motion must be
filed within 15 days of servieefiling of the motion. A response to a procedural motion must
be fi Jed within 7 days of servieefiling of the motion.
(~.6) The moving party may file a reply to a response to a substantive motion within 7
days of servieefiling of the response. The moving party is not permitted to file a reply to a
response to a procedural motion unless permitted by the ALJ.
(~1) If expedited consideration of a motion is requested, the moving party must:
(a) Certify that the moving party has attempted to contact the other parties to the
proceedings to discuss the motion and state whether the parties support the motion;
(b) Identify the request for expedited consideration in the document caption; and
( c) Include a request to shorten the time for responses and, if applicable, replies.
(18) Unless granted by the ALJ, a request for an extension or other related motion does
not stay a pending due date.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 756.040 & 756.060
Stats. hnplemented: ORS 756.040 & 756.500 -756.575
Hist.: PUC 5-2010, f. & cert. ef. 10-22-10
Appendix A
Page 14 of74
860-001-0480
Testimony and Exhibits
ORDER NO. 'l '"
(1) Unless otherwise directed by the ALJ, all written testimony and exhibits must be
paginated in the top right comer as follows:
Party Name/Exhibit Number
Witness Last Name/Page Number
J, I • ' ' l ' ' ~
(2) Each party must consecutively number its written testimony and exhibits, beginning
with 100. Within each round of testimony, each witness or witnesses testifying jointly must
be designated with a separate numbering series. For example, Mr. Smith, Staffs first witness
in the first round of testimony, would be assigned Staff/100. Ms. Jones, Staffs second
witness in first round, would be assigned Staff/200. Mr. Smith's second round of testimony
would be assigned Staff/300. Each attachment must be marked as a separate exhibit. For
example, the first attachment to Staff/100 would be marked as Staff/ 101. A separate
numbering series must also be used to identify all exhibits marked at hearing.
(3) Each page of a multipage exhibit must be marked with a page number. Pages within
each exhibit must be marked consecutively, beginning with page 1.
(4) The ALJ may waive the requirement of marking each page of voluminous
photocopied documents.
(5) At the time otWhen filing testimony and exhibits, the filing party must
simultaneously se:A<eprovide a copy of all work papers to Staff, the utility named in the
initiating pleading, and all other parties that have asked to receive a copy. If a shared
workspace is being used for data requests and responses, this provision is satisfied by
uploading the work papers to that workspace and electing to share the upload with
other authorized users .• As used in this rule, work papers consist of documents that show
the source, calculations, and details supporting the testimony and other exhibits submitted.
Parties must JU"o:•,ride eleetronie eopies of work papers if available.
(6) Within the time specified by the ALJ, each party must file a list, in numerical order,
of the written testimony and exhibits the party offered during the proceedings. The list must
specify the document, witness, number of pages, and whether the exhibit was received into
evidence.
(7) When testimony or exhibits are offered in evidence at a hearing and were not
previously filed, the offering party must give copies to each party, the Commission, and the
ALJ. When practicable, the parties must distribute copies of exhibits before or at the
beginning of the hearing.
(8) When relevant evidence offered by a party is included in a book, paper, or document
containing irrelevant material, the party offering the exhibit must plainly desi~1ate the
relevant material offered:
(a) If irrelevant material is included in the exhibit and would encumber the record, then
the exhibit may be excluded. The exhibit may be marked for identification and the relevant
material may be read into the record if properly authenticated.
(b) If the Commission or ALJ directs, a copy of the relevant portions of the exhibit may
be received as evidence. The offering party must offer copies of the document to all other
parties appearing at the hearing. The parties must be afforded an opportunity to examine the
exhibit and to off er in evidence other relevant portions of the exhibit.
Appendix A
Page 15 of74
,. .. ,,,;.,
(9) Papers and documents on file with the Commission may be introduced by reference to
number, date, or by any other method of identification satisfactory to the Commission or
ALJ.
(10) The Commission or ALJ may direct that the testimony of a witness, including
supporting exhibits, be submitted in writing prior to hearing. Unless otherwise directed by
the Commission or ALJ, written testimony, when sworn to orally or in writing by the witness
under oath to be true, will be received in the same manner as an exhibit. The written
testimony must be double-spaced, prepared in question and answer or narrative form, and
contain a statement of the qualifications of the witness. The written testimony is subject to
rules of admissibility and cross-examjnation.
(11) The Commission or ALJ may direct that demonstrative evidence be reduced to a
diagram, map, photograph, or similar representation.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 756.040 & 756.060
Stats. Implemented: ORS 183.450, 756.040 & 756.500 -756.575
Hist.: PUC 5-2010, f. & cert. ef. 10-22-10
860-001-0540
Data Requests
(1) A party may submit data requests to any other party, subject to the discovery rules in
the ORCP. Data requests are written interrogatories or requests for production of documents.
Data requests must be answered within 14 days from the date of service. Each data request
must be answered fully and separately in writing or by production of documents, or objected
to in writing.
(2) A party submitting a data request must serve the request on all parties to the
proceedings. For nonconfidential requests, service may be made by electronic mail or by
electronic mail notification of upload to a designated shared workspace for data
requests and responses. If the request contains confidential information, then the submitting
party must serve a complete copy on all parties eligible to receive confidential information
under the terms of a protective order and a redacted copy to all other parties. The complete
confidential copy must be served using means identified in the protective order.
Nonconfidential data requests and responses submitted to the Staff of the Commission
must be sent to [e-mail]. Ha designated shared workspace is
being used for data requests and responses, the notification of uploaded data requests
and responses must be sent to [e-mail].
(3) The party answering the data request must provide a response or an electronic mail
notification of upload to a designated shared workspace to the submitting party and all
other parties that filed a written request for a copy of the response. A party must agree to be
bound by the applicable protective order to be eligible to receive a response containing
confidential information.
(4) A party may offer into evidence data requests and the answers to the data requests.
Any objection to substance or form of a data request or answer must be attached to the
submitted data request or answer with specific reference and grounds. Every remedy
available to a party using deposition procedures is available to a party using data requests.
Appendix A
Page 16of74
ORDER NO. '!! ,j,;, .
(5) Except when requested by the Commission or ALJ, or when seeking resolution ofa
discovery dispute under these rules, data requests are not filed with the Commission's Filing
Center or provided to the ALJ.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 756.040 & 756.060
Stats. Implemented: ORS 756.040 & 756.500 -756.575
Hist.: PUC 5-2010, f. & cert. ef. 10-22-10
Appendix A
Page 17of74
ORDER NO.
860-016-0000
Definitions and Filing Dates
As used in Division 016 of the rules:
(1) "The Act" means the federal Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
(2) "Arbitration" means the submission of a dispute for resolution by a neutral third party
appointed by the Commission pursuant to Section 252(b) of the Act.
(3) "Commission" means the Public Utility Commission of Oregon.
( 4) "Mediation" means a process in which a neutral third party assists negotiating parties to
reach their own solution pursuant to Section 252(a)(2) of the Act.
(5) "Pelitioner" means a person who has filed a petition for arbitration under the Act.
(6) "Respondent" means the party to a negotiation, which did not make the request for
ar·bitration.
(7) Filing dates are calculated and enforced per OAR 860-001-0150.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS 756
Stats. Implemented: 47 USC 252
Hist.: PUC 8-1998, f. & cert. ef. 4-8-98; PUC 25-2001, f. & cert. ef 11-5-01; PUC 6-2002, f.
& cert. ef. 2-13-02
860-016-0020
Agreements Arrived at Through Negotiation
(1) Upon receiving a request for interconnection, services, or network elements pursuant
to Section 251 of the Act, the affected telecommunications carrier may negotiate and enter
into a binding agreement with the requesting telecommunications carrier.
(2) The negotiating parties may ask a mediator outside the Commission to help them
reach agreement. If they request the Commission to mediate, the Commission will use an
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) or a member of the utility Staff to mediate. Only the
negotiating parties and the mediator will participate in mediation sessions.
(3) After the parties reach agreement under Section 252(a) of the Act, they must file an
application with the Commission seeking approval of the agreement, or for approval of an
amendment to an approved agreement on file with the Commission. The application must
include an original plus two eopies of the negotiated agreement and a completed Carrier-to­
Carrier Agreement Checklist. A copy of the checklist is available on the Commission's
website. The parties may also include any other supporting information with their
application. The application and checklist must be filed electronically as required in
OAR 860-001-0170.
(4) The negotiating par-ties must supplement the filing with an exact eepy af the
negotiated agrceme11t ft:Hd checklist in electronic form as required in OAR 860 001
~
(~1) The Commission will approve or reject the agreement within 90 days of filing, with
written findings as to any deficiencies. Prior to rejecting the agreement, the Commission will
notify the negotiating parties of its intended action and provide an opportunity for the carriers
to respond. The grounds for rejection are that the agreement:
Appendix A
Page 18 of74
ORDERNO. ·j
(a) Discriminates against a carrier not a party to the agreement; or
(b) Is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Applicable
Commission policies will be a factor in public interest, convenience, and necessity
determinations.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & 756
Stats. Implemented: 47 USC 252
Hist.: PUC 8-1998, f. & cert. ef. 4-8-98; PUC 25-2001, f. & cert. ef 11-5-01; PUC 6-2002, f.
& cert. ef. 2-13-02; PUC 12-2004(Temp), f. & cert. ef. 8-31-04 thru 2-26-05; PUC 2-2005, f.
& cert. ef. 2-11-05; PUC 11-2006, f. & cert .ef. 12-15-06
860-016-0021
Wholesale Promotions
(1) A carrier intending to off er a wholesale promolion that would modify the terms of a
Carrier-to-Carrier Agreement must provide the Commission and other telecommunications
carriers notice of the promotion at least 30 days prior to the effective date of the promotion.
The notice to the Commission must include:
(a) A copy of a form contract, containing the terms and conditions of the promotional
offering that would be submitted as an amendment to an existing Carrier-to-Carrier
Agreement; and
(b) A description of the means used to nolify other telecommunications caniers of the
promotion.
(2) The offering carrier must file the notice.with the Commission an 0l'iginal plus twe
copies 0f the furm e0ntl'aet. With the filing, the offering eanier and must include a
completed Carrier-to-Carrier Agreement Checklist, a copy of which is available on the
Commission's loternet website. The notice and checklist must be filed electronically as
reguired in OAR 860-001-0170.The carrier mast supplement the filing with an e:xaet
eopy 0f the eentl'aet and eheeklist in eleetronie furm as 1·equired iH: OAR 86().-001 0170.
(3) The Commission will approve the form contract unless it finds that the contract, if
filed as an amendment to an interconnection agreement, would be subject to rejection under
OAR 860-016-0020(~~).
( 4) If another carrier accepts the promotional offering, the offering and accepting carriers
must file, within W.10 days of execution by the parties, an amendment to an existing
Carrier-to-Carrier Agreement incorporating the exact terms and conditions of the. approved
amendment in the form contract. Any such filed amendment will be deemed effective upon
the later of the Commission approval of the form contract or execution of the amendment by
the parties.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & 756
Stats. Implemented: 4 7 USC 252
Hist.: PUC 12-2004(Temp), f. & cert. ef. 8-31-04 thru 2-26-05; PUC 2-2005, f. & cert. ef. 2-
11-05; PUC 11-2006, f. & cert .ef. 12-15-06
Appendix A
Page 19 of74
ORDER NO. 'ii "'r·
860-016-0025
Adoption of Previously Approved Agreement or Statement of Generally Available
Terms
(1) If a requesting telecommunications carrier decides to adopt an identical agreement or
an identical individual arrangement contained in an agreement, pursuant to Section 252(i) of
the Act and 47 CFR Section 51.809, with the exception of the adopting party's name and new
effective date, previously approved by and on file with the Commission, or a Statement of
Generally Available Terms approved by the Commission under OAR 860-016-0040, it
shttllmust file notice of the adoption with the Commission. The notice shtlllmust include a
completed Cartier-to-Carrier Agreement Checklist.
(2) The requesting earrier shall also submit a eopy of the eheeklist iB eleetro»ie
fermat eompatible with Adabe Aerobat Reader or Rieh Text For-mat. The notice
documents must be filed electronically as required in OAR 860-001-0170.
(3) If the notice is filed jointly with the affected telecommunications carrier, the adoption
~become~ effective on the date filed.
( 4) If the notice is filed unilaterally by the requesting telecommunications carrier, the
requesting telecommunications carrier shtlllmust simultaneously provide notice of the
adoption to the affected carrier. The affected carrier may then file objections to the adoption
within 21 calendar days of such notice. If no objections are filed, the adoption slttttl become.§
effective on the 22nd day after filing.
(5) An affected carrier may object to an adoption on the following grounds:
(a) The costs of providing a particular interconnection, service, or element to the
requesting telecommunications carrier are greater than the costs of providing it to the
telecommunications carrier that originally negotiated the agreement;
(b) The provision of a particular interconnection, service, or element to the requesting
carrier is not technically feasible;
(c) There is new federal or state law that requires modification of the agreement proposed
to be adopted;
( d) The agreement proposed to be adopted has expired or been cancelled; or
( e) The proposed adoption is unlawful.
(6) If the affected carrier files objections, the requesting carrier may file a reply within 14
calendar days after the objections are filed. An assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
sltallwill schedule a conference within !We~ business days after the reply is filed, to be held
as soon thereafter as practicable. At the conference, the ALJ shtlllwill determine whether the
issues raised by the affected carrier's objection can resolved based on the pleadings and all
supporting documentation, or whether further proceedings are necessary. If further
proceedings are necessary, the ALJ sballwill establish a schedule for resolving the dispute on
an expedited basis. Pending resolution of the dispute, other provisions of the proposed
adoption not contested by the affected carrier will become effective.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & 756
Stat. Implemented: 47 USC 252
Hist.: PUC 25-2001, f. & cert. ef 11-5-01; PUC 6-2002, f. & cert. ef. 2-13-02; PUC 11-2006,
f. & cert .ef. 12-15-06
Appendix A
Page 20of74
860-016-0030
Arbitration of Disputes
ORDER NO. '\] .\~· .;':.
(1) Negotiating parties may engage the services of an outside arbitrator rather than file a
petition with the Commission. If the negotiating parties petition the Commission to arbitrate
their dispute, the Commission will use an ALJ as arbitrator unless workload constraints
necessitate the use of an outside arbitrator.
(2) A petition for arbitration must contain:
(a) Identification of the parties' representatives, including contact information with
electronic mail addresses;
ilil.A statement of all umesolved issues;
(b£) A description of each party's position on the unresolved issues;
( eQ) A proposed agreement addressing all issues, including those on which the parties
have reached agreement and those that are in dispute. Wherever possible, the peli.tioner
should rely on the fundamental organization of clauses and subjects contained in an
agreement previously approved by the Commission; and
(d~) Documentation showing that the request complies with the time requirements of the
Act.
(3) Respondent may file a response within 25 days of the request for arbitration. In the
response, the respondent slttttlmust address each issue listed in the request, describe the
respondent's position on those issues, and identify and present any additional issues for
which the respondent seeks resolution.
( 4) The arbitration will be conducted in a manner similar to a contested case proceeding,
and the arbitrator will have the same authority to conduct the arbitration process as an ALJ
has in conducting hearings under the Commission's rules. However, the arbitration process
will be streamlined to meet the Act's timelines. An early conference will be held to discuss
processing of the case, and to receive the proposal put forth by each party. The arbitrator will
establish the schedule, and decide whether an oral hearing would be helpful. After the oral
hearing or other procedures (for example, rounds of comments), each party will submit its
"final offer" proposed agreement. The arbitrator will choose between the two final offers.
However, if neither offer is consistent with the Act and Commission policies, the arbitrator
will make an award that meets those requirements.
(5) Formal discovery procedures will be allowed only to the extent deemed necessary by
the arbitrator. Parties will be required to cooperate in good faith in voluntary, prompt, and
informal exchanges of information relevant to the matter. Umesolved discovery disputes will
be resolved by the arbitrator upon request of a party. The arbitrator will order a party to
provide information if he/5hethe arbitrator determines the requesting party has a reasonable
need for the requested information and that the request is not overly burdensome.
(6) Only the two negotiating parties will have full party status. The arbitrator may confor
with Staff for assistance throughout the arbitration process. If Staff assistance is desired, the
arbitrator will notify (by telephone or other means) the parties at least 24 hours before the
consultation with Staff. The parties may attend or listen to the consultation and may respond
in a manner allowed by the arbitrator.
Appendix A
Page 21 of 74
ORDER NO.
(7) To keep the process moving forward, appeals to the Commission will not be allowed
during the arbitration process. An arbitrator may certify a question to the Commission if
deemed necessary.
(8) To accommodate the need for flexibility, the arbitrator may use procedures that vary
from those set out here if ~the arbitrator deems it helpful in a particular arbitration, as
long as the procedures are fair, treat the parties equitably, and substantially comply with the
procedures listed here.
(9) Each arbitration award must:
(a) Ensure that the requirements of sections 251 and 25 2 of the Act and any valid
applicable Federal Communications Commission regulations under that section are met;
(b) Establish interconnection and network element prices consistent with the Act;
( c) Establish a schedule for implementation of the agreement; and
(d) Be consistent with Commission policies.
(10) After an arbitration award is submitted to the Commission, notice will be served on
those who have indicated a desire to receive notice of mediated and arbitrated agreements.
Any person may then file comments within 10 days of service of the award.
(11) The Commission will accept or reject an arbitration award within 30 days.
(12) Within 14 days after the Commission issues its arbitration decision, petitioner must
prepare an interconneclion agreement complying with the terms of the arbitration decision
and serve it on respondent. Within 10 days of service of this interconnection agreement,
Rrespondent slttHl!!!!!fil either sign and file the agreement; or file objections to it, within 10
days of serviee of it. If objeclions are filed, respondent slfflllmust state how the agreement
fails to comply with the arbitration decision, and offer substitute language complying with
the decision. The Commission will approve or reject a filed interconneclion agreement within
30 days of its filing, or the agreement will be deemed approved. If petitioner, without
respondent's consent, fails to timely prepare and serve an interconnection agreement on
respondent, respondent may file a motfon requesting the Commission dismiss the petition for
arbitration with prejudice. The Commission may grant such motion ifthe petitioner's failure
to timely prepare and serve the interconnection agreement was the result of inexcusable
neglect on the part of petitioner.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 756
Stats. Implemented: 47 USC 252
Hist.: PUC 8-1998, f. & cert. ef. 4-8-98; PUC 11-2006, f. & cert .ef. 12-15-06
860-016-0050
Petitions for Enforcement of Interconnection Agreements
(1) Purpose of rule. This rule specifies the procedure for a telecommunications provider,
as defined in 0 AR 860-032-0001, to file a complaint for the enforcement of an
interconnection agreement that was previously approYed by the Commission. Fol'
purposes of this rule, the term "intereonneetion agreemeat" is an agreement executed
pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the Act). This includes interconnection
agreements, resale agreements, agreements for the purchase or lease of unbundled network
elements (UNEs), or statements of generally available terms and conditions (SGATs),
Appendix A
Page 22of74
·r~ , ...
ORDER NO. I . .'{;-;'J
whether those agreements were entered into through negotiation, mediation, arbitration, or
adoption of a prior agreement or portions of prior agreements. Section (lJl-) of this rule
specifies procedures for complaints alleging that telecommunications utilities have engaged
in prohibited acts under ORS 759.455.
(2) At least 10 days prior to filing a complaint for enforcement, complainant must
give written notice to defendant and the Commission that complainant intends to file a
complaint for enforcement. The notice must identify the provisions in the agreement
that complainant alleges were or are being violated and the specific acts or failure to act
that caused or are causing the violation, and whether complainant anticipates
requesting temporary or injunctive relief. On the same day the notice is filed with the
Commission, complainant must serve a copy of the notice on defendant's authorized
representative, attorney of record, or designated agent for service of process.
Complainant must also serve the notice on all persons designated in the interconnection
agreement to receive notices;
filThe eomplaint.A complaint for enforcement of an interconnection agreement must
eontain the following:
(a) Contain aA statement of specific facts demonstrating that the complainant
teleeommunieatfons provider conferred with defendant in good faith to resolve the dispute,
and that despite those efforts the parties failed to resolve the dispute;
(b) Include aA copy of a the written notice, required by section (2), to the defendant
telecommunications provider indicating that the complainant intends to file a complaint for
enforcement of the intereonneetion agreement, as described in subsection (3)(a) below;
(c) Include aA copy of the interconnection agreement or the portion of the
interconnection agreement that the complainant contends was or is being violated. If a copy
of the entire interconnection agreement is provided, complainant must specify provisions at
issue. If the interconnection agreement adopted a prior agreement or portions of prior
agreements, the complaint must also indicate the provisions adopted in those agreements;
(d) Contain aA statement of the facts or a statement of the-law demonstrating
defendant's failure to comply with the agreement and complainant's entitlement to relief. The
statement of entitlement te Pelief must indicate that the remedy sought is consistent with the
dispute resolution provisions in the agreement, if any. Statements of facts must be supported
by written testimony er ene Ot' morewith affidavits, made by persons competent to testify
and having personal knowledge of the relevant facts. Statements oflaw must be supported by
appropriate citations. If exhibits are attached to the affidavits, the affidavits must contain the
foundation for the exhibits;
( e) The complaint may dDesignate up to three persons one additional person to
receive copies of other pleadings and documents; ftfld
(f) Complainant shall also file with the complaint, as a separate document,Include
any motions for affirmative relief, filed as a separate document and. Motions for
injunetive or temporary relief must be clearly marked. Nothing in this subsection sDall
preclude~ complainant from filing a motion subsequent to the filing of the complaint if the
motion is based upon facts or circumstances unknown or unavailable to complainant at the
time the complaint was filed; and
Appendix A
Page 23 of74
., ORDERNO. L
!11!
(g) (;&mplainant shall also file with-the eomplaint, as a separate doeument,lnclude
an executive summary, filed as a separate document not to exceed 8 pages, outlining the
issues and relief requested. Sueh summary shall be no more than eight pages.
(3.f) Serviee of the complaillt. The eomplaint fo1· enforcement must be served as
followsOn the same day the complaint is filed with the Commission,t
(a) At least ten days pFior to filing a eomplaint for cBforeement with the
Commission, eomplainant must give written aotiee to defendant and the Commission
that eomplainant intends to file a eomplaint fop eafurcement. The notice must identify
the provisions in the agFeement that complainant alleges were or are being violated and
the SfH~eifie acts 1:w failure to act that eaused or is causing the violation and \\<hetltCF the
eomplainant anticipates requesting temporary or injunetive relief. The notice must be
served in the same manner as set forth in subsectioBs (b) and (e) below, exee13t that
complainant must also serve the notiee on all persons designated in the intereonneetion
agreement to receive notices;.
w-t£omplainant must serve a copy of the complaint foF enfoFeement on defendant's
authorized representative, attorney of record, or designated agent for service of
processthe same day the eomplaiat is filed with the Commission. Service may be by
electronic mail, fax, or overnight mail, provi'1edbut the complaint must arrives at
defendant's location on the same day the complaint is filed with the Commission. Service by
electronic mail or .fax must be followed by a hardphysical copy the next day ffi!!Y overnight
maildelivervpmd
(e) Complainant must serve a eopy of the eomplaint for enforeement on defendant's
authorized representative, atto1·ney of reeord, or designated agent for service of
process.
(4fil Within 10 business days after service of the complaint, defendant may file '.J;he
answer.A~n answer with the Commission. Any allegations raised in the complaint and
not addressed in the answer are deemed admitted. The answer must eofi'1:ply with the
followiog:
(a) The answer must eContain a statement of specific facts demonstrating that the
responding teleeommunieations p1·oviderdefendant conferred with complainant in good
faith to resolve the dispute, and that despite those efforts the.parties failed to resolve the
dispute;
(b) The answer must rRespond to each allegation set forth in the complaint and mtiSt
set forth all affirmative defenses;
(c) The answer must eContain a statement of the facts or a statement of the law
supporting defendant's position. Statements of facts must be supported by written testimony
or one or more affidavits, made by persons competent to testify and having personal
knowledge of the relevant facts. Statements of law must be supported by appropriate
citations. If exhibits are attached to the affidavits, the affidavits must contain the foundation
for the exhibits; and .
(d) The answer may dDesignate one additional up to three person§. to receive copies of
other pleadings and documents;
(e§.) On the same day as the answer is filed, the defendant must also file its response
to any motion filed by complainant and its motions for affirmative relief. Each response
Appendix A
Page24 of74
v '1!>; t\i F j1 ~1 l 1 /.~ .(·,.,
ORDER NO. ti.,~,, '"'"
and each motion must be filed as a separate filing.,A .. ny allegations raised in the
complaint aHd not addFessed in the answeF are deemed admitted; and
00 Defendant shall file with the answer, as a sepa:rate document, a response to any
motioH filed by complainant, and any motion defendant wishes to file that seeks
affiFmative Felief. Nothing in this sabsection shall-preclude§. defendant from filing a motion
subsequent to the filing of the answer ifthe motion is based upon facts or circumstances
unknown or unavailable to defendant at the time the answer was filed.
(7) On the same day the answer is filed with the Commission, defendant must serve
a copy of the answer to the complainant's authorized representative, attorney of record,
or designated agent for service of process.
(5) 8et'Viee of the answer. The answet' mast be set'Ved as foll&'Ws:
(a) Defendant mast file a eopy of the answeF with the Commission within ten
business days afteF seFViee of the complaint for enforcement;
(b) Defendant mast deliyer a eopy of the answel' to complainant the sttme day the
aftsweF is filed with the Commission, in the manner set forth in subseetions (3)(b) and
(3)(c) above;
(e) Defendant mast sen•e a eof>y of the answer on the complainant's ttttorney, as
listed ifl the eomplttint, or the peFson who signed the complaint, if complainant has no
attorney.
(6~) The Feply. Complainant must file a reply to an answer that contains affirmative
defenses within !We§. business days after the answer is filed. On the same day the reply is
filed with the Commission, complainant must serve a copy of the reply to defendant's
authorized representative, attorney of record, or designated agent for service of
process.The reply must be served in the manner set forth in subseetioHS (3)(b) and (3)(e)
above. If the reply eontains new faets or legal issues not raised in the eomplaint, the
reply must also eomply with subseetion (2)(d) abeve.
(12) Cross eomplaiats of:' eounterelaims. A cross-complaint or counterclaim shall-must
be answered within the tef110-business.day time frame allowed for answers to complaints.
(8 !ID Conferenee. The Commission will conduct a conference regarding each complaint
for enforcement of an interconnection agreement.
(a) The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) will schedule a conference within !We§
business days after the answer is filed, to be held as soon thereafter as is-practicable. At the
discretion of the ALJ, the conference may be conducted by telephone;
(b) Based on the complaint and the answer, all supporting documents filed by the parties,
and the parties' oral statements at the conference, the ALJ will determine whether the issues
raised in the complaint can be detennined on the pleadings and submissions without further
proceedings or whether further proceedings are necessary. If further proceedings are
necessary, the ALJ will establish a procedural schedule. The procedural schedule may
include a mandatory mediation session. Either party may request that a person other than the
ALJ preside over the mediation. Nothing in this subsection is intended to prohibit the
bifurcation of issues where appropriate;
(c) In determining whether further proceedings are necessary, the ALJ will consider, but
is not limited to, the positions of the parties; the need to clarify evidence through the
Appendix A
Page 25of74
ORDERNO. l'
examination of wi1nesses; the complexity of the issues; the need for prompt resolution; and
the completeness of the information presented;
( d) The ALJ may make oral rulings on the record during the conference on all matters
relevant to the conduct of the proceeding.
(9-!1) Diseo--very. A party may file with the complaint or answer a request for discovery,
stating the matters to be inquired into and their relationship to matters directly at issue.
.... ,,,,
(l~G) Expedited preeedure. When warranted by the facts, the complainant or defendant
may file a motion requesting that an expedited procedure be used. The moving party
shall!!!!!fil file a proposed expedited procedural schedule along with its motion. The ALJ will
schedule a conference to be held as soon after the motion is filed as is-practicable, to
determine whether an expedited schedule is warranted.
(a) The ALJ shallwill consider whether the issues raised in the complaint or answer
involve a risk of imminent, irrevocable harm to a telecommunications provider and to the
public interest;
(b) If a determination is made that an expedited procedure is warranted, the ALJ shallwill
establish a procedure that ensures a prompt resolution of the merits of the dispute, consistent
with due process and other relevant considerations. The ALJ shallwill consider, but is not
bound by, the moving party's proposed expedited procedural schedule;
(c) An expedited procedure may be appropriate ifthe complainant shows that its ability to
provide telecommunications services will be substantially harmed unless the Commission
acts promptly. In general, the Commission will not entertain a molion for expedited
procedure where the dispute solely involves the payment of money.
(Ill) Procedures for complaints alleging violation of ORS 759.455.
(a) An answer under section (4fil of this rule shallmust be filed with the Commission and
served on the complainant within toolO calendar days after service of the complaint;
(b) A reply under section (6ID of this rule shallmust be filed with the Commission and
served on the defendant within five~ calendar days after the answer is filed;
( c) The ALJ shallwill schedule a conference to be held in person or by telephone not
later than 15 calendar days after the complaint is filed;
(d) A hearing shallwill begin no later than 30 days afterthe complaint is filed;
( e) The ALJ may consult with the Commission Staff in the manner set forth in OAR 860-
016-0030( 6).
Stat. Auth.: ORS Ch. 183 & 756
Stats. Implemented: ORS 756.040, 756.518, 759.030(1), 759.455, Ch. 1093, OL 1999 & 47
USC: 252
Hist.: PUC 7-1999, f. & cert. ef. 10-18-99; PUC 7-2000, f. & cert. ef. 5-3-00; PUC 21-2002,
f. & cert. ef. 12-9-02; PUC 1-2005, f. & cert. ef. 2-2-05
Appendix A
Page 26of74
860-021-0015
Dispute Resolution
( l) When a dispute occurs between a customer or applicant and a utility about any bill;
charge, or service, the utility must,;,
f!!} Tthoroughly investigate the matter,;,
{hl ~£romptly report the results of its investigation to the eustamer or
applieantcomplainant;
(c) Inform the complainant of the right to have a utility supervisor review any
· dispute; ·
.@L. Eaeh utility must p£repare a written record of the dispute showincluding the
name and address of the eustomer ar applieantcomplainant involved, the date the
complaint was received, the issues inand eharaeter of the dispute, and the disposition of
the matter; and
!tl_. The utility must rRetain records of the dispute for at least 36 months after the
investigation is closed.
(2) The utility shall inform the eustomer or applieant of the right to supervisory
review of any dispute, ineluding hut Bot limited to, establishment of eredit trnd
termiBatioB of serviee. If the utility and complainant cannot resolve thea dispute--fs...fwt
resohred, the utility slttillmust D&tifyinform the customer or applicant of the
Commission's dispute resolution proeedure and its toll free telephone number.
c·omplainant of the right to contact the Consumer Services Section and request
assistance in resolving the dispute. The utility must provide the following contact
information for the Consumer Services Section:
(a) Telephone: [phone]; TTY 711;
(b) Mailing address: Public Utility Commission of Oregon, Consumer Services
Section, PO Box 1088, Salem, Oregon 97308;
(c) Physical address: Public Utility Commission of Oregon~ 3930 Fairview Industrial
Drive SE, Salem, Oregon 97302;
(d) Electronic mail address: [e-mail]; and
(e) Website:
http://www.puc.state.or.us/consumer/customer%20complaint%20process.pdf.
(3) A c11stomer or applicant may request the Commission's assistance in resolving the
dispute by contacting the Commission's Consumer Services Division. The Commission shall
notify the utility upon receipt of sueh a request.The Consumer Services Section will
investigate any dispute upon request to determine whether it can be resolved as an
informal complaint.
(4) The Commissfon's CoBsumer 8erviees DivisioB shall assist the complainant and
the utility in an effort to reaeh an informal resolutioB of the dispute.
(~) If the Consumer Services Section cannot resolve thea registered dispute cannot be
resolved infonnally, the-Gemmission's Consumer Services Division shall advise the
complainant may of the right to file a formal written complaint with the Commission under
ORS 756.500. The formal complaint must be submitted on an approved form available
from the Consumer Services Section.
Appendix A
Page 27 of74
(!}_The complaint shall state the faets of the dispute and the relief requestedmust be
filed electronically with the Filing Center at [e-mail].
{b) If complainant does not have access to electronic mail,
(A) The complaint may be mailed, faxed, or delivered to the Filing Center at the
address set out in OAR 860-001-0140; and
(B) The complaint must include a request for waiver of electronic service and filing
requirements. This request is included on the form available from the Commission's
Consumer Services Division.
(c) The Commission will serve the complaint on the utility. The Commission may
electronically serve the utility with the complaint if the electronic mail address is
verified prior to service of the complaint and the delivery receipt is maintained in the
official file.
@_The utility shaUmust answer the complaint within 15 days of service of the complaint
by the Commission.
f.tl. The Commissionmatter shallwill determine a procedural schedule after the
utility's answer is filed. The utility must serve a copy of its answer on the complainant.
then be set for expedited hearing. A hearing m:ay be held on less than ten days' notice v.'hen
good cause is shovm.
(A) If the utility files a motion to dismiss, the complainant may file a response within
15 days of the motion. If the complainant responds, the complainant must file the
response with the Filing Center and send a copy to the utility. The Commission may
make a decision on the formal complaint based on the information in the complaint, the
utility's response and motion to dismiss, and the complainant's response to the utility's
motion; or
(B) The Commission may set a procedural schedule for the complaint proceedings,
including but not limited to, scheduling dates for receiving additional information from
the parties, telephone conferences, or a bearing. A bearing may be held on less than 10
days' notice when good cause is shown.
~6) Upon filing a formal complaint, the complainant may request a hearing to
determine whether the complainant is entitled to continued or restored service pending
the resolution of the complaint. Unless extraordinary circumstances exist, the
Commission will conduct the hearing by telephone within 3 business days. Notice of the
bearing will be provided to the complainant and the utility at least 12 hours before the
date and time of the hearing. Pending resolution of the dispute, the complainant's
obligation to pay undisputed amounts continues.
(§.1) A customer or applieah:tcomplainant who has a registered dispute or formal
complaint pending with the Commission shall be~ entitled to continued or restored service
provided:
(a) Service was not terminated for tampering with utility property, stealing, diverting,
or using unauthorized service, theft of serviee or failure to establish credit;
(b) A bona fide dispute exists in which the facts asserted by the eustomer or applicant
entitle the complainanteustomer or applicant to service;
Appendix A
Page 28 of74
ORDER NO. !/ ,{
( c) When termination is based on nonpayment, the customer ar applicant makes
adequate arrangement to avoid future loss to the utility, such as prepaying estimated
monthly utilityagrees to pay undisputed charges; and
(d) The complainanteustemer or applicant diligently pursues conflict resolution under
the Commission's rules.
(81) If the conditions in sec1ion ~-1) of this rule are not satisfied, the utility has no
obligation to provide continued service. A utility discontinuing service because of a failure to
meet the conditions of subsections (§.-1-)(c) or (§..+)(d) of this rule shallmust give the customer
five-day notice served in the same manner as provided by OAR 860-021-0405 or 860-021-
0505, whichever applies, except the notice need only describe the defoct in performance, the
date and time when utility service will terminate, and the toll-free number of the
Commission's Consumer Services Division. In deeiding whether the conditions are met,
the utility shall consult with the Cemmissien's Censumer Sen'iees Divisien. ,\, eust0mer
er applicant who has filed a fermal complaint, the utility, er the Commission's
Cansumer SeFViees Division may aslc the Commission fer a hearing te decide if the
conditions are met. Unless ex.traerdinary eireamstanees exist, the hearing will be.
eondueted by telephene eonferooee within three business days ft'0m the date Fequested.
Notice of heaFing will be giYen to the eustomer, the utility, and the Cemmission's
Consumer 8eFViees Division at least 12 houFs befen the date and time of the hearing.
Notice is effective when given in person, by telephone, OF in writing deliveFed to the
ptll'ty's last lrnewu address. Mailed n0tiee is effective twa days afteF deposit in the U.8.
mail, excluding Sundays and halidays.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183, 756, 757 & 759
Stats. Implemented: ORS 756.040, 756.500 & 756.512
Hist.: PUC 164, f. 4-18-74. ef. 5-11-74 (Order No. 74-307); PUC 5-1983, f. 5-31-83, ef. 6-1-
83 (Order No. 83-284); PUC 12-1983, f. & ef. 10-7-83 (Order No. 83-623); PUC 1-1985, f.
& ef. 2-1-85 (Order No. 85-075); PUC 4-1985, f. & ef, 4-22-85 (Order No. 85-350); PUC 5-
1987, f. & ef. 7-2-87 (Order No. 87-723); PUC 16-1990, f. 9-28-90, cert. ef. 10-1-90 (Order
No. 90-1105); PUC 11-1998, f. & ef. 5-7-98 (Order No. 98-188); PUC 8-1999, f. & cert. ef.
10-18-99; PUC 19-2001, f. & cert. ef. 6-21-01; PUC 11-2003, f. & cert. ef. 7-3-03; PUC 6-
2013, f. & cert. ef. 8-7-13
Appendix A
Page 29 of74
ORDER NO. ·:1 ·
860-022-0005
Tariff Specifications for Energy Utilities and Large Telecommunications Utilities
(1) Form and style of tariffs:
(a) All tariffs mast be in loose leaf form so ehanges ean be made by reprinting and
inserting a single leaf;
(b)--Each energy or large telecommunications utility must designate the initial tariff as
PUC Oregon No. 1, and designate successive tariffs with the next number in consecutive
numerical order. Supplemental information not otherwise provided by the tariff must be
inserted in the most appropriate location and denoted by the previous sheet numbers plus a
letter, for example, 3A, 3B, etc. Revisions to tariffs must be denoted by 1st Revised Sheet
No. 3, 2nd Revised Sheet No. 3, etc.;
(eb) The title page should be uniform. Rates, rules, and regulations must be written only
on one side of a sheet. If a single sheet is insufficient, two or more pages should be used; and
(d.£) Separate tariffs must be filed for electric, telecommunications, telegraph, gas, heat,
or for any other service entered.
(2) Size of tariffs and copies required: an
(a) Tariffs and supplements thereto must be prepared using a readable font that, when
printed, will fit on an 8-1/2 x 11 inch page; and
(b) Energy and large telecommunication utilities must file with the Commission an
original of each tariff, rate schedule, revision, or supplement. The atility mast supplemeB:t
the filing with an exaet eopy of the tariff in electronic form as required in OAR 860-001-
0170. The advice letter accompanying the tariffs must bear the signature of the issuing
officer or utility representalive. The tariffs do not require a signature.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183, 756 & 757
Stats. Implemented: ORS 757.205
Hist.: PUC 164, f. 4-18-74, ef. 5-11-74 (Order No. 74-307); PUC 176, f. 11-17-76, ef. 12-1-
76 (Order No. 76-806); PUC 15-1987, f & ef. 12-3-87 (Order No. 87-1185); PUC 8-1995, f.
& cert. ef. 8-30-95 (Order No. 95-858); PUC 9-1998, f. & cert. ef. 4-28-98; PUC 16-2001, f.
& cert. ef. 6-21-01; PUC 18-2004, f. & cert. ef. 12-30-04
860-022-004 7
Recovery of Certain Facility Relocation Costs
( 1) This rule provides a means for a utility to recover from its customers the
unreimbursed costs of facility relocation activities required by a public body, as provided in
ORS 758.025.
(2) As used in this rule:
(a) "Facility" or "facilities" refers to a utility's tangible plant which ordinarily has a
service life of more than one year that provides utility service, and is included in the utility's
books of account as Telecommunications Plant in Service (account 2001. 47 C.F.R. 32).
(b) "Facility costs" represent the cost of materials installed because of a facility
relocation required by a public body.
( c) "Nonfacility costs" are those non-material costs (e.g. labor) incurred to place or move
utility facilities and which are authorized for recovery by the utility under this rule.
Appendix A
Page 30 of74
.. '. it l ~
ORDER NO.
(d) "Public body" has the meaning given that term in ORS 174.109.
,., /
.J
(e) "Recoverable relocation costs" has the meaning given in ORS 758.025(5)(a).
(f) "Undepreciated value of facilities replaced" represents the net book value (original
cost minus accumulated depreciation) of the facilities removed or retired.
(g) "Utility" means a telecommunications utility or competitive telecommunications
provider, as those terms are defined in ORS 759.005.
(3) A telecommunications utility that is not subject to rate-of-return regulation, including
a utility regulated under ORS 759.255 may, after participating in the process described in
758.025(3), petition the Commission for approval to recover from its customers prudent costs
incurred for the relocation of facilities required by a public body that are not otherwise paid
or reimbursed from another source.
( 4) The utility's petition must follow the requirements of filing and serviee for contested
cases found in OAR Chapter 860, Division 001 and include:
(a) The name of the utility as it appears on its certificate of authority.
(b) The name, telephone number, electronic mail address, and mailing address of the
person to be contacted for additional information about the petition.
(c) The name, telephone number,.electronic mail address, and mailing address of the
person to be contacted for regulatory information, if different from the person specified in
subsection (b) of this section.
(d) A general description of the relocation project or projects including a statement as to
why the relocation was necessary and unavoidable, and a description of the locations and
public bodies involved.
( e) A statement that, for each project identified in subsection ( d) above, the utility
participated in the planning and design process described in ORS 758.025(3).
(f) Evidence from each public body that the public body required the utility to relocate its
facilities within the public body's jurisdiction.
(g) A general statement of the overall impact on the utility of the relocation project or
projects.
(h) One or more schedules of costs for which the utility seeks recovery. The utility must:
(A) Include in its petition only those costs directly related to a relocation required by a
public body.
(B) Exclude any costs subject to reimbursement from other sources, such as state or
federal highway funds.
(C) Identify capital and expense costs separately.
(D) Identify facility and nonf acility costs separately.
· (E) Exclude all costs related to improvements and upgrades, except that costs related to
mandatory conversions ordered by a public body may be included.
(F) Ensure that all schedules, plant records, and job costs meet FCC accounting
requirements (47 C.F.R. 32).
(G) Limit recoverable facility costs to the undepreciated value of the facilities replaced.
(i) The utility's proposed allocation of costs between services, customers, jurisdictions, or
other groups as appropriate.
G) The utility's proposed method of cost recovery.
Appendix A
Page 31 of74
·.i ORDER NO. ,, I,,,
•!'";;'
(A) Approved relocation costs may be recovered by one or more line items on customer
bills.
(B) The utility may propose alternative forms of cost recovery subject to Commission
review and approval.
(C) Line items must not be described on the customer's bill as a tax or other mandatory
government fee.
(k) The utility's proposed time period for cost recovery. A utility may recover its cost
over no less than twelve months, subject to an annual true up.
(1) A copy of the customer notice required by section (8) of this rule.
(m) An affidavit of notice required by section (10) of this rule.
(5) The petition may include any other relevant information the utility wishes the
Commission to consider.
(6) If the utility designates any portion of the petition to be confidential, it must provide
an affidavit stating the legal basis for the claim of confidentiality and comply with the
requirements of OAR 860-001-0070 or 860-001-0080.
(7) The petition must be filed at least 90 days before the proposed effective date of the
cost recovery.
(8) The customer notice (notice) must include:
(a) The name of the utility as it normally appears on a customer bill.
(b) A statement that the utility has petitioned the Commission for recovery of certain
mandatory facility relocation costs.
( c) The proposed impact on the customer's bill and the proposed duration of any cost
recovery billing.
(d) The proposed effective date of cost recovery bilJing.
(e) A statement that customers may submit objections or comments regarding the petition
to the Commission within 45 days ofreceipt of the notice.
(f) The name, telephone number, electronic mail address, and mailing address of the
utility's contact person for more information.
(9) The utility must provide the notice:
(a) To all customers whose bills will be affected ifthe requested cost recovery is
approved by the Commission.
(b) To affected customers on or before the date the utility submits its petition for cost
recovery to the Commission.
(c) To persons who are not customers of the utility ifthe utility seeks cost recovery from
those persons. The utility must explain in its petition why those persons should contribute to
the utility's cost recovery. The utility must provide notice to those persons at the same time
as the utility provides notice to its customers.
(10) The affidavit of notice must include:
(a) A certificate of service stating when and by what means (for example, direct mail, bill
message, bill insert, or electronic mail) the notice was provided to the persons identified in
section (9) above.
(b) A statement of efforts taken by the utility to provide notice in those instances when
service was not completed.
Appendix A
Page 32 of74
ORDER NO.
(11) The utility must identify in its petition its recoverable costs that are substantial and
beyond the normal course of business, subject to Commission review and approval.
(12) In its review of the petition under ORS 758.025(5), the Commission will:
(a) Verify the utility's participation in the design and planning process described in
ORS 758.025(3).
(b) Verify the relocation costs for which the utility requests recovery.
( c) Determine the allocation of costs between interstate and intrastate services,
geographic areas, customers and services.
(d) Prescribe the method of cost recovery.
(13) The Commission may audit any relocation costs or other information submitted by
the utility.
(14) The Commission may administratively approve an unopposed petition without a
hearing. For good cause, the Commission may suspend the effective date of a petition
(whether opposed or unopposed) without a hearing for a period not to exceed six months.
(15) If opposition to the petition is filed with the Commission within 45 days of service
of the notice, the Commission will schedule a conference to determine the schedule and
proceedings necessary to complete its review of the pelition. Contested cases will follow the
procedures in OAR Chapter 860, Division 001.
(16) The utility must file the approved surcharge (or other approved cost recovery
mechanism) in its tariff and price list before it can bill the surcharge to its customers.
(17) With respect to relocation of utility facilities required by a public body, this rule
does not supersede any franchise agreement, ordinance, or applicable state law.
(18) This rule applies to relocations for which construction began on or after January 1,
2010.
Stat. Auth.: ORS Ch. 183, 756, 758 & 759
Stats. Implemented: ORS 758.025
Hist.: PUC 5-2012, f. & cert. ef. 8-23-12
Appendix A
Page 33 of74
ORDER NO.
860-023-0151
Annual Report on Electric Reliability
(1) On or before May I of each year, an electric company must file with the Commission
a report that includes the information set forth in section (2) of this rule for the reporting
period. The electric company must file the report in b0th plljler and electronic form. The
electric company must make electronic copies of the report available to the public upon
request. For paper copies requested by the public, the electric company may charge a
reasonable cost for production of the copy.
(2) The annual Electric Service Reliability Report must contain:
(a) The results of the calculated SAIDI, SAIFI, and MAIFIE indices required by OAR
860-023-0111. The electric company must also report this information on a system-wide
basis compared with the previous four years' performance, and on a reliability reporting area
basis com pared with the previous four years' performance.
(b) A swnmary of system-wide and reliability reporting area sustained interruption causes
compared to the previous four-year performance. Cause categories to be evaluated include:
(A) Loss of Supply-Transmission;
(B) Loss of Supply -Substation;
(C) Distribution -Equipment;
(D) Distribution -Lightning;
(E) Distribution -Planned;
(F) Distribution -Public;
(G) Distribution-Vegetation;
(H) Distribution-Weather (other than lightrling);
(I) Distribution -Wildlife;
( J) Distribution -Unknown; and
(K) Distribution -Other.
( c) A listing of the Major Events experienced during the reporting period, including
reliability reporting area involved; operating areas involved; dates involved; T MED applied;
interruption causes; and SAIDI, SAIFI, and CAIDI impacts to customers for the Event on
both a reliability reporting area basis and a system-wide basis.
( d) A listing of the TMED values that will be used for each reliability reporting area for the
forthcoming annual reporting period compared with the previous four years ofT MED values.
( e) A summary of the characteristics of the systems covered under OAR 860-023-0091( 4)
and estimation methodologies covered by OAR 860-023-0101(3) and 860-023-0111 (3) for
the collection of interruption data, calculation of reliability information, and facilitation of
interruption restoration and mitigation. ,
(f) A swnmary addressing the changes that the electric company has made or will make
in the collection of data and the calculation, estimation, and reporting of reliability
information. The electric company must explain why the changes occurred and explain how
the change affects the comparison of newer and older information.
(g) A map showing the reliability reporting areas and operating-areas.
(h) A listing of circuits by reliability reporting area and substation, indicating circuit
voltage and number of customers connected.
(3) This rule is effective beginning January 1, 2012.
Appendix A
Page 34 of74
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183, 756 & 757
Stats. Implemented: ORS 757.020
Hist.: PUC 10-2011, f. 10-14-11, cert. ef. 1-1-12
ORDER NO.
Appendix A
Page 35 of74
...• ,. :i '~.
ORDER NO.
860-025-0060
Reinstatement of Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) Obligations
. I
,1 .·:·\
:;,, ·•;·
(1) Any resident or occupant of the property for which the Commission allowed an
exemption of the COLR obligations under OAR 860-025-0055, or the exempted COLR
utility, may petition the Commission to reinstate the COLR obligations.
(2) The petition for reinstatement of the COLR obligations must be filed as set forth in
OAR 860-001-0140 and 860-001-0170 and include the information required in OAR 860-
001-0400(2) and the proposed effective date of COLR obligations reinstatement.
(3) Within 14 days of the filing of a complete petition for reinstatement of the COLR
obligations, the Commission shft»will electronically serve no1lce of the petition on the
COLR identified in the petition (unless the petitioner is the exempted COLR), the
Commission's general notification list, and the service list of the docket under which the
COLR exemption was granted.
( 4) The Petitioner must serve notice of the petition upon:
(a) The property owner or developer;
(b) The residents within the property that the COLR is able to identify.
(5) The Commission shft»will conduct contested case proceedings, including a public
hearing, to determine if the existing public convenience and necessity require reinstatement
of the COLR obligations. The petitioner has the burden of proving that the COLR should be
reinstated. Parties to the proceedings may present in support of or opposition to the petition
for the Commission's consideration:
(a) Evidence of the willingness of at least 60 percent of the occupants or residents of the
property (including the Petitioner) to subscribe to the utility's service and pay for the
incremental cost of providing the service;
(b) Evidence of the estimated costs of the telecommunications utility, cooperative
corporation, or municipality to serve the exempted area that are over and above the original
cost to serve;
( c) The service record of the Alternative Service Provider, including but not limited to,
statistics about complaints, delays, and service quality;
(d) Legal argument or evidence as to why reinstating COLR obligations to the
telecommunications utility, cooperative corporation, or municipality is or is not in the public
interest; and
( e) Other relevant evidence that the parties wish to be considered by the Commission.
(6) If the Commission determines that the existing public convenience and necessity
requires reinstatement of the COLR obligations to the exempted COLR:
(a) The COLR may not be required to incur any costs until the incremental costs
necessary to construct the facilities to provide service have been received from the parties
identified in section 5(a) of this rule. The COLR may not unreasonably deny payment terms
in lieu of one-time payments; and
(b) The COLR must receive from the existing provider (if any) the access necessary for
the COLR to install and maintain its facilities, including necessary easements, before the
Commission requires the COLR to re-establish service. The existing provider may not
unreasonably deny such access.
Appendix A
Page 36 of74
Stat. Auth: ORS 756.060, 759.036, & 759.506
Stat. Implemented: ORS 759.506
Hist.: PUC 4-2011, f. & cert. ef. 8-26-11
ORDER NO. el 1;Z
Appendix A
Page 37 of74
,, «fl, ,· ~
ORDER NO. ,./~ -.1
-';i :'.~;
860-027-0300
Use of Deferred Accounting by Energy and Large Telecommunications Utilities
( 1) As used in this rule:
(a) "Amortization" means the inclusion in rates of an amount which has been deterred
under ORS 757.259 or 759.200 and which is designed to eliminate, over time, the balance in
an authorized deferred account. Amortization does not include the normal positive and
negative fluctuations in a balancing account;
(b) "Deferred Accounting" means recording the following in a balance sheet account,
with Commission authorization for later reflection in rates:
(A) Electric companies, gas utilities, and steam heat utilities: a current expense or
revenue associated with current service, as allowed by ORS 757.259; or
(B) Large telecommunications utilities: an amount allowed by ORS 759.200.
(2) Expiration: Any authorization to use a deferred account shall expire~ 12 months from
the date the deferral is authorized to begin. If a deferral under ORS 757.259 or 759.200 is
reauthorized, the reauthorization shall expire~ 12 months from the date the reauthorization
becomes effective.
(3) Contents of Application: An application for deferred accounting, by an energy or
large telecommunications utility or a customer, shallmust include:
(a) A description of the utility expense or revenue for which deferred accounting is
requested;
(b) The reason(s) deterred accounting is being requested and a reference to the section(s)
of ORS 757.259 or 759.200 under which deferral may be authorized;
( c) The account proposed for recording of the amounts to be deterred and the account
which would be used for recording the amounts in the absence of approval of deterred
accounting;
(d) An estimate of the amounts to be recorded in the deferred account for the 12-month
period subsequent to the application; and
( e) A copy of the notice of application for deferred accounting and list of persons served
with the notice.
( 4) Reauthorization: An application for reauthorization to use a deferred account
shallmust be made not more than 60 days prior to the expiration of the previous
authorization for the deferral. An application for reauthorization shallmust include the
requirements set forth in subsections (3)(a) through (3)(e) of this rule and, ill addition, the
following information:
(a) A description and explanation of the entries in the deterred account to the date of the
application for reauthorization; and
(b) The reason(s) for continuation of deferred accounting.
(5) Exceptions: Authorization under ORS 757.259 or 759.200 to use a deferred account is
necessary only to add amounts to an account, not to retain an existing account balance and
not to amortize amounts which have been entered in an account under an authorization by the
Commission. Interest, once authorized to accrue on unamortized balances in an account, may
be added to the account without further authorization by the Commission, even though
authorization to add other amounts to an account has expired.
Appendix A
Page 38 of74
··'l .. .,'
ORDER NO. :i /,.i, :£1\. ·,
(6) Notice of Application: The applicant slttttlmust serve a notice of application upon all
persons who were parties in the energy or large telecommunications utility's last general rate
case. If the applicant is other than an energy or large telecommunications utility, the
applicant slttttlmust serve a copy of the application upon the affected utility. A notice of
application slttttlmust include:
(a) A statement that the applicant has applied to the Commission for authorization to use
deferred accounting; or for an order requiring that deferred accounting be used by an energy
or large telecommunications utility;
(b) A description of the utility expense or revenue for which deferred accounting is
requested;
( c) The manner in which an interested person can obtain a copy of the application;
(d) A statement that any person may submit to the Commission written comment on the
application by the date set forth in the notice, which date may be no sooner than 25 days
from the date of the application; and
(e) A statement that the granting of the application will not authorize a change in rates,
but will permit the Commission to consider allowing such deferred amounts in rates in a
subsequent proceeding.
(7) Public Meetings: Unless otherwise ordered by the Commission, applications for use
of deferred accounting will be considered at the Commission's public meetings.
(8) Reply Comments: Within ten days efafter the due date for comments en-the
applieation from interested pel'sons, the applicant, and the energy or large
telecommunications utility if the utility is not the applicant, may file reply comments with the
Commission, and shall sen'e those eomments on persons whe have filed the initial
eommeuts 011 the applieatie11. Filing dates for reply comments are calculated and
enforced per OAR 860-001-0150.
(9) Amortization: Amortization in rates of a deferred amount shall~ 6llly fie-allowed ifHt
preeeedi11gonly as authorized by the Commission, whether initiated by the eaergy or
large teleeommunieations ntility er another party. The Commission may authorize
amortization of such amounts only for utility expenses or revenues for which the
Commission previously has authorized deferred accounting. Upon request for amortization of
a deferred account, the energy or large telecommunications utility slttttlmust provide the
Commission with its financial results for a 12-month period or for multiple 12-month periods
to allow the Commission to perform an earnings review. The period selected for the earnings
review will encompass all or part of the period during which the deferral took place or must
be reasonably representative of the deferral period. Unless authorized by the Commission to
do otherwise:
(a) An energy utility shallmay request that amortizations of deferred accounts commence
no later than one year from the date that deferrals cease for that particular account; and
(b) In the case of ongoing balancing accounts, the energy utility sh-allmay request
amortization at least annually, unless amortization of the balancing account is then in effect;
or
(c) A large telecommunications utility sltttllmay request amortization of deferred
accounts as soon as practical after the deferrals cease but no later than in its next rate
proceeding.
Appendix A
Page 39 of74
ORDER NO. /"~ ~ ;h '' l'
ii. f11.
(10) An electric company customer may prepay under ORS 757.259(11) all or a portion
of its obligation of deferred power supply expense. The obligation must be calculated as the
customer's pro rata share of the utility's total energy usage within the state of Oregon during
2001, multiplied by the unrecovered deferral balance at the time of prepayment When such
customer has prepaid its obligation in full, the customer may no longer be charged the power
supply adjustment related to the deferral.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183, 756, 757 & 759
Stats. Implemented: ORS 756.040, 756.105, 757.259 & 759.200
Hist.: PUC 11-1988, f. & cert. ef. 6-9-88 (Order No. 88-597); PUC 2-1990, f. & cert. ef. 3-2-
90 (Order No. 90-235); PUC 12-1997, f. & cert. ef. 10-30-97; PUC 4-1998, f. & cert. ef. 2-
24-98; PUC 16-2001, f. & cert. ef. 6-21-01; PUC 6-2004(Temp), f. & cert. ef. 3-24-04 thru 9-
20-04; PUC 14-2004, f. & cert. ef. 9-7-04; PUC 7-2005, f. & cert. ef. 11-30-05
Appendix A
Page40 of74
ORDER NO. ./' /,l
:1 h;.
860-028-0070
Resolution of Disputes for Proposed New or Amended Contractual Provisions
(1) This rule applies to a complaint alleging a violation of ORS 757.273, 757.276,
757.279, 757.282, 759.655, 759.660, or 759.665.
I• ··-~ /~ ~;'• ,,\
(2) In addition to the generally applicable hearingfiling and contested case procedures
contained in OAR chapter 860, division 001, the procedures set forth in this rule shaU apply
to a complaint that an existing or proposed contract is unjust and unreasonable.
(3) The party filing a complaint under this rule is the "complainant." The other party to
the contract, against whom the complaint is filed, is the "respondent."
( 4) Before a complaint is filed with the Commission, one party must request, in writing,
negotiations for a new or amended attachment agreement from the other party.
(5) Ninety (90) calendar days after one party receives a request for negotiation from
another party, either party may file with the Commission for a proceeding under ORS
757.279 or 759.660.
(6) The complaint must contain each of the following:
(a) Proof that a request for negotiation was received at least 90 calendar days earlier. The
complainant must specify the attempts at negotiation or other methods of dispute resolution
undertaken since the date of receipt of the request and indicate that the parties have been
unable to resolve the dispute.
(b) A statement of the specific attachment rates, terms and conditions that are claimed to
be unjust or unreasonable.
(c) A description of the complainant's position on the unresolved provisions.
(d) A proposed agreement addressing all issues, including those on which the parties have
reached agreement and those that are in dispute.
(e) All information available as of the date the complaint is filed with the Commission
that the complainant relied upon to support its claims:
(A) In cases in which the Commission's review of a rate is required, the complaint must
provide all data and information in support of its allegations, in accordance with the
administrative rules set forth to evaluate the disputed rental rate.
(B) If the licensee is the party submitting the complaint, the licensee must request the
data and information required by this rule from the owner. The owner must supply the
licensee the information required in this rule, as applicable, within 30 calendar days of the
receipt of the request. The licensee must submit this information with its complaint.
(C) If the owner does not provide the data and information required by this rule after a
request by the licensee, the licensee must include a statement indicating the steps taken to
obtain the information from the owner, including the dates of all requests.
(D) No complaint by a licensee will be dismissed because the owner has failed to provide
the applicable data and information required under paragraph ( 6)( e )(B) of this rule.
(7) The Commission will serve a copy of the complaint upon the respondent. Service
may be made by electronic mail if the Commission verifies the respondent's electronic
mail address prior to service of the complaint and a delivery receipt is maintained in
the official file.~Within 30 calendar days ofreeeiving a eopyservice of the complaint, the
respondent must file its response with the Commission, addressing in detail each claim raised
in the complaint and a description of the respondent's position on the unresolved provisions.
Appendix A
Page 41 of74
ORDER NO. i ,I .:>, :. .. :;) ' ..•. ,
(8) If the Commission determines after a hearing that a rate, term or condition that is the
subject of the complaint is not just, fair, and reasonable, it may reject the proposed rate, term
or condition and may prescribe a just and reasonable rate, term or condition.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183, 756, 757 & 759
Stats. Implemented: ORS 756.040, 757.035, 757.270 -290, 759.045 & 759.650 -675
Hist.: PUC 3-2007, f. & cert. ef. 4-16-07
Appendix A
Page 42 of74
ORDER NO.
860-029-0100
Resolution of Disputes for Proposed Negotiated Power Purchase Agreements
(1) This rule applies to a complaint, filed pursuant to ORS 756.500, regarding the
negotiation of a Qualifying Facility power purchase agreement for facilities with a capacity
greater than 10 MWs. These provisions supplement the generally applicable~
and contested case procedures contained in OAR chapter 860, division 001.
(2) Before a complaint is filed with the Commission, the Qualifying Facility must have
followed the procedures set forth in the applicable public utility's tariff regarding negotiated
power purchase agreements.
(3) At any time after sifly60 calendar days from the date a Qualifying Facility has
provided written comments to the public utility regarding the public utility's draft power
purchase agreement, the Qualifying Facility may file a complaint with the Commission
asking for adjudication of any unresolved terms and condi1ions of its proposed agreement
with the public utility.
( 4) A Qualifying Facility filing a complaint under this rule is the "complainant." The
public utility against whom the complaint is filed is the "respondent."
(5) The complaint must contain each of the following, as described by the complainant:
(a) A statement that the Qualifying Facility provided written comments to the utility on
the draft power purchase agreement at least 60 calendar days before the filing of the
complaint.
(b) A statement of the attempts at negotiation or other methods of informal dispute
resolution undertaken by the negotiating parties.
(c) A statement of the specific unresolved terms and condition~.
( d) A description of each party's position on the unresolved provisions.
( e) A proposed agreement encompassing all matters, including those on which the parties
have reached agreement and those that are in dispute.
(6) Along with the complaint, the Qualifying Facility must submit written direct
testimony that includes all information upon which the complainant bases its claims.
(7) The Commission will serve a copy of the complaint upon the respondent. Service
may be made by electronic mail if the Commission verifies the respondent's electronic
mail address to service of the complaint and a delivery receipt is maintained in the
official file._Within 10 calendar days of service of the complaint, the respondent must file its
response with the Commission, addressing in detail each claim raised in the complaint and a
description of the respondent's position on the unresolved provisions. The respondent may
also identify and present any additional issues for which the respondent seeks resolution.
(8) Along with its response the respondent must submit written direct testimony that
includes all information upon which the respondent relies to support its position.
(9) An assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) will conduct a conference with the
parties to identify disputed issues, to establish a procedural schedule and to adopt procedures
for the complaint proceeding. To accommodate the need for flexibility and to implement the
intent of this streamlined complaint process, the ALJ retains the discretion to adopt
appropriate procedures provided such procedures are fair, treat the parties equitably, and
substantially comply with this rule. Such procedures may include, but are not limited to,
hosting a technical workshop, holding a hearing, or submitting written comments.
Appendix A
Page 43 of74
ORDER NO.
(10) Only the counterparties to the agreement will have full party status. The ALI may
confer with members of the Commission Staff for technical assistance.
( 11) After the hearing, or other procedures set forth in section (9), if the Commission
determines that a term or provision of the proposed agreement is not just, fair, and
reasonable, it may reject the proposed term or provision and may prescribe a just and
reasonable term or provision. The Commission's review is limited to the open issues
identified in the complaint and in the response.
(12) Within 15 business days after the Commission issues its final order, the public utility
must prepare a final version of the power purchase agreement complying with the
Commission decision and serve it upon the Qualifying Facility. Within 10 days of service of
the final power purchase agreement, the Qualifying Facility and the public utility may sign
and file the agreement with the Commission, may request clarification whether the
agreement terms comply with the Commission order, or may apply for rehearing or
reconsideration of the order. The terms and conditions in the power purchase agreement will
not be final and binding unlil the agreement is executed by both parties.
(13) The provisions of any power purchase agreement approved pursuant to this rule
apply only to the parties to the agreement and are not to be considered as precedent for any
other power purchase agreement negotiation or adjudication.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & 756
Stats. Implemented: ORS 756.040 & 756.500 -756.575
PUC 3-2008, f. &cert. ef. 7-8-08
Appendix A
Page 44 of74
ORDER NO.
)~ -•I '' "1 .
' i ·'·_',·... :~ n /~! ..
860-032-0002
Notice and Procedures for a Proceeding Initiated Under Division 032
(1) All notices initiating a proceeding under this Division, including, but not limited to,
applications, petitions, complaints, and other pleadings, shallmust be served on all
telecommunications providers and all persons on the Commission's ~ ...... "lrfDUD:~atioeo1ts~
application mailing list. Any person wishing to be included on the list shallmust submit hisl
or her name, electronic mail address, and mailing address to the Commission's
Administrative Hearings Division. A. person need not comply with the requirement of
providing an eleetronie mail address upon the filing with the Commission a written
statement af inability ta abtain such an address.
(2) Except as otherwise provided, every proceeding under this Division shallwill follow
'the procedures in ORS 7 56.500 et seq. and the Commission's rules of procedure.
(3) Any person submitting information under the Commission's rules may request that the
-jnformation be held in confidence pursuant to the public records law, ORS 192.500.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183, 756 & 759
Stats. Implemented: ORS 756.040, 759.020 & 759.025
Hist.: PUC 27-1985(Temp), f. & ef. 12-19-85 (Order No. 85-1203); PUC 16-1986, f. & ef.
11-17-86 (Order No. 86-1159); PUC 1-1990, f. & cert ef. 2-6-90 (Order No. 90-96); PUC
10-1998, f. & cert. ef. 4-28-98; PUC 8-1999, f. & cert. ef. 10-18-99; PUC 4-2000, f. & cert.
ef. 2-9-00; PUC 9-2001, f. & cert. ef. 3-21-01; PUC 4-2003, f. & cert. ef. 3-11-03
860-032-0005
Application for New or Amended Certificate of Authority, or to Transfer Authority
(1) Na-A person shallmay not provide intrastate telecommunicalions service on a for-hire
basis, or transfer a certificate of authority to provide such service, except as authorized by the
Commission.
(2) Any person intending to provide intrastate telecommunications service in Oregon, or
to transfer a certificate of authority to provide such service, shallmust file an application, on
a form prescribed by the Commission. A copy of the applicable application form is available
on the Commission's website.
(3) The applieant(s) shall also submit a eapy of ((he application and any subsequent
amendments must be filed electronically as set forth in OAR 860-001-0140 and 860-001-
0170in eleetronie format compatible with Adobe Acrobat Reader or Rich Text Fo1·mat.
The electronie eopy may be an unsigned version of the applieation. An applicant need
not eemply with this requirement upon the filing with the Commission a written
statemeBt of inability te file an eleetl'onie eopy.
(4) Applicant(s) must complete all applicable parts of the application. !fan application, in
any material respect, is incomplete, inaccurate, false, or misleading, the Commission
shftllmay reject the application.
(5) An application for a new or amended certificate shallmust contain:
(a) A request for classification as a telecommunications utility or competitive provider;
(b) The name, mailing address, telephone number, and elec•onic mail address of the
applicant;
Appendix A
Page 45 of74
/' ,; r ORDER NO. 11 i,_,
/' -..
,'!'!~· -·: .... ;
( c) A description of the service the applicant seeks to provide, including designation of
such service as local exchange, shared, or interexchange service, and a designation of such
service as switched or non-switched service, and a description of how applicant will provide
such service;
(d) A description of the territory where the service is to be offered. An application to
provide local exchange service shallmust include a description and map of the local
exchange service boundaries or a list of the local exchanges to be served;
(e) The names of affiliated interests of the applicant, as defined in OAR 860-032-0001,
which are certified to provide or are actually providing telecommunications service in
Oregon;
(f) A list of each certificate of authority to provide service in Oregon, which was granted
to applicant or to an affiliated interest, whether such certificate is in effect or canceled; and
(g) In addilion to the requirements of subsections (5)(a) through (f) of this rule, an
application to provide shared service shaDmust:
(A) Describe the user group to whom service will be provided;
(B) List the street address of the building(s) where service will be provided; and
(C) If service will be provided to a user group located in two or more buildings, the
application shallmust include a clear, precise, legible map, of the area to be served.
(6) An application to 1ransfer a certificate of authority sltttllmust contain:
(a) The names, mailing addresses, telephone numbers, and elec1ronic mail addresses of
the transferor and transferee;
(b) A description of the telecommunications services and service area for which authority
is to be transfened; and
( c) The names of affiliated interests of the transferee, as defined in 0 AR 860-032-0001,
which are certified to provide or are actually providing telecommunications service in
Oregon.
(7) For all applications:
(a) The Commission shallwill serve notice of the application as provided in OAR 860-
032-0002(1).
(b) Within 20 days of the date of service of the notice, any person may file a protest to an
application. The protest shallmust set forth the grounds for the protest and be filed in
accordance with requirements of OAR 860-001-0140 and 860-001-0170. The
protestant(s) shall also submit a eopy of th.e fffetest iH eleetronie format eomf1atible
with Adobe Aerobat Reader or Rieh Text Format. The eleetronie eopy may be an
unsigned ve1·sion of the protest. } .. protestant need not comply with this Fequirement
upon the filing with the Commission a written statement of inability to Itle an eleetronie
~
(c) The Commission may require a person filing a protest to show that it is affected by
the application or that its appearance and participation will not unreasonably broaden the
issues or burden the record. Failure of the teleconununications utility or cooperative to
protest an application to provide local exchange service, other than shared service, shall!§. not
be-considered consent to the application.
Appendix A
Page 46 of74
ORDER NO.
( d) Any protestant shallwill be made a party to the application proceeding. Other persons
may be made a party upon formal request to the Commission and serving eopies of the
reqoest to the applieant(s) iH aeeordaeee witl1 Q,A~R 860 091 9180.
~ ' . ' ·" . ·.
(e) The applicant shall serve othe1· parties with eopies of amendments and additional
informatiee submitted during the applieation proeess. If an applicant intends to broaden
the authority requested during the application process, it shallmust file a new application
pursuant to sections (2) through (6) of this rule. However, an applicant may narrow its
request by ~ its amendment oe eaeh partywith the Filing Center.
(f) The Commission may grant or deny an application without hearing, unless a hearing is
required by ORS 759.020(4).
(g) If the Commission processes the application without a hearing, the Commission staff
may issue t,o the parties a proposed order that grants or denies the application. Within 1§60
days of service of any proposed order, any party may file exceptions or request a hearing.
Exceptions slttttlmust be filed with the Filing CenterAdministrative Hearings Division,
Cemmission staff, and all parties. Within 10 days of servieefiling of any exceptions,
Commission staff and any party may file a reply. In its reply, Commission staff may modify
its proposed order in response to the exceptions filed. Filing dates for exceptions and
replies are calculated and enforced per OAR 860-001-0150.
(h) A party to the application proceeding may request rehearing or reconsideralion of the
order, which grants or denies the application, pursuant to ORS 756.561 and OAR 860-001-
0720.
(8) For applicants who request classification as a telecommunications utility, all services
proposed to be offered by the applicant shallmust be deemed essential services. However,
applicant may accompany the application with a petition to exempt some services pursuant to
OAR 860-032-0025 or to price-list some or all services pursuant to OAR 860-032-0035.
(9) The Commission shall review§. applications for interexchange service or shared
service pursuant to ORS 759.020. Applications for local exchange service, other than shared
service, shallwill be reviewed pursuant to ORS 759.020 and 759.050.
( 10) For applications for local exchange service, other than shared service, the following
apply in addition to provisions of sections (7) through (9) of this rule:
(a) The Commission may apply the public interest criteria from ORS 759.050(2), or the
Commission may determine pursuant to ORS 759.020(3) that the affected
telecommunications utility is unable to provide service; and
(b) Failure by the telecommunications utility to provide reasonable and adequate local
exchange service shall constitute§. inability to provide service.
( 11) Applications to transfer authority to provide telecommunications service are subject
to sections (1) through (4) and (6) through (10) of this rule. With Commission approval, a
telecommunications provider may transfer a certificate of authority subject to the following
requirements:
(a) The transferor may transfer some or all ofits authority;
(b) Transferee shall beis liable for all foes incurred and reports due by the transferor as of
the date the transfer is approved; and
( c) All relevant conditions and restrictions which attend the authority held by the
transferor will apply to the certificate held by the transferee.
Appendix A
Page 47 of74
ORDER NO.
( d) When the application is granted the transforor will no longer be authorized to provide
the telecommunications services that are transforred.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183, 756 & 759
Stats. Implemented: ORS 756.040, 759.020, 759.025, 759.036, 759.050, 759.225 & 759.690
Hist.: PUC 27-1985(Temp), f. & ef. 12-19-85 (Order No. 85-1203); PUC 16-1986, £ & ef.
11-17-86 (Order No. 86-1159); PUC 10-1989(Temp), f. & cert. ef. 7-10-89 (Order No. 89-
847); PUC 1-1990, f. & cert. ef. 2-6-90 (Order No. 90-96); PUC 23-1990, f. & cert. ef. 12-
31-90 (Order No. 90-1918); PUC 9-1991, f. & cert. ef. 7-16-9i (Order No. 91-854); PUC 2-
1998, f. & cert. ef. 2-24-98; PUC 10-1998, f. & cert. ef. 4-28-98; PUC 3-1999, f. & cert. ef.
8-10-99; PUC 4-2000, f. & cert. ef. 2-9-00; PUC 26-2001, f. & cert. ef. 11-5-01; PUC 4-
2003, f. & cert. ef. 3-11-03
Appendix A
Page 48 of74
860-033-0006
Monthly RSPF Surcharge: General Provisions, Remittance Reports and Payment
(1) The surcharge rate and the balance in the RSPF are reviewed annually by the
Commission each October. The Commission may adjust the amount of the surcharge to
ensure the fund has adequate resources but does not exceed six months of projected
expenses. A rate adjustment ordered by the Commission following the annual review
becomes effective January 1 of the year following the review.
(2) The surcharge imposed by 1987 Oregon Laws Chapter 290, Section (7)(1) does not
apply to entities upon which the state is prohjbited from imposing the surcharge by the
Constitution or laws of the United States or the Constitution or laws of the State of Oregon
including, but not limited to:
(a) Counties and political subdivisions.
(b) Federal, state and municipal govermnent bodies or public corporations. For purposes
of this rule, "public corporation" means a corporation formed by a state or local govermnent
authority for the public's benefit or for a public purpose. A regional housing authority
qualifies as a public corporation.
(c) Federally chartered corporations specifically exempt from state excise taxes by
federal law.
( d) Federally recognized Native"American Tribes, and tribal members who live within
federally recognized Indian coun11ry and are enrolled members of the tribe with sovereignty
over that Indian country.
(e) Foreign govermnent offices and representatives that are exempt from state taxation by
treaty provisions.
(f) Interconnection between telecommunications utilities, telecommunications
cooperatives, competitive telecommunications services providers certified under ORS
759.020, radio common carriers and interexchange carriers.
(g) Any other agency, organization or person claiming an exemption is required to
identify the authority for its claim to a provider. If a telecommunications provider is unable
to determine the status of a subscriber the Commission will determine whether the subscriber
is exempt.
(3) Collection of RSPF Surcharge.
(a) Each telecommunications provider must collect the RSPF surcharge by charging the
specified amount to each retail subscriber with access to the telecommunications relay
service, including OT AP eligible subscribers. The RSPF surcharge is applied on a
telecommunications circuit designated for a particular subscriber.
(A) One subscriber line is counted for each circuit that is capable of generating usage on
the line side of the switched network regardless of the quantity of customer premises
equipment connected to each circuit. ·
(B) For providers of central office based services, the surcharge is applied to each line
that has unrestricted conneclion to the telecommunications relay service. For central office
based service lines that have restricted access to the OTRS, the surcharge is charged based on
software design.
(b) Each cellular, wireless, or other radio common carrier must collect the RSPF
surcharge by charging the specified amount to each retail subscriber with access to the
Appendix A
Page 49 of74
telecommunications relay service, including OT AP eligible subscribers. The surcharge is
applied on a per-instrument basis.
( c) Each telecommunications provider and each cellular, wireless, or other radio common
carrier must identify the surcharge on each retail customer's bill as a separate line item
named "RSPF Surcharge."
(4) A telecommunications provider or a cellular, wireless, or other radio common carrier
may remit surcharges due to the Commission by electronic transfer, mail or in person.
(5) The Remittance Report and surcharges are due to the Commission on or before the
21st calendar day after the close of each month and must be received in the Commission's
offices no later than 5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time on the due date. A surcharge remittance or
Remittance Report postmarked on the due date does not meet the requirements of this section
and will not be considered as timely submitted.
(6) Each telecommunications provider and each cellular, wireless, or other radio common
carrier must submit the Remittance Report and surcharge with no exceptions. If no surcharge
is collected, the telecommunications provider or the cellular, wireless, or other radio common
carrier must still submit its monthly Remittance Report specified in section (5) of this rule.
(7) For each billing period that a telecommunications provider or a cellular, wireless, or
other radio common carrier fails to submit the surcharge fees in full on or before the due date
required by these rules, the telecommunications provider or the cellular, wireless, or other
radio common carrier must pay a late payment fee in accordance with OAR 860-001-0050.
(8) If the telecommunications provider or the cellular, wireless, or other radio common
carrier fails to remit the surcharge in full on or before the due date, the telecommunications
provider or the cellular, wireless, or other radio common carrier must pay interest in
accordance with OAR 860-001-0050.
(9) If a telecommunications provider or a cellular, wireless, or other radio common
carrier fails to file a Remittance Report as required by these rules, the telecommunications
provider or the cellular, wireless, or other radio common carrier must pay a late report fee in
accordance with OAR 860-001-0050.
(10) If the amount shown due on a Remittance Report is not paid by the due date, the
Commission may issue a proposed assessment to set the sum due. The Commission may
waive the late report foe, the late payment fees and the interest on the unpaid surcharge fees,
or any combination thereof, ifthe telecommunications provider or the cellular, wireless, or
other radio common carrier fi Jes a written waiver request and provides evidence showing that
the telecommunications provider or the cellular, wireless, or other radio common carrier
submitted the Remittance Report and surcharge fees late due to circumstances beyond its
control. The request must be filed in accordance with OAR 860-001-0140 and 860-001-
0170.
(11) The telecommunications provider or the cellular, wireless, or other radio common
carrier must pay a foe in accordance with OAR 860-001-0050 for each payment returned for
non-sufficient funds.
(12) The telecommunications provider or the cellular, wireless, or other radio common
carrier is responsible for and must pay all costs incurred by the Commission to collect a past­
due RSPF surcharge from the telecommunications provider or the cellular, wireless, or other
radio common carrier.
Appendix A
Page 50 of74
ORDER NO. . 1,.-, ...
:I :· ,n.
(13) Remittance Report Records: A telecommunications provider and a cellular, wireless,
or other radio common carrier must keep all records supporting each Remittance Report for
three years, or if a Commission review or audit is pending, until the review or audit is
complete, whichever is later.
(14) In addition to any other penalty, obligation, or remedy provided by law, the
Commission may suspend or cancel the telecommunications provider's certificate of
authority to provide telecommunications service in Oregon for its failure to file its
Remittance Report or its failure to remit the surcharge in full.
(15) Except as otherwise provided by law, if after an audit or review the Commission
determines that the telecommunications provider or the cellular, wireless, or other radio
common carrier has remitted an excessive amount, the Commission will provide the
telecommunications provider or the cellular, wireless, or other radio common carrier a credit
in that amount against sums subsequently due from that telecommunications provider or that
" cellular, wireless, or other radio common carrier.
(16) A telecommunications provider or a cellular, wireless, or other radio common carrier
must submit any revisions to a Remittance Report no later than three years from the due date
of the Remittance Report. If the Commission concludes that a telecommunications provider
or cellular, wireless, or other common carrier remitted an excessive amount and that
refunding the excess would have a material and adverse financial impact on the RSPF, the
Commission may enter into an agreement with the telecommunications provider or the
cellular, wireless, or other radio common carrier to spread payments of the refunds over a
period not to exceed three years.
(17) The RSPF Surcharge Exception Form is due annually by March 15. A
telecommunica lions provider or a cellular, wireless, or other radio common carrier that
qualifies for the exception must electronically submit the completed form (in-pel'S&fr,
eleetronieally, or by mail) so that it is received in the Commission's offices no later than
5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time on March 15.
(18) In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these rules, the first day of
the act or event is not included. The last day of the period is included, unless the last day is a
Saturday or legal holiday; then the period runs until the end of the next day that is not a
Saturday or a legal holiday. Legal holidays are those identified in ORS 187.010 and 187.020.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183, 756, 759 & 1987 OL Ch. 290
Stats. Implemented: ORS 756.040, 759.036 & 1987 OL Ch. 290
Hist.: PUC 19-2003, f. & cert. ef. 11-14-03; PUC 16-2004, f. & cert. ef. 12-1-04; PUC 18-
2004, f. & cert. ef. 12-30-04; PUC 12-2009, f. & cert. ef. 11-13-09; PUC 1-2010, f. & cert.
ef. 5-18-10; PUC 9-2011, f. & cert. ef. 10-4-11; PUC 5-2013(Temp), f. & cert. ef. 6-28-13
thru 12-24-13; PUC 7-2013, f. & cert. ef. 12-20-13
Appendix A
Page 51 of74
ORDER NO. /1 '" ., .l .'f:, ·~-... /~"h ,: .. > ·.,_:
860-034-0060
Dispute Resolution
( 1) When a dispute occurs between a customer or applicant and a small
telecommunications utility about any biU,-charge, or service, the utility shallmust:
ilU tThoroughly investigate the matter,;.
(hl ~fromptly report the results of its investigation to the eustomeF 0r
applieant.complainant;
(c) Inform the complainant of the right to have a small telecommunications utility
supervisor review any dispute;
@ Eaeh small teleeommunieatians atility shaJI pfrepare a written record of the
dispute slwwincluding the name and address of the eustomer or applieantcomplainant
involved, the date the complaint was received, the issues in and eha:raeteF of the dispute,
and the disposition of the matter.; and
W The small telecommonieations utility shall rRetain records of the dispute for at
least 36 months after the investigation is closedpuFStuUlt to OAR 860 034 0580.
(2) The small telecommunieatitms utility shall inform the eustomcF oF applicant of
the right to supeFVisory review of any dispute, ineluding but not limited to,
establishment of eredit and termination of serviee.If the utility and complainant cannot
resolve thea dispute is not resolved, the small telecommunications utility shaUmust
netifyinform the oostomer or applicantcomplainant of the right to contact the Consumer
Services Section and request assistance in resolving the dispute. The small
telecommunications utility must provide the following contact information for the
Consumer Services Section:.
(a) Telephone: [phone]; TTY 711;
(b) Mailing address: Public Utility Commission of Oregon, Consumer Services
Section, PO Box 1088, Salem, Oregon 97308;
(c) Physical address: Public Utility Commission of Oregon, 3930 Fairview Industrial
Drive SE, Salem, Oregon 97202;
(d) Electronic mail address: [e-mail]; and
(e)Website:
http://puc.state.or.us/consumer/customer%20complaint%20process.pdf--ef-the
Commission's dispute l'esolutian proeedul'e and its toll free telephone m1mber.
(3) ,A ... customer or applietrnt may request the Commissfou 's assistanee iH resolving
the dispute by eontaeting .the Commission's Consumer Serviees Divisien. The
-Cmnmission shall netify the small teleeommunieations utility upon receipt ef such a
request.The Consumer Services Section will investigate any dispute upon request to
determine whether it can be resolved as an informal complaint.
(4) The Commissien's Consumer Serviees Division shall assist the eemplainant and
the small telecommunications utility in an effort to :reaeh an informal resolution of the
dispute.
(§} If the Consumer Services Section cannot resolve the a registered disputel enonot
be reselved informally, the Commission's Consume1· Services Division shall affi'ise the
complainant mayof the right to file a formal written complaint with the Commission under
Appendix A
Page 52 of74
. t) ..... ,1 '''' •\ -~ ORDERNO. '\ ,:,, ~" , ...
ORS 756.500. The formal complaint must be submitted on an approved form available
from the Consumer Services Section.
f!!l. The complaint shall state the faets of the dispute and the relief requested must be
filed electronically with the Filing Center at [e-mail].
(b) If the comylainant does not have access to electronic mail,
(A) The complaint may be mailed or delivered to the Filing Center at the address set
out in OAR 860-001-0140; and
(B) The complaint must include a request for waiver of electronic service and filing
requirements. This request is included on the form available from the Commission's
Consumer Services Division.
(c) The Commission will serve the complaint on the small telecommunications
utility. The Commission may electronically serve the small telecommunications utility
with the complaint if the electronic mail address is verified prior to service of the
complaint and the delivery receipt is maintained in the official file .
.@L The small telecommunications utility shallmust answer the complaint within 15 days
of service of the complaint by the Commission.
fil The Commission will determine a procedural schedule after the small
telecommunications utility's answer is filed. The small telecommunications utility must
serve a copy of its answer on the complainant. matter shall then be set for expedited
heariHg. A hearing may be held on less thaa ten days' aotiee when good eause is shown.
(A) If the small telecommunications utility files a motion to dismiss, the complainant
may file a response within 15 days of the motion. If the complainant responds, the
comqlainant must file the response with the Filing Center and send a copy to the utility.
The Commission may make a decision on the formal complaint based on the
information in the complaint, the small telecommunications .utility's response and
motion to dismiss, and the complainant's response to the utility's motion; or
(B) The Commission may set a procedural schedule for the complaint proceedings,
including, but not limited to, scheduling dates for receiving additional information from
the parties, telephone conferences, or a hearing. A hearing may be held on less than 10
days' notice when good cause is shown.
(6fil Upon filing a formal complaint, the complainant may request a hearing to
determine whether the complainant is entitled to continued or restored service pending
resolution of the complaint. Unless extraordinary circumstances exist, the Commission
will conduct the hearing by telephone within 3 business days. Notice of the hearing will
be provided to the complainant and the small telecommunications utility at least 12
hours before the date and time of the hearing. Pending resolution of the dispute, the
complainant's obligation to pay undisputed amounts continues.
(12) A eustomel' or applieaBtcomplainant who has a registered dispute or formal
complaint pending with the Commission shall be!§. entitled to continued or restored service
provided:
(a) Service was not terminated for theft of servieetampering with utility propertyl
stealing, diverting, or using unauthorized service or failure to establish credit;
(b) A bona fide dispute exists in which the facts asserted by the customer 01· applicant
entitle the eustomer or applieantcomplaiuant to service;
Appendix A
Page 53 of74
(c) When termination is based on nonpayment, the complainanteustomer or applieant
makes adequate arrangement to avoid future loss to the small teleeomm11nieations
utility, sueh as prepaying estimated menthly utilityagrees to pay undisputed charges;
and
(d) The complainanteustome:r or applieant diligently pursues conflict resolution under
the Commission's rules.
(18) If the conditions in section (2-1) of this rule are not satisfied, the small
telecommunications utility has no obligation to provide continued service. A small
telecommunications utility discontinuing service because of a failure to meet the conditions
of subsections ('.7!!)(c) or (.f~)(d) of this rule shallmust give the customer five-day notice
served in the same manner as provided by OAR 860-034-0260 except the notice need only
describe the defoct in performance, the date and time after which utility service will
terminate, and the toll-free number of the Commission's Consumer Services Division. lfl
deeiding whethe:r the eonditiens aFe met, the small teleeommuuieations utility shall
coHstdt with the Cemmission's OmsumeF Senriees Dh':ision. A etist0mer el' applicant
who has filed a fol'mal complaint, the small telecommunications utility, OF the
Commission's Const1:meF Services Di:1isien may ask the Commission foF a heariDg to
deeide if the conditions are met. Unless extl'aordinary eircumstances exist, the hearing
will be conducted by telepboue eonfet'ooee within tht'ee business days frem the date
requested. Notice of hearing will be giYen *6 the customer, the small
telecommunications utility, and the Cemmission's C1:msumer Seniees Division at least
12 hours before the date and time of the hearing. Notice is effective when given in
persen, by telephone, or in writing delivered to the party's last known address. Mailed
notice is effective two days after deposit in the U.8. mail, excluding Sundays and
holidays.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183, 756 & 759
Stats. Implemented: ORS 756.040, 759.045 & 759.500
Hist.: PUC 6-1993, f. & cert. ef. 2-19-93 (Order No. 93-185); PUC 12-1998, f. & cert. ef. 5-
7-98; PUC 8-1999, f. & cert. ef. 10-18-99; PUC 15-2001, f. & cert. ef. 6-21-01; PUC 11-
2003, f. & cert. ef. 7-3-03
Appendix A
Page 54 of74
•' i ~ I
ORDER NO.
Utility Rates
860-034-0300
Tariffs of Small Telecommunications Utilities
(1) Small telecommunications utilities not subject to ORS 759.175 must, upon the
Commission's request, provide copies of any schedules showing rates, tolls, and charges,
including all rules and regulations that in any manner affect the rates charged or to be
charged for any service.
(2) Small telecommunications utilities subject to ORS 7 59 .17 5 must file tariffs in
accordance with the following provisions:
(a) Form and style of tariffs:
(A) All tariffs must be in: leose leaf form so ehanges ean be made by reprinting and
inserting.a single leaf;
(&)-Each small telecommunications utility must designate the initial tariff as PUC Oregon
No. 1, and thereafter designate successive tariffs with the next number in consecutive
numerical order. Supplemental information not otherwise provided by the tariff must be
inserted in the most appropriate location and denoted by the previous sheet numbers plus a
letter, for example, 3A, 3B, etc. Revisions to tariffs must be denoted by 1st Revised Sheet
No. 3, 2nd Revised Sheet No. 3, etc.;
(tfil The title page should be uniform. Rates, rules, and regulations must be written only
on one side of a sheet. If a single sheet is insufficient, two or more pages should be used.
Blank forms will be furnished upon request;
(b) Size of tariffs and required:
(A) Tariffs and supplements thereto must be prepared using a readable font that, when
printed, will fit on an 8-1/2 x 11 inch page; and
(B) Small telecommunications utilities must file with the Commission an original of each
tariff, rate schedule, revision, or supplement. The utility must supplement the filing with
an exaet eopy of the tariff in electronic form as required in OAR 860-001-0170. The advice
letter accompanying the tariffs must bear the signature of the issuing officer or utility
representative. The tariffs do not require a signature.
(c) Tariffs must explicitly state the rates and charges for each class of service rendered,
designating the area or district to which they apply;
(d) The small telecommunications utility's rules and regulations that in any manner affect
the rates charged or to be charged or that define the extent or character of the service to be
given must be included with each tariff;
(e) Changes in tariffs may be made by filing an entirely new tariff or by filing revised
sheets which must refer to the tariffs on file. Additions to the tariff on file may be made by
filing additional sheets;
(f) Each small telecommunications utility filing tariffs or schedules changing existing
tariffs or schedules must submit in the advice letter or other document the following
information:
(A) A statement plainly indicating the increase, decrease, or oth~r change thereby made
in existing rates, charges, tolls, or rules and regulations;
(B) A statement setting forth the number of customers affected by the proposed change
and the resulting change in annual revenue; and
Appendix A
Page 55 of74
ORDER NO.
(C) A detailed statement setting forth the reasons or grounds relied upon in support of the
proposed change;
(g) All tariff changes must be made applicable with service rendered on and after the
effective tlate of the changes, unless the Commission by order provides otherwise. As used in
this rule, "service rendered" means units of toll calls connected, basic service provided, or
likewise as the context requires;
(h) Small telecommunications utilities entering into special contracts with certain
customers prescribing and providing rates, services, and practices not covered by or
permitted in the general tariffs, schedules, and rules filed by such utilities are in legal effect
tariffs anti are subject to supervision, regulation, and con1rol to the extent not exempted under
ORS 759.040; and
(i) All special agreements designating service to be furnished at rates other than those
shown in tariffs now on file in the Commission's office are rate schedules. A true and
certified copy must be filed pursuant to requirements of this Division.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183, 756 & 759
Stats. Implemented: ORS 756.040, 759.045 & 759.175
Hist.: PUC 6-1993, f. & cert. ef. 2-19-93 (Order No. 93-185); PUC 12-1998, f. & cert. ef. 5-
7-98; PUC 3-1999, f. & cert. ef. 8-10-99; PUC 15-2001, f. & cert. ef. 6-21-01; PUC 18-2004,
f. & cert. ef. 12-30-04
Appendix A
Page 56 of74
·1 ORDERNO. I i.\
860-036-0025
Dispute Resolution
( 1) When a dispute occurs between a customer or applicant and a water utility about any
bill,-charge, or service, the water utility shitllmust:
il!}. tThoroughly invesligate the matter.s.
!!tl and-ttrromptly repmi the results of its investigation to the eusfomer or
appliealrtcomplainant;
(c) Inform the complainant of the right to have a water utility supervisor review any
dispute;
.{fil_. The water utility shall p£repare a written record of the dispute showincluding the
name and address of the eustomet' or applie1mtcomplainant involved, the date the
complaint was received, the issues inand eharaeter of the dispute, and the disposition of
the matter.; and
(£} Th.e utility shall rRetain records of the dispute parsuant to OA:R 860 036 0760for
at least 36 months after the investigation is closed. ·
(2) The water utility shall inform the eustomer or applieant of the right to a water
utility supef!Visoey re>1iew of any dispute, inelading but not limited to, establishment of
eFedit and termination of serviee. If the utility and complainant cannot resolve thea
dispute is not resolved, the water utility shitllmust inform notify the customer or
applieantcomplainant of the right to contact the Consumer Services Section and request
assistance in resolving the dispute. The water utility must provide the following contact
information for the Consumer Services Section:.
(a) Telephone: [phone]; TTY 711;
(bl Mailing address: Public Utility Commission of Oregon, Consumer Services
Section, PO Box 1088, Salem, Oregon 97308;
(c) Physical address: Public Utility Commission of Oregon, 3930 Fairview Industrial
Drive SE, Salem, Oregon 97202;
(d) Electronic mail address: [e-mail]; and
(e) Website:
http://puc.state.or.us/consumer/customer%20complaint%20process.pdf--of-the
Commission's dispute Fesolution proeedln'e and its toll free telephone number.
(3) A: eustomer or applieant may request the Commission's assistanee in Fesolving
the dispute by eentaeting the C0mmission's Censumer SeYViees at:The Consumer
Services Section will investigate any dispute upon request to determine whether it can
be resolved as an informal complaint.
(a) 1 800 522 2404; TTY 711;
(b) The Commission's mailing addFess: PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF
OREGON, CONSUlWER SERVICES, PO BOX 2148, SALEI\'f OR 97308 2148; oF
(e) The Commission's street add1·ess: Public Utility Commission of Oregon, 5SO
Gapitol Street NE Sllite 215, Salem, OR 97301 2551. The Commission shall notify the
water utility upon reeeipt of sueh a request.
(4) The Commission's Consumer Services shall assist the eomplainant and the water
utility in an effort to Feaeh an infoFmal resolution of the dispute.
Appendix A
Page 57 of74
/l . ;,
ORDER NO. :\ /~,
~If the Consumer Services Section cannot resolve thea registered dispute cannot be
resolved informally, the Commission's Consumer Serviees shall advise-the complainant
may of the right to-file a formal written complaint with the Commission under ORS
756.500. The formal complaint must be submitted on an approved form available from
the Consumer Services Section .
.(fil_ The complaint shall state the facts of t11e dispute and the relief reques-tedmust be
filed electronically with the Filing Center at [e-mail].
(b) If the complainant does not have access to electronic mail,
(A) The complaint may be mailed, faxed, or delivered to the Filing Center at the
address set out in OAR 860-001-0140; and
(B) The complaint must include a request for waiver of electronic service and filing
requirements. This request is included on the form available from the Commission's
Consumer Services Section.
(c) The Commission will serve the complaint on the water utility. The Commission
may electronically serve the water utility with the complaint if the electronic mail
address is verified prior to service of the complaint and the delivery receipt is
maintained in the official file.
(!!}_The water utility shallmust answer the complaint within 15 days of service of the
complaint by the Commission.
hl The Commission will determine a procedural schedule after the water utility's
answer is filed. The water utility must serve a copy of its answer on the complainant.
matter shall then be set for hearing. A hearing may be held on less than 10 days' notice \vhen
good cause is shovm.
(A) If the water utility files a motion to dismiss, the complainant may file a response
within 15 days of the motion. If the complainant responds, the complainant must file
the response with the Filing Center and send a copy to the utility. The Commission may
make a decision on the formal complaint based on the information in the complaint, the
utility's response and motion to dismiss, and the complainant's response to the utility's
motion; or
(B) The Commission may set a procedural schedule for the complaint proceedings,
including, but not limited to, scheduling dates for receiving additional information from
the parties, telephone conferences, or a hearing. A hearing may be held on less than 10
days' notice when good cause is shown.
~6) Upon filing a formal complaint, the complainant may request a hearing to
determine whether the complainant is entitled to continued or restored service pending
the resolution of the complaint. Unless extraordinary circumstances exist, the
Commission will conduct the hearing by telephone within 3 business days. Notice of the
hearing will be provided to the complainant and the water utility at least 12 hours
before the date and time of the hearing. Pending resolution of the dispute, the
complainant's obligation to pay undisputed amounts continues.
(§.+) A eustomercomplainant who has a registered dispute or formal complaint pending
with the Commission shall beis entitled to continued or restored service provided:
(a) Service was not terminated for tampering with utility property, stealing, diverting,
or using unauthorized service, theft of serviee or failure to establish credit;
Appendix A
Page 58 of74
(b) A bona fide dispute exists in which the facts asserted by the eustomer entitle the
eustomer complainant to service;
(c)When termination is based on nonpayment, the customer makes adequate
aPrangement to twoid fature loss to the water utility, sueh as prepaying estimated
monthly wateF utility agrees to pay undisputed charges; and
( d) The complainanteustomer or opplieant diligently pursues conflict resolution under
the Commission's rules.
(18) If the conditions in section(+§) of this rule are not satisfied, the water utility has no
obligation to provide continued service. A water utility discontinuing service because of a
failure to meet the conditions of subsections (+§.)(c) or (+&)(d) of this rule shallmust give the
customer a five business-day disconnect notice. The notice shallmust be served in the same
manner as provided by OAR 860-036-0245, except that it need only describe the defoct in
performance, the date and time when water utility service will terminate and the toll-free
number of the Commission's Consumer Services. In deeiding whether the eonditions are
met, the water utility shall eonsult with the Commission's Consumer Serviees. The
eustomeF who has filed a furmal eomplaint, the water utility, or the Commission's
ConsumeF Serviees may ask the Commission for a hearing to deeide if the eonditions
are met. Unless extraordinary eireumstanees exist, the hearing will be eondueted by
telephone eonferenee within three business days from the date requested. Notiee of
hearing will be given to the eustomer, the water utility, and the CommissifilH
Consumer Serviees at least 12 lrnurs befure the date and time of the hearing. Notiee is
effeetive when given in pMson, by telephone, or in writing delivered to the-party's last
lrnown address. Mailed notiee is effeetive two days after deposit in the U.S. mail,
exeluding Sundays and holidays.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183, 756, 757
Stats. Implemented: ORS 756.040, 756.500, 756.512
Hist.: PUC 13-1997, f. & cert. ef. 11-12-97; PUC 15-1998, f. & cert. ef 8-27-98; PUC 8-
1999, f. & cert. ef. 10-18-99; PUC 18-2003, f. & cert. ef. 10-6-03
Tariffs
860-036-0605
Tariff Specifications
(1) This rule applies to rate-regulated water utilities.
(2) Form, requirements, and style of tariffs:
(a) A separate tariff must be filed for each service provided;
(b) All tariffs, including rates and rules and regulations, must be typed, single
sidetlprepared using a readable font that, when printed, will fit on 8-1/2 inch by 11 inch
pages and_so that changes can be made by reprinting and inserting a single page. If a tariff
cannot fit on one page, use additional pages. Blank forms will be furnished by the
Commission upon request;
( c) Each water utility must designate the initial tariff as PUC Oregon No. 1, and designate
successive tariffs with the next number in consecutive numerical order;
Appendix A
Page 59 of74
ORDER NO.
( d) Supplemental information not otherwise provided by the tariff must be inserted in the
most appropriate location and denoted by the previous sheet numbers plus a letter, for
example, 3A, 3B, etc. Revisions to tariffs must be denoted by 1st Revised Sheet No. 3, 2nd
Revised Sheet No. 3, etc.;
( e) The tariffs must include a uniform title page and table of contents;
(f) Tariffs and supplements must be prepared using a readable font that, when printed,
will fit on an 8-112 x 11 inch page; and
(g) Water utilities must file with the Commission an original of each tariff, rate schedule,
revision, or supplement in electronic form as required by OAR 860-001-0170. The advice
letter accompanying the tariffs must bear the signature of the issuing officer or water utility
representative. Tariffs do not require a signature.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183, 756 & 757
Stats. Implemented: ORS 756.040 & 757.205
Hist.: PUC 13-1997, f. & cert. ef. 11-12-97; PUC 15-1998, f. & cert. ef. 8-27-98; PUC 8-
2002, f. & cert. ef. 2-26-02; PUC 18-2004, f. & cert. ef. 12-30-04; PUC 13-2011, f. 12-29-11,
cert. ef. 1-1-12
Appendix A
Page 60 of74
860-037-0025
Dispute Resolution
ORDER NO. ''!',-,{ ,~,
(1) When a dispute occurs between a customer or applicant and a wastewater utility about
any bill,-charge, or service, the wastewater utility shallmust:
,(!} tThoroughly investigate the matter.i.
ill ftftfl-vfromptly report the results of its investigation to the customer or
applieantcomplainant;
(c) Inform the complainant of the right to have a wastewater utility supervisor
review any dispute;
f!!)_. The wastewater utility shall pfrepare a written record of the dispute
slwwincluding the name and address of the customer or applicantcomplainant involved,
the date the complaint was received, the issues inand character of the dispute, and the
disposition of the matter.; and
{fil The utility shall rRetain records of the dispute pursuant to OAR 860 037 0605for
at least 36 months after the investigation is closed.
(2) The wastewater utility shall inform the eustomer or applicant of the right to a
wastewater utility supervisory review of any dispute including, but not limited to,
establishment of eredit and termination of wastewater sen1iee through diseonneetion of
water service. If the utility and complainant cannot resolve thea dispute is not resolved,
the wastewater utility shall notifymust inform the customer or appliea-nt of the
Commission's dispute reselution procedure and its tell free telephone numbeP
complainant of the right to contact the Consumer Services Section and request
assistance in resolving the dispute. The wastewater utility must provide the following
contact information for the Consumer Services Section:.
(a) Telephone: [phone]; TTY 711;
{b) Mailing address: Public Utility Commission of Oregon, Consumer Services
Section, PO Box 1088, Salem, Oregon 97308;
{c) Physical address: Public Utility Commission of Oregon, 3930 Fairview Industrial
Drive SE, Salem, Oregon 97202;
{d) Electronic mail address: [e-mail]; and
(e) Website:
http://puc.state.or.us/consumer/customer%20complaint%20process.pdf.
(3) The Consumer Services Section will investigate any dispute upon request to
determine whether it can be resolved as an informal complaint. A eustemer or
applieant may 1·equest the Commissien's assistance in resolving the dispute by
eontacting the Commissien's Consumer Set'Yiees Section at:
(a) 1 800 522 2404 or TTY 711;
(b) The Commission's mailing addPess: Pubiie Utility Commissien of Or-egon,
Consumer Serviees Section, PO Box 2148, Salem OR 97308 2148; or
(e) The Commission's street address: Public Utility Commission of Oregon, 550
Capitol Street NE Suite 21, Salem OR 97301 2551.
(d) The Commissian shall notify the wastewater utility upon reeeipt of such a
request.
Appendix A
Page 61 of74
/f' ;·;, /;;. ',:'.,
ORDER NO.
( 4) The CommissiaH:' s Consumer 8erviees 8eetian shall assist the complainant and
the wastewater utility in an effort to reaeh an informal resolution of the dispute.
~If the Consumer Services Section cannot resolve thea registered dispute etmnot be
resolved informally, the Commission's Consumer Serviees Section shall advise the
complainant may of the right to file a formal written complaint with the Commission under
ORS 756.500. The formal complaint must be submitted on an approved form available
from the Consumer Services Section.
hl The complaint shall state the faets of the dispute and the relief requestedmust be
filed electronically with the Filing [e-mail]@state.or.us.
(b) If the complainant does not have access to electronic mail,
{A) The complaint may be mailed or delivered to the Filing Center at the address set
out in OAR 860-001-0140; and.
(B) The complaint must include a request for waiver of electronic service and filing
requirements. This request is included on the form available from the Consumer
Services Division.
(c) The Commission will serve the complaint on the wastewater utility. The
Commission may electronically serve the utility with the complaint if the electronic mail
address is verified prior to service of the complaint and the delivery receipt is
maintained in the official file.
{!!)_The wastewater utility shallmust answer the complaint within 15 days of service of
the complaint by the Commission.
ftl. The Commission will determine a procedural schedule after the wastewater
utility's answer is filed. The wastewater utility must serve a copy of its answer on the
complainant. matte=r shall then be set fur hearing. A hearing may be held on less than 1-0
days' notiee when good eause is shown.
(A) If the wastewater utility files a motion to dismiss, the complainant may file a
response within 15 days of the motion. If the complainant responds, the complainant
must file the response with the Filing Center and send a copy to the utility. The
Commission may make a decision the formal complaint based on the information in the
complaint, the utility;s response and motion to dismiss, and the complainant's response
to the utility's motion; or
(B) The Commission may set a procedural schedule for the complaint proceedings,
including, but not limited to, scheduling dates for receiving additional information from
the parties, telephone conferences, or a hearing. A hearing may be held on less than 10
days' notice when good cause is shown.
~a) Upon filing a formal complaint, the complainant may request a hearing to
determine whether the complainant is entitled to continued or restored service pending
the resolution of the complaint. Unless extraordinary circ'umstances exist, the
Commission will conduct the hearing by telephone within 3 business days. Notice of the
hearing will be provided to the complainant and the wastewater utility at least 12 hours
before the date and time of the hearing. Pending resolution of the dispute, the
complainant's obligation to pay undisputed amounts continues.
(fr+) A customercomplainant who has a registered dispute or formal complaint pending
with the Commission shall be~ entitled to continued or restored service provided:
Appendix A
Page 62 of74
:·.' . ,--;·
ORDER NO.
;~r\:. .. .. i;, .. ·.·.·
(a) Service was not terminated for tampering with utility property, stealing, divertin~
or using unauthorized service, theft of serYiee or failure to establish credit;
(b) A bona fide dispute exists in which the facts asserted by the eustomer entitle the
eustomercomplainant to service;
( c) When termination of wastewater service is based on nonpayment, the customer
makes adequate aJ.'-1-'angement to aveid future loss to the wastewater utility, sueh as
prepaying estimated monthly wastewater utility serviee agrees to pay undisputed
charges; and
( d) The complainanteustemer or applieant diligently pursues conflict resolution under
the Commission's rules.
(18) If the conditions in section(~+) of this rule are not satisfied, the wastewater utility
has no obligation to provide continued service. A wastewater utility discontinuing water
service because of a customer's failure to meet the conditions of subsections~+)( c) or
(~+Xd) of this rule for wastewater utility service shallmust give the customer a five­
business day disconnect notice. The notice shallmust be served in the same manner as
provided by OAR 860-037-0245, except that it need only describe the defect in performance,
the date and time when water service will be disconnected in order to terminate wastewater
service and the toll-free number of the Commission's Consumer Services Section. In
deeiding whether the conditions a1·e met, the wastewater utility shall eonsult with the
Commissients Censumer Services Section. The eustamer who has filed a furmal
eomplaint, the wastewater utility, er the Cemmissien's Censumer Serviees Seetion may
ask the Commissien for a hearing to deeide if the eenditions are met. Unless
extraordinary eireumstanees exist, the hearing will be eoB:dueted by telephone
eonferenee within three basiness days from the date l'equested. Netiee ef hearing will be
giYeD: ta the eustemer, the wastewater utility, and the Commission's Consumer Serviees
8eetion at least 12 hours befure the date and time ef the heariBg. Notiee is effective
when giYen in persen, by telephone, or in writing delivered te the-party's last knewn
address. Mailed notiee is effeetiYe twe days after deposit in the U.S. mail, exeluding
Sundays and holidays.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183, 756 & 757
Stats. Implemented: ORS 756.040, 756.500, 756.512, 757.005 & 757.061
Hist.: PUC 9-l 999(Temp), f. 10-22-99, cert. ef. 10-23-99 thru 4-19-00; PUC 6-2000, f. 4-18-
00, cert. ef. 4-20-00; PUC 5-2004, f. & cert. ef. 1-29-04
860-037-0410
Tariff Specifications
(I) Form and style of tariffs:
(a) All tariffs must be in Ieose leaf form se that ehaagcs cau be made by reprinting
and inserting a single leaf;
(b) Each wastewater utility must designate the initial tariff as PUC Oregon No. 1, and
designate successive tariffs with the next number in consecutive numerical order.
Supplemental information not otherwise provided by the tariff must be inserted in the most
Appendix A
Page 63 of74
ORDER NO.
.. 1 ·
' ,I
appropriate location and denoted by the previous sheet numbers plus a letter, for example,
3A, 3B, etc. Revisions to tariffs must be denoted by 1st Revised Sheet No. 3, 2nd Revised
Sheet No. 3, etc.;
(e,h) The title page should be uniform. Rates, rules, and regulations must be written only
on one side of a sheet. If a single sheet is insufficient, two or more pages should be used.
Blank forms will be furnished by the Commission upon request; and
(ti.£) Separate tariffs must be filed for wastewater service or for any other service entered.
(2) Size of tariffs and required:
(a) Tariffs and supplements thereto must be prepared using a readable font that, when
printed, will fit on an 8-1/2 x 11 inch page; and
(b) Wastewater utilities must file with the Commission an original of each tariff, rate
schedule, revision, or supplement in electronic form as required by OAR 860-001-0170.
The advice letter accompanying the tariffs must bear the signature of the issuing officer or
utility representative. The tariffs do not require a signature.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183, 756 & 757
Stats. Implemented: ORS 756.040, 757.005, 757.061 & 757.205
Hist.: PUC 9-1999(Temp), f. 10-22-99, cert. ef. 10-23-99 thru 4-19-00; PUC 6-2000, f. 4-18-
00, cert. ef. 4-20-00; PUC 5-2004, f. & cert. ef. 1-29-04; PUC 18-2004, f & cert. ef. 12-30-
04
Appendix A
Page64 of74
ORDER NO. . I' I . I ( .;,'. ·','
860-038-0400
Electricity Service Supplier Certification Requirements
(1) An eleciricity service supplier (ESS) must be certified by the Commission to sell
electricity services to consumers.
(2) An ESS must be certified as either scheduling or nonscheduling as prescribed in
OAR 860-038-0410.
(3) The initial certification fee is $400.
( 4) The annual renewal fee is $200.
(5) An ESS applicant must file an application that contains the following information:
(a) Name of applicant, including owners, directors, partners, and officers, with a
description of the work experience of key personnel in the sale, procurement, and billing of
energy services or similar products;
(b) Name, address, and phone number of the ESS applicant's regulatory contact;
( c) Proof of authorization to do business in the state of Oregon;
( d) Dun and Bradstreet number, if available;
( e) Confirmation that the applicant (including owners, directors, parmers, and officers)
has not violated consumer protection laws or rules in the past three years;
(f) Audited financial statements of the ESS applicant (and its guarantor, if applicable) and
credit reports consisting of:
(A) A balance sheet, income statement, and statement of cash flow for each of the three
years preceding the filing and for the interim quarters between the end of the last audited year
and the filing date; or
(B) For an applicant that has been in operation for less than three years, the audited
balance sheets, income statements, and statements of cash flow for each of the years the
company was in opera lion and for the interim quarters between the end of the last audited
year and the filing date; or
(C) For an applicant that has been in operation for less than 12 months on the date the
application is filed, such financial statements as are kept in the regular course of the
applicant's business operations and pro-forma financial statements for a period of not less
than 36 months.
(D) If audited financial statements are unavailable, the applicant may submit unaudited
financial statements for each of the three years preceding the filing and for the interim
quarters between the end of the last unaudited year and the filing date. The applicant must
also submit a statement explaining why audited statements are not available.
(g) A showing of creditworthiness through documentation of tangible assets in excess of
liabilities (i.e., tangible net worth) of at least $1,000,000 on its most recent balance sheet and
demonstration of either its own invesiment grade credit rating pursuant to (A) or fulfillment
of bond/guaranty requirements pursuant to (B):
(A) Investment grade rating means a suitable rating on the long term, senior unsecured
debt, or if this rating is unavailable, the corporate rating, of a major credit rating agency.
(B) An applicant may use any of the financial instruments listed below, in an amount
commensurate with the services and products it intends to offer, to satisfy the credit
requirements established by this rule.
(i) Cash or cash equivalent (i.e., cashier's check);
Appendix A
Page 65 of74
ORDER NO. ''.-/ .
,J .i,,•
(ii) A letter of credit issued by a bank or other financial institution, irrevocable for a
periodofatleast 18 months;
(iii) A bond in a form acceptable to the Commission, irrevocable for a period of at least
18 months; or
(iv) A guaranty in a form acceptable to the Commission issued by a principal of the
applicant or a corporation holding controlling interest in the applicant, which is irrevocable
for at least 18 months. To the extent the applicant relies on a guaranty, the applicant must
provide financial evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the lender or guarantor possesses the
cash or cash equivalent needed to fund the guaranty.
(h) A showing of technical competence in energy procurement and delivery, information
systems, billing & collection, and if subject to the requirements of section 16 of this rule,
safety & engineering;
(i) A showing thatjts financial and technical competence is consistent with the services
and products it intends to off er, and the targeted customer class( es) and geographical areas;
and
(j) A statement as to whether the ESS is applying for certification as a scheduling or
nonscheduling ESS and information documenting an ability to comply to the requirements of
OAR 860-038-0410; and
(k) The authorized representative of the applicant must state that all information provided
is true and correct and sign the application.
(6) At a minimum, an applicant must attest that it will:
(a) Furnish to consumers a toll-free number or local number that is staffed during normal
business hours to enable a consumer to resolve complaints or billing disputes and a statement
of the ESS's terms and conditions that detail the customer's rights and responsibilities;
(b) Comply with all applicable laws, rules, Commission orders, and electric company
tariffs;
( c) Maintain insurance coverage, security bond, or other financial assurance
commensurate with the types and numbers of consumers and loads being served, meet any
other credit requirements contained in the electric company's tariffs, and cover creditors for a
minimum of 90 days from the date of cancellation; and
( d) Adequately respond to Commission information requests within 10 business days.
(7) As conditions for certification, an ESS must agree to:
(a) Enter into an agreement or agreements with each respective electric company to
assign to the electric companies any federal system benefits available from the Bonneville
Power Administration to the residential and small-farm customers who receive distribution
from an electric company and are served by the ESS; and
(b) Not enter into a Residential Sale and Purchase Agreement with the Bonneville Power
Adminisiration pursuant to Section 5(c) of the Pacific Northwest Power Act concerning
federal system benefits available to residential and small farm customers receiving
distribution from an electric company.
(8) Staff will nolify interested persons of the application, allow 14 days from the date of
notification for the filing of protests to the application (through submission of an email or
letter to the staff), review the application, and make a recommendation to the Commission
whether the application should be approved or denied.
Appendix A
Page 66 of74
•' .. .'·1-r ., ··
ORDER NO. l;l .·:';,
;
.• .;~.
(9) An applicant or a protesting party may request a hearing within se¥eft60 calendar
days of the date of the staffrecommendation. Upon determining the appropriateness of the
request, the Commission will conduct a hearing as provided for in division 001 of the
Commission's rules.
(10) The Commission may issue an Order granting the applicant's request for certification
upon a finding that:
(a) The applicant paid the initial certification PUC fee, as required by OAR 860-038-
0400(3);
(b) The applicant filed an application containing accurate, complete and satisfactory
information that demonstrates it meets the requirements to be certified as an ESS.
(11) If the Commission grants the application, the Commission may include any
conditions it deems reasonable and necessary. Further, upon granting the application, the
Commission will certify the ESS for a period of one year from the date of the order.
(12) An ESS must take all reasonable steps, including corrective actions, to ensure that
persons or agents hired by the ESS adhere at all times to the terms of all laws, rules,
Commission orders, and elecW:ic company tariffs applicable to the ESS.
(13) An ESS must notify the Commission that it will not be renewing its certification or it
must renew its certification each year as follows:
(a) An ESS must submitfile its application for renewal 30 days prior to the expiration
date of its current certificate;
(b) In its application for renewal the ESS must include the renewal fee, update the
information specified in subsections (5)(a), (b), (i), and (j) of this rule, and state whether it
violated or is currently being investigated for violation of any attestation made under the
current certificate. The ESS must state that it continues to attest that it will meet the
requirements of sections (6) and (7) of this rule. The authorized representative of the ESS
must state that all information provided is W:ue and conect and sign the renewal application;
( c) If the Commission takes no action on the renewal application, the renewal is granted
for a period of one year from the expiration date of the prior certificate;
(d) If a written complaint is filed, or if on the Commission's own motion, the Commission
has reason to believe the renewal should not be granted, the Commission will conduct a
revocation proceeding per section (14) of this rule. The renewal applicant will be considered
temporarily certified during the pending revocation proceeding.
(14) Upon review of a written complaint or on its own motion the Commission may, after
reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing, revoke the certification of an ESS for reasons
including, but not limited to, the following:
(a) Material misrepresentations in its application for certification or in any report of
material changes in the facts upon which the certification was based;
(b) Material misrepresentations in customer solicitations, agreements, or in the
administration of customer contracts;
(c) Dishonesty, fraud, or deceit that benefits the ESS or disadvantages customers;
(d) Demonstrated lack of financial, or operational capability; or
( e) Violation of agreements stated in sections ( 6) and (7) of this rule.
(15) An ESS must promptly report to the Commission any circumstances or events that
materially alter information provided to the Commission in the certification or renewal
Appendix A
Page 67 of74
ORDER NO.
process or otherwise materially impacts their ability to reasonably serve electricity
consumers in Oregon.
A .. :; .
(16) Each ESS that owns, operates, or controls electrical supply lines and facilities
subject to ORS 757.035 must have and maintain its entire plant and system in such condition
that it will furnish safo, adequate, and reasonably continuous service. Each such ESS must
inspect its lines and facilities in such a manner and with such frequency as may be needed to
ensure a reasonably complete knowledge about their condition and adequacy at all times.
Such record must be kept of the conditions found as the ESS considers necessary to properly
maintain its system, unless in special cases the Commission specifies a more complete
record. The ESS must have written plans describing its inspection, operation, and
maintenance programs necessary to ensure the safety and reliability of the facilities. The
written plans and records required herein must be made available to the Commission upon
request. The ESS must report serious injuries to persons or property in accordance with
GRSOAR 860-024-0050.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183, 756 & 757
Stats. Implemented: ORS 756.040 & 757.600 -757.667
Hist.: PUC 17-2000, f. & cert. ef. 9-29-00; PUC 23-2001, f. & cert. ef. 10-11-01; PUC 7-
2005, f. & cert. ef. 11-30-05
860-038-0420
Electricity Service Supplier Consumer Protection
( 1) All advertising and marketing activities by electricity service suppliers must be
iruthful, not misleading, and in compliance with Oregon's Unfair Trade Praclices Act
(ORS 646.605 through 646.656).
(2) No person or entity may offer to sell eleciricity services available pursuant to direct
access unless it has been certified by the Commission as an ESS.
(3) Sections (3) through (6) of this rule do not apply when a consumer is changing
suppliers. Sections (3) through (6) apply when an ESS is discontinuing service to a
consumer. An ESS must give its customers at least 10 business days written notice, as
prescribed in section ( 5) of this rule, before the ESS may discontinue service.
( 4) The written notice of intent to discontinue service to the ESS customer must be
printed in boldface type and must state in easy to understand language:
(a) The name and contact information of the ESS and the service location intended to be
discontinued;
(b) The reasons for the proposed discontinuance;
(c) The earliest date for discontinuance; and
( d) The amount necessary to be paid to avoid discontinuance of services, if applicable.
(5) The ESS must serve the notice of discontinuance in person or send it by first class
mail to the last known address of the ESS customer. Service is complete on the date of
personal delivery or, if service is by U. S. mail, on the day after the U. S. Postal Service
postmark or the day after the date of postage metering.
( 6) Not less than 10 business days prior to discontinuance of service to an ESS customer,
the ESS must notify the serving electric company, by mutually acceptable means, that the
Appendix A
Page 68 of74
ORDERNO .. /·1 ,,
;I /,,_ l' /~ ,. __ .
ESS will no longer be supplying energy to that ESS customer. If an ESS and a consumer
waive the 10-day notice, pursuant to section (8) of this rule, the ESS must still notify the
electric company of its intent to discontinue a consumer's service as soon as it notifies the
consumer that service is to be discontinued. The written notice must contain the following:
(a) Name and contact information of the ESS that is discontinuing service, the consumer's
name, account number, service location and, if applicable, the electric company's unique
location identifier;
(b) Earliest date for discontinuance; and
(c) Necessary information applicable to the lransfer of the consumer's service.
(7) This section of this rule applies to any alleged violation of the rules in Division 038
applicable to eleclricity service suppliers.
(a) When a dispute occurs between an ESS customer and an ESSand its eensumer
about any-bill;-charge; or service, the eleetrieity set'Viee sapplierESS must acknowledge the
dispute with a response to the eonsumercustomer within fWe~ calendar days. The ESS must
thoroughly invesligate the matter and report the results of its investigation to the ESS
eonsamercustomer within 15 calendar days. If the ESS is unable to resolve the matter with
its eensumer within 15 calendar days, the ESS must advise the eensumercustomer of the
oplion to request internal supervisory review of unregulated disputes and to request the
Commission's assistance in resolving a dispute within the Commission's jurisdiction;
(b) An ESS customer may request the Commission's assistance in resolving a dispute
within the Commission's jurisdiction by contacting the Commission's Consumer Services
Division. The Commission must notify the electricity service supplier upon receipt of such a
request;
( c) The Commission's Consumer Services Division will assist the complainant and the
electricity service supplier in an effort to reach an informal resolution of the dispute. The
ESS must provide the Commission with the necessary information to assist in resolving the
dispute. The ESSeleetrieity serviee supplier must answer the registered ESS dispute within
15 calendar days of service of the complaint;
(d) If a registered ESS dispute cannot be resolved informally, the Commission's
Consumer Services Division will advise the complainant of the right to file a formal written
complaint with the Commission.
@_The formal written_ complaint must state the facts of the dispute and the relief
requested and must be filed with the Filing Center in compliance with the rules
regarding confidential information and filing set out in OAR 860-001-0070, 860-001-
0140 through 860-001-0150,and 860-001-0170.
(B) The formal complaint must be filed with the Filing Center at
PUC.FilingCenter(@,state.or.us. If complainant does not have access to electronic mail,
the complaint may be mailed, faxed, or delivered to the Filing Center at the address set
out in OAR 860-001-0140, and the formal complaint must include a request for waiver
of the electronic filing and service requirements.
(C) The Commission will serve the complaint on the ESS. The Commission may
electronically serve the ESS with the complaint if the electronic mail address is verified
prior to service of the complaint and the delivery receipt is maintained in the official
file.
Appendix A
Page 69 of74
ORDER NO.
filL The ESSeleetrieity serviee supplier must answer the complaint within 15 calendar
days of service of the complaint by the Commission.
@The Commission will set the _matter will t_hen be set for expedited hearing. A
hearing may be held on less than 10 calendar days' notice when good cause is shown. Notice
ofthe hearing will be provided to the complainant and the ESS at least 12 hours before
the date and time of the hearing.
(F) Filing dates for formal complaint proceedings are calculated and enforced per
OAR 860-001-0150.
(8) Within the terms of a written contract, a eonsamercustomer and an ESS may agree
to arrangements otherthan those specified in sections (3), (4), (5), and (6) of this rule, ifthe
following requirements are met:
(a) The contract must include an exact copy of the paragraphs in subsection (8)(b) of this
rule. The paragraphs must be in bold type of at least 12-font size. Immediately following the
paragraphs, there must be a line for the-consumer's signature and the date.
(b) The agreement must contain the following notice:
IF YOU SIGN THIS AGREEMENT, YOU MAY GIVE UP CERTAIN RIGHTS YOU
HAVE UNDER OAR 860-038-0420(3) through (6). These rules state: The ESS must insert
the complete text of OAR 860-038-0420(3) through (6). THIS MAY AFFECT YOUR
ABILITY TO ARRANGE FOR OTHER ENERGY SERVICE.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183, ORS 756 & ORS 757
Stats. Implemented: ORS 756.040 & ORS 757.600 -ORS 757.667
Hist.: PUC 17-2000, f. & cert. ef. 9-29-00; PUC 21-2001(Temp), f. & cert. ef. 9-11-01 thru
3-10-02; PUC 11-2002, f. & cert. ef. 3-8-02; PUC 11-2003, f. & cert. ef. 7-3-03
Appendix A
Page 70 of74
ORDER NO.
860-082-0085
Complaints for Enforcement
(1) This rule specifies the procedure for a public utility, an interconnection customer, or
an applicant to file a complaint for the enforcement of an interconnection agreement. Filing
dates for enforcement complaint proceedings are calculated and enforced per OAR
860-001-0150.
(2) At least 10 days p1ior to filing a complaint for enforcement, complainant must
give written notice to defendant and the Commission that complainant intends to file a
complaint for enforcement. The notice must identify the provisions in the agreement
that complainant alleges were or are being violated and the specific acts or failure to act
that caused or are causing the violation, and whether complainant anticipates
requesting temporary or injunctive relief. On the same day the notice is filed with the
Commission, complainant must serve a copy of the notice on defendant's authorized
representative, attorney of record, or designated agent for service of process.
Complainant must also serve the notice on all persons designated in the interconnection
agreement to receive notices;
filA complaint for enforcement must eontain the foll6'Wing:
(a) Contain aA statement of specific facts demonstrating that the complainant conferred
with defendant in good faith to resolve the dispute, and that despite those efforts the parties
failed to resolve the dispute;
(b) Include aA copy of a the written notice, required by section (2), to the defendant
indicating that the complainant intends to file a complaint for enforcement, as deseribed in
subseetion (3)(a) below;
( c) Include aA copy of the interconnection agreement or the portion of the agreement
that the complainant contends that defendant violated or is violating. If a copy of the entire
agreement is provided, complainant must specify the provisions at issue;
(d) Contain aA statement of the facts or a statement of the law demonstrating
defendant's failure to comply with the interconnection agreement and complainant's
entitlement to relief. The statement of entitlement to relief must indicate that the remedy
sought is consistent with the dispute resolution provisions in the agreement, if any.
Statements of facts must be supported by written testimony or one 0r morewith affidavits
made by persons competent to testify and having personal knowledge of the relevant facts.
Statements of law must be supported by appropriate citations. If exhibits are attached to the
affidavits, the affidavits must contain the foundation for the exhibits;
( e) The names 0f up to two people dDesignated-up to three persons to receive copies
of pleadings and documents;
(f) Include} .. sepRrate doeument eontaining an executive summary, filed as a seuarate
document not to exceed 8 0f eight pages.i. 01' Jess outlining the issues and relief requested;
and
(g) Include any mMotions for affirmative relief, filed as a separate document and
clearly marked. must be filed with the eemplaint, but as a separate doeument. Motfons
for injunetive er temporary relief must be elearly marked. Nothing in this subsection
precludes complainant from filing a motion subsequent to the filing of the complaint ifthe
Appendix A
Page 71 of74
ORDER NO. '! ,~ ··•
motion is based upon facts or circumstances unknown or unavailable to complainant at the
time the complaint was filed:t'ftfld
(3) The eomplaint fuF enforeement must be served as follows:
(a) i...t least 19 husiHess days prior to filing a complaint fuF enfureement with the
Commission, complaimmt must give written notice ta defendant and the Commission
that complainant intends to file a eomplaiHt fur enfureemeHt. The Hotiee must identify
the provisions in the interconnection agreemeHt that complainant alleges were or are
being violated, the speeifie aets or failures ta aet that caused or are causing the
\'iolation, and whethef' the eomplainaBt anticipates requesting tcmpoFary or iBjunetive
relief. The notice must be served in the same maBnCF as set furth in subsections (b) and
(e) below, exeept that complainant must also serve the notiee on all pCFsoas designated
in the agf'eement to receive notices;
(4) On the same day the complaint is filed with the Commission,
(b) C_£omplainant must serve a copy of the complaint fur enfureement on defendant's
authorized representative, attorney of record, or designated agent for service of process
the same day the complaint is filed with the Commission. Service may be by telephonic
facsimile, electronic mail, or overnight mail, but the complaint must arrive at defendant's
location on the same day the complaint is filed with the Commission. Service by facsimile or
electronic mail must be followed by a hafflphysical copy of the complaint the next day by
overnight deliverydeposited in the mail and addressed to the defendant on the same
date that the facsimile OF electronic copy is received; and
(e) Complainant must serve a copy of the complaint for enforcement on defendant's
authorized representative, attorney ef Fecord, &'f designated agent for sen'iee of
proeess.
~4) Within 10 business days after service of the complaint, defendant may file aAn
answer to the complaint with the Commission. Any allegations raised in the complaint
and not addressed in the answer are deemed admitted. The answer must contain the
feUowiog:
(a) Contain aA statement of specific facts demonsll'ating that the defendant conferred
with complainant in good faith to resolve the dispute and that despite those efforts the parties
failed to resolve the dispute;
(b) A-f'Respon!!se to each allegation in the complaint and set forth all affirmative
defenses. Any allegations Faised in the complaint and not addressed in the answer are
deemed admitted;
(c) Contain aA statement of the facts or a statement of the law supporting defendant's
position. Statements of facts must be supported by written testimony or one or morewith
affidavits made by persons competent to testify and having personal knowledge of the
relevant facts. Statements oflaw must be supported by appropriate citations. If exhibits are
attached to the affidavits, then the affidavits must contain the foundation for the exhibits; and
( d) The names of up to two peFSons dDesignated up to three persons to receive copies
of other pleadings and documents!t'ftfld
(§.e) On the same day as the answer is filed, the defendant must also file its response
to any motion filed by complainant and its motions for affirmative relief. Each response
and each motion must be filed as a separnte filing. A 1·csponse to 1rny motion filed by
Appendix A
Page 72 of74
ORDER NO.
eomvlainant must be filed with the answer, but as a separate document. The-defendant
must also file any motions for affirmative Felief with the eomplaint, but as a Sef>lll'ate
document. Nothing in this subsection precludes defendant from filing a motion subsequent
to the filing of the answer ifthe motion is based upon facts or circumstances unknown or
unavailable to defendant at the ii.me the answer was filed.
(1S) On the same day the answer is filed with the Commission, the defendant must
serve a copy of the answer to the complainant's authorized representative, attorney of
record, or designated agent for service of process. The answeF must be served as
fallews:·
(a) Defendant must file a cop}' of the answel' with the Cemmissilm 't'iithin 10
business days after sel'Viee of the eemplaint fur enfureement;
(b) Defendaat must deliver a eof>y of the answer ta eomplaiaant the same day the
answer is filed with the Commissien, iH the manner set forth iH subsections (3)(b) and
t3t~
(e) Defeadant must serve a copy of the ans:wer on the complainant's attorney, as
listed in the complaint, OF the JJerson whe signed the eamplaint, if complainant has no
attorney.
(§6) Complainant must file a reply to an answer that contains affirmative defenses within
fuie~ business days after the answer is filed. On the same day the reply is filed with the
Commission, complainant must serve a copy of the reply to defendant's authorized
representative, attorney of record, or designated agent for service of process.The Feply
must be served in the manner set forth in subsections (3)(b) and (3)(e) abo:ve. If the
reply contains new facts or legal issues not raised in the eomplaint, then: the Feply must
also eamply with subseetien (2)(d) abo:v'e,
(2~n A cross-complaint or counterclaim must be answered within the 10-business day
time frame allowed for answers to complaints.
(!!!8) The Commission mustwill conduct a conference regarding each complaint for
enforcement of an interconnection agreement.
(a) The adminis1rative law judge (ALJ) schedules a conference within fuie~ business days
after the answer is filed, to be held as soon theFeafter as is-practicable. At the discretion of
the ALJ, the conference may be conducted by telephone.
(b) Based on the complaint and the answer, all supporting documents filed by the parties,
and the parties' oral statements at the conference, the ALJ determines whether the issues
raised in the complaint can be determined on the pleadings and submissions without further
proceedings or whether further proceedings are necessary. If further proceedings are
necessary, the ALJ establishes a procedural schedule. Nothing in this subsection is intended
to prohibit the bifurcation of issues where appropriate.
(c) In determining whether further proceedings are necessary, the ALJ must consider, at a
minimum, the positions of the parties, the need to clarify evidence thro~gh the examination
of witnesses, the complexity of the issues, the need for prompt resolution, and the
completeness of the information presented.
(d) The ALJ may make oral rulings on the record during the conference on all matters
relevant to the conduct of the proceeding.
Appendix A
Page 73 of74
(119) A party may file with the complaint or answer a request for discovery, stating the
matters to be inquired into and their relationship to matters directly at issue.
(l~<l) When warranted by the facts, the complainant or defendant may file a motion
requesting that an expedited procedure be used. The moving party must file a proposed
expedited procedural schedule along with its motion. The ALJ must schedule a conforence to
be held as soon after the motion is filed as is-practicable to determine whether an expedited
schedule is warranted.
(a) The ALJ mustwill consider whether the issues raised in the complaint or answer
involve a risk of imminent, irrevocable harm to a party or to the public interest.
(b) If a determination is made that an expedited procedure is warranted, the ALJ
mastwill establish a procedure that ensures a prompt resolution of the merits of the dispute,
consistent with due process and other relevant considerations. The ALJ mastwill consider,
but is not bound by, the moving party's proposed expedited procedural schedule.
(c) In general, the ALJ will not entertain a motion for expedited procedure where the
dispute solely involves the payment of money.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 756
Stats. Implemented: ORS 756.040 & 756.500
Hist.: PUC 10-2009, f. & cert. ef. 8-26-09
Appendix A
Page 74 of74

1 | P a g e
Clark Fork Project
2015 – 2016 FERC Orders Table of Contents

Project Document Date Document Title Document No.
1. Clark Fork 01/28/2016
and 2014 and 2015 Implementation Plans Per
Article 402, Annual Threatened and Endangered
Species Plans Per Article 432, and Annual
2016-141380

1 | P a g e

2015 – 2016 FERC Orders Table of Contents

Project Document Date Document Title Document No.
1. Spokane
Energy LLC 04/21/2015 Order authorizing acquisition and disposition of
jurisdictional facilities EC15-82-000
2. PUHCA 05/14/2015 Order granting petition for declaratory order EL15-19-000
3. Spokane
Energy LLC 06/17/2015 Notice of Change in Status ER10-2290-
004
4. Avista/BPA 09/29/2015 Average System Cost Filing ER15-2551-
000
5. Avista/Puget
Sound Energy 05/12/2016 Order No. 1000 Compliance Filing
ER13-94-008
ER15-422-
004

Staff_PR_008 Attachment B FERC Orders Listing Page 1 of 3

1 | P a g e

Spokane River Project
2015 – 2016 FERC Orders
Table of Contents

Project Document Date Document Title Document No.
1. Spokane River 02/19/2015 Order Granting Extension of Time under Total
Dissolved Gas Attainment Plan 2015-0059
2. Spokane River 03/27/2015
Order Granting Extension of Time under Order
Modifying and Approving Water Quality
Attainment Plan
2015-0092
3. Spokane River 06/26/2015 Order Modifying and Approving Five-Year
Fishery Enhancement and Protection Plan 2015-0198
4. Spokane River 12/02/2015 Order approving updated Coeur d’ Alene
Reservation Wetland and Riparian Habitat Plan 2015-0363
5. Spokane River 01/20/2016
Order Approving 2016 to 2019 Five-year
Wetland and Riparian Habitat Protection and
Enhancement Plan
2016-0019
6. Spokane River 04/18/2016 Order Amending Project Boundary 2016-141289
7. Spokane River 04/19/2016 Order Approving Updated Land Use
Management Plan 2016-141294

Staff_PR_008 Attachment B FERC Orders Listing Page 2 of 3

1 | P a g e

Clark Fork Project
2015 – 2016 FERC Orders Table of Contents

Project Document Date Document Title Document No.
1. Clark Fork 01/28/2016
Order Approving 2013 and 2014 Annual Reports
and 2014 and 2015 Implementation Plans Per
Article 402, Annual Threatened and Endangered
Species Plans Per Article 432, and Annual
Fishway Plans per article 433
2016-141380

Staff_PR_008 Attachment B FERC Orders Listing Page 3 of 3

1 | P a g e
Spokane River Project
2015 – 2016 FERC Orders
Table of Contents

Project Document Date Document Title Document No.
1. Spokane River 02/19/2015 Order Granting Extension of Time under Total Dissolved Gas Attainment Plan 2015-0059
2. Spokane River 03/27/2015
Order Granting Extension of Time under Order
Modifying and Approving Water Quality
Attainment Plan
2015-0092
3. Spokane River 06/26/2015 Order Modifying and Approving Five-Year
Fishery Enhancement and Protection Plan 2015-0198
4. Spokane River 12/02/2015 Order approving updated Coeur d’ Alene
Reservation Wetland and Riparian Habitat Plan 2015-0363
5. Spokane River 01/20/2016
Order Approving 2016 to 2019 Five-year Wetland and Riparian Habitat Protection and
Enhancement Plan
2016-0019
6. Spokane River 04/18/2016 Order Amending Project Boundary 2016-141289
7. Spokane River 04/19/2016 Order Approving Updated Land Use
Management Plan 2016-141294

AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 06/15/2016 CASE NO.: AVU-E-16-03 WITNESS: Elizabeth Andrews
REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Paul Kimball
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: State & Federal Regulation
REQUEST NO.: Staff - 001 TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:

Please provide copies of all data requests received and the corresponding responses associated with the Company’s current general rate case docket before the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission.

RESPONSE: Please see Avista's response 001C, which contains TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY or
CONFIDENTIAL information and exempt from public view and is separately filed under
IDAPA 31.01.01, Rule 067 and 233, and Section 9-340D, Idaho Code, and pursuant to the
Protective Agreement between Avista and IPUC Staff dated June 1, 2016. Enclosed with this response is a CD with all data requests and NON-CONFIDENTIAL responses
associated with the current general rate case before the Washington Utilities & Transportation
Commission. Per discussion with Staff the Company has excluded the data responses related to
the Washington AMI project. Avista will continue to provide copies of data requests, along with corresponding data responses, from all parties to the Washington proceeding as they are received
on a monthly basis.

Page 1 of 1
AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 06/15/2016 CASE NO.: AVU-E-16-03 WITNESS: Elizabeth Andrews
REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Jeanne Pluth
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: State & Federal Regulation
REQUEST NO.: Staff - 002 TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:

Please provide copies of the monthly trial balances from January 2014 through the most current month available. Please supplement your response when additional months become available throughout 2016.

RESPONSE: Please see Staff_PR_002-Attachment A for the trial balance for January 2014 through May 2016.

Page 1 of 1
AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 06/15/2016 CASE NO.: AVU-E-16-03 WITNESS: Elizabeth Andrews
REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Jeanne Pluth
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: State & Federal Regulation
REQUEST NO.: Staff - 003 TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:

Please provide a copy of the Company Chart of Accounts.
RESPONSE:

Please see Staff_PR_003-Attachment A for the Company’s chart of accounts.
Page 1 of 3
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Av
g
.

%

C
h
a
n
g
e

f
r
o
m

2
0
0
6

B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
Net Plant Investment Non-Fuel O&M/A&G Retail kWh Sales Retail Therm Sales
Utility Investment and Costs are Rising Faster than Sales
Actual
Forecast
AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 06/20/2016 CASE NO: AVU-E-16-03 WITNESS: Elizabeth Andrews
REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Liz Andrews
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: State & Federal Regulation
REQUEST NO.: Staff-004 TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:

Please list all cost-cutting measures undertaken by the Company during 2014-2016. Explain those cost-cutting measures in detail, and quantify the results of those measures.

RESPONSE:
Beginning in 2012, in a direct response to the continuing increase in non-fuel O&M/A&G year over
year, senior management of the Company took steps to reduce this trend in increasing expenditures.
Examples of cost management efficiencies and steps taken to reduce the growth in expenses is
discussed below and include, among other things, the Voluntary Severance Incentive Plan (VSIP) to
reduce employee complement, and changes to pension and post-retirement medical programs. These changes illustrate Avista’s efforts to control our costs, improve efficiency, and focus on long-term
sustainable savings to continuously improve our service to customers and manage costs into the future.

The impact of these cost management efficiencies and steps taken to reduce the growth in expenses affecting the rate years can be seen in the following chart, provided in Mr. Morris’ direct testimony at page 14, Illustration No. 1. As can be seen in the illustration below, the non-fuel O&M/A&G costs dip
down in 2013, and then grow at somewhat slower pace than in prior years.

Page 2 of 3
The noticeable reductions in O&M costs starting after December 2012 shown in the illustration above,
followed the fourth quarter 2012 implementation of its Voluntary Severance Incentive Plan (VSIP)
program to reduce employee complement at the Company, reducing the overall base labor costs starting
in 2013 and going forward by $5 million on a system basis. The Company’s elimination of its defined benefit pension plan for non-union new hires beginning in 2014, and the transition away from providing
medical coverage for non-union retirees also reduced costs going forward. These changes include:
• For non-union employees, Avista no longer offers a pension plan for new hires beginning
January 1, 2014. Avista will make a contribution to a 401(K) fund established for the employee, but no longer offers a defined benefit pension plan that provides an annual annuity
upon retirement. This reduces future utility operating costs associated with employee benefits.
Changes to plans offered to the bargaining unit employees will be subject to future
negotiations.
• Also beginning January 1, 2014, Avista no longer provides funding for post-retirement medical for non-union new hires. In addition, for both existing and new hire non-union
employees, when the retiree reaches age 65, Avista will no longer provide an Avista-sponsored
medical plan. Through these changes Avista is transitioning out of funding medical coverage
for retirees.
• For 2015 through 2017, these savings related to the Company’s changes in its pension and
post-retirement medical plans on a system basis were estimated to be approximately $2.6
million, $3 million and $3.5 million, respectively, with increasing annual savings expected
going forward.
These savings are reflected in the Company’s Pro Forma Studies, as the reduced level of labor from
the VSIP and pension and post-retirement medical plans are already reflected in the Company’s
twelve-months ended December 2015 results of operations for Idaho, and the 2017 level of pension and post-retirement medical expenses have been reflected in the Pro Forma Employee Benefit adjustments (see Andrews Adjustments 3.03 & 3.04). Mr. Morris explains that the Company
continues to monitor its compensation and benefits practices to ensure that they are competitive with
those offered by other similar utilities, including a design in which a portion of all employees’
compensation is pay-at-risk, which is dependent on achieving cost-saving targets each year for O&M and A&G.
Other reductions in costs include a variety of cost reduction measures as described in various testimonies
as filed. For example, as discussed further by Ms. Rosentrater, Avista’s asset management programs, are
designed, in part, to focus on capital projects that will decrease O&M costs. Our aging and changing infrastructure provides several challenges we need to manage to keep costs under control into the future.
Asset management programs and projects include wood pole management, Aldyl-A pipe replacement,
transmission line rebuilds, and substation equipment replacements and rebuilds. These asset
management capital investments are replacing old and failing assets using a planned and systematic
approach to reduce outages, control costs to benefit customers over the life of these assets, and reduce risks associated with failed equipment.

Further, Mr. Thies, discusses that Avista’s cost-of debt (and resulting interest expense) has trended
downward the last several years, causing the Company’s overall cost of debt to decrease.1 However, as explained by Mr. Morris, as Avista continues to work to control its costs, it is also
experiencing a continuing increase in various compliance and reporting requirements. These

1 Mr. Thies, at page 26 of his direct testimony, also explains that there is an expected increase in cost of debt expected in 2017 compared to 2015 due to the maturation of certain debt.
Page 3 of 3
requirements involve, among other things, monitoring, inspecting, testing, reporting, adding redundancy,
and increasing security – both physical security and cyber security. The requirements are driven by,
among other things, NERC requirements related to electric reliability, FERC requirements related to
assuring the existence of competitive wholesale markets, environmental requirements to ensure we are being good stewards of the environment, and financial requirements to ensure full and fair disclosure of
information. Compliance with these important requirements involve people and systems, which, among
other factors, is putting upward pressure on our O&M costs.

Page 1 of 1
AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 06/15/2016 CASE NO.: AVU-E-16-03 WITNESS: Elizabeth Andrews
REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Jeanne Pluth
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: State & Federal Regulation
REQUEST NO.: Staff - 005 TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:

Please list all expense reports for management personnel for 2015.
RESPONSE:

Consistent with prior Idaho general rate case responses with regard to this request, the Company had limited this response to officer expense reports.

Please see Staff_PR_005-Attachment A for officers’ 2015 expense reports detail.

AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 06/20/2016 CASE NO.: AVU-E-16-03 WITNESS: Elizabeth Andrews
REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Paul Kimball
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: State & Federal Regulation
REQUEST NO.: Staff - 008 TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:

Please provide a copy of all regulatory orders relating to Avista Utilities or the Company and its subsidiaries issued by state agencies in Oregon and Washington, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in 2015 and 2016 to date.

RESPONSE: See Staff_PR_008 Attachment A for the State orders.
See Staff_PR_008 Attachment B for the FERC orders.
Due to the voluminous nature of the attachments, they are being provided in electronic format only
Page 1 of 1
AVISTA CORP. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 06/20/2016 CASE NO.: AVU-E-16-03 WITNESS: Heather Rosentrater
REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Heidi Evans
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: Environmental
REQUEST NO.: Staff – 009 TELEPHONE: [phone]

REQUEST:
Please summarize all of the Company’s environmental cleanup costs during 2015. Please show
all account numbers and the amount booked to each sub account.

RESPONSE:

Staff_PR_009 Attachment A includes all cleanup work, which falls into two general categories: those associated with long-term cleanup sites, and those associated with small spill events, such
as a “car hit pole” with a transformer spill.

A packed venue for the Q2 All Employee
Meetings. If you missed out, you can view a
copy of the presentation here.
June 8, 2016 Vol. 17, Issue 31
In this issue:
•Q2 All Employee Meeting – Executive Summary
•Avista employee places first in A Class category during 2016 World Jet Boat Championships
• Know how to spot signs of heat exhaustion and heat stroke
• June service anniversaries
•Snapshots of the week
•Poll Results, What's Happening & Diversity Calendar
Q2 All Employee Meeting – Executive Summary
INNOVATION, OLD COMPANY MOVIES, PROJECTS AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE WERE KEY TOPICS
SHARED AT THIS QUARTER’S MEETINGS
Avista has thrived for the last 127 years in large part
because we’ve stayed ahead of the curve by inventing
and reinventing our services and processes. Even
though we’ve successfully managed several
transformations at Avista, we have to continue to change
to keep driving the industry forward and offering
customers the right products and services to ensure
their needs are met.
The Quarterly All-Employee Meetings are an opportunity
for you to hear timely and up-to-date news from our
executives, ask questions and learn about how your
work connects with company strategy and success. We
all have a part to play in driving our company forward
and understanding our business is one way to drive
company success.
This quarter’s Employee Meetings featured updates
from Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Scott Morris, Avista Utilities President, Dennis
Vermillion and Chief Financial Officer, Mark Thies.
Morris spoke about our company’s lasting principles and
the special characteristics of our employees. He used
snippets of an old Washington Water Power (WWP)
video to demonstrate that our company’s commitment to
Page 1 of 10The Avista e.view June 8, 201
6 9 201http://avanet.avistacorp.com/news/company/eview/2016/0 -08-2016.as
Staff_PR_010 Attachment A Page 1 of 10
Watch a video from 1984 that showcases
Avista's principles of trust, collaboration and
innovation.
Watch a video of Scott Morris talking about the
implementation of the Customer Service
Information (CIS) system in 1983.
innovation, collaboration and trust is just as strong today
as it was in 1984 when the video was produced for new
employees embarking on a career at WWP. Morris also
provided timely updates from the Annual Shareholders
Meeting and the Quarterly Board Meeting.
“With the Board, we focused primarily on providing
education about cyber security and what Avista is doing
to protect our information and systems,” said Morris.
“We’ve been working closely with the government and
the Washington National Guard to do what we can to
ensure the security of our systems and to protect
ourselves from others that may want access to our
critical systems.”
Morris concluded his portion of the presentation by
reinforcing Avista’s four key focus areas for 2016.
“Customer engagement continues to be an important
focus as we move forward through 2016 and into 2017,”
said Morris. “We’re spending a lot of money on capital
projects, which is important as we invest in updating our
system’s reliability. In addition to ensuring service
reliability to our customers, we also need to think of new
ways to differentiate our level of service to our
customers and to offer them more choices that matter to
them. Additionally, Avista is looking for more economic
development opportunities within the communities we
serve. Our commitment to our community’s vitality needs
to continue to be top of mind as we move forward.”
Investment in our infrastructure and providing safe and
reliable service were the focus of Vermillion’s
presentation and he too had a movie from the old days
to share with employees. It was a clip of Scott Morris
talking about the implementation of the new Customer
Information System circa 1983. This was timely since
Avista was nationally recognized at National Customer Service week this year for the successful
implementation of the new customer service system.
Vermillion soaked up the good natured laughter of the crowd before moving on to provide updates on projects
such as the Noxon Reactor Station, which showcases Avista’s spirit of collaboration and innovation. Avista is
one of the few utilities in the United States to utilize this system to help improve the voltage performance of our
system in Western Montana and Northern Idaho. Vermillion also provided updates on the following projects:
Nine Mile Dam – Upgrades of Units one and two. The Nine Mile
Dam Program began in 2012 and when complete, will increase
generation capacity, improve plant reliability and will reduce
operating and maintenance costs. This July, Avista will be
upgrading units one and two at the dam. Once the entire project
is complete, the incremental energy we’ll be getting from
stepping up the generating capacity will count toward the I-937
Renewable Portfolio requirements.
Long Lake Dam Total Dissolved Gas (TDG) Project. The TDG
project is in place to reduce TDG levels in the river downstream.
Deflectors will be installed at the base of the dam to mitigate
TDG levels in the plunge pool. Additionally, a rock outcrop
located along the spillway will be shaved to allow water to move
through the river more freely. The project is on track to begin this
summer and the work will likely be finished by December 2016.
Page 2 of 10The Avista e.view June 8, 201
6 9 201http://avanet.avistacorp.com/news/company/eview/2016/0 -08-2016.as
Staff_PR_010 Attachment A Page 2 of 10
Medford High Pressure Reduction and Replacement Project.
This project will help Avista reduce future operations and
maintenance costs associated with pipeline reliability, safety,
maintenance and compliance standards. We are replacing three
miles of transmission pipe to reduce 35 miles of pressure. Work
will start in the third quarter of this year and will continue into
2017.
North Spokane High Pressure Gas Main Project. This project is
set to take place this August and will not only contribute to
economic development, but will increase the availability of gas
services in North Spokane near the old Kaiser complex. Avista is
installing two miles of six inch high pressure gas main, which will
serve the new Costco building.
Gas Growth Project. Washington customers are seeing
appealing incentives to switch their existing services to natural
gas. Avista’s Gas Growth Team worked with our Rates
department to implement a pilot project for Washington
customers. The pilot project kicked-off this March and is set to
run until Feb. 28, 2019. This project aims to increase the number
of customers using natural gas and for existing customers, it
improves efficiency in the energy they use.
Relight Washington. This unique project is bringing LED lighting
to small Washington towns. This project is sponsored by the
Transportation Improvement Board and Regional Manager, Paul
Kimmell was instrumental in helping facilitate the success of this
program. LED lighting is more energy efficient – which provides
value for our customers.
Harrington Phase Two Feeder Upgrade. This project is all about
system reliability and efficiency. Avista’s Spokane Electric Line
Crews are upgrading the last of Avista’s 4kV equipment to 13 kV
equipment. The substation electricians and crew members are
also rebuilding the Harrington Substation as part of this upgrade
work, which means it will take less effort to move energy along
the lines.
You can’t highlight construction season without talking safety. Avista went through the first quarter of 2016
without any lost time injuries. This is a first for our company since tracking safety performance metrics. We also
finished the first classes of Human Performance Improvement Training. Two more rounds of training are
planned for later this year. Employees are also encouraged to participate in the Safety Culture Survey, which
will be sent out this summer. The intent of the survey is to get a baseline understanding of what we are doing
well and where we need to focus on making improvements.
Vermillion then handed over the ceremonial clicker to Chief Financial Officer and meeting headliner, Mark
Thies.
Thies began his presentation with a humorous example of the financial consequences of making a promise to
his 10-year old son by telling us a story about his trip to Super Bowl 50 where the “Broncos whomped the
Panthers.”
All joking aside, Thies spoke in detail about Avista’s financial performance.
“2016 is off to a great start,” said Thies. “If you get anything at all out of this presentation, I want to you walk
away knowing that our company is in good financial shape. We’re making sound financial investments in our
system to bolster safety, security and reliability.”
Thies went on to explain some of Avista’s key focus areas.
Page 3 of 10The Avista e.view June 8, 201
6 9 201http://avanet.avistacorp.com/news/company/eview/2016/0 -08-2016.as
Staff_PR_010 Attachment A Page 3 of 10
“We are responsible stewards of our customers’ money and we need to continue to manage our business and
our costs as efficiently as we can,” said Thies. “Looking ahead, we’ll continue to seek constructive rate
decisions while being prudent with our capital and expenses. Additionally we will look at reprioritizing activities
to permanently eliminate costs while also looking at incremental revenue gains through new products and
services. Continuing to focus on economic development and opportunistic investments, will also be a priority.
I’d like to thank each and every employee for doing what you do to ensure we provide value to our customers.”
If you missed the meetings, you can view a PDF copy of the slide presentation here.
(Back to top)
Photo courtesy of MT Actions Photography
Avista employee places first in A Class category during 2016 World Jet
Boat Championships
Gas Serviceman, Russ Hoisington has been involved in jet boat racing for about 11 years. This year, he and
his teammate, Terry O’Keefe, got to experience what it feels like to take the world championship title in this
high-octane, high-adrenaline sport.
Jet Boat racers from around the world gathered in St. Maries, Idaho on May 21 and 22 and raced along the St.
Joe River. From there, the racers sped along the Coeur d’Alene River; traveling by water from Harrison to
Cataldo. The last leg of the race took place on the Snake River from May 27 – 29. Racers endure long hours at
high speeds on the river for several days. Total mileage traveled along each leg of the course was
approximately 545 miles.
“In addition to the intensity and adrenaline rush, one of the main highlights for me was seeing all of our hard
work on the boat we rebuilt get recognized with the win,” Hoisington said. “I’m really proud of our efforts and it
was a ton of fun!”
(Back to top)
Know how to spot signs of heat exhaustion and heat stroke
At Avista, we have employees who are always looking out
for the safety of one another. With warmer than normal
temperatures outside, it’s a good time to brush up on the
warning signs for heat exhaustion and heat stroke. Here are
some great reminder tips from the Center for Disease
Control for you to share as a safety moment in your next
safety meeting, department meeting or with your loved ones
Page 4 of 10The Avista e.view June 8, 201
6 9 201http://avanet.avistacorp.com/news/company/eview/2016/0 -08-2016.as
Staff_PR_010 Attachment A Page 4 of 10
TIPS FOR HOW TO PREVENT HEAT
EXHAUSTION AND HEAT STROKE
• Wear light-weight, light-colored and lose
fitting clothing.
• Protect yourself from the sun by wearing a
hat or using an umbrella.
• Apply sunscreen and drink lots of water.
at home.
Combating heat exhaustion
There are two types of heat exhaustion. Water depletion and
salt depletion.
1. Water depletion includes symptoms of thirst,
weakness, headache and loss of consciousness. Salt
depletion includes symptoms of vomiting, nausea,
dizziness and muscle cramps.
2. To combat heat exhaustion you should move to a
cooler location, lie down and loosen your clothing,
apply cool and wet cloths to as much of your body as
possible and sip water. If symptoms worsen; seek
medical attention immediately.
Heat stroke signs and what to do if you suspect heat
stroke
• Warning signs include:
a. A high body temperature (above 103 degrees
Fahrenheit)
b. Hot, red, dry or moist skin.
c. Rapid and strong pulse.
d. Unconsciousness
• What you need to do if you suspect someone is
suffering from heat stroke.
a. Call 911 immediately – this is a medical emergency.
b. Move the person to a cooler environment.
c. Reduce the person’s body temperature with cool cloths or even a bath.
d. Do not give fluids.
Avista offers annual heat stress reminders for employees who work in extreme weather. This information is
typically covered in their department safety meeting. For a deeper dive on this topic, visit this month’s Safety
Net Bulletin.
(Back to top)
June service anniversaries
Please take the time to recognize the following individuals for their service to Avista. They are celebrating a
milestone work anniversary this month:
NAME POSITION YEARS OF SERVICE
Brad Arnzen Line Foreman 35
Don Falkner Director Tax, Assistant Treasurer 35
John Hanna Customer Project Coordinator 35
Rick Kohlstedt Journeyman Mechanical Structural Shop 35
Kelly Norwood Vice President State & Federal Regulation 35
Dan Scrivner Distribution Dispatcher 35
Nicola Brodrick Tribal ROW Coordinator 25
Matt Clegg Meter Reader 25
Ray Burggraaf System Operator 20
Page 5 of 10The Avista e.view June 8, 201
6 9 201http://avanet.avistacorp.com/news/company/eview/2016/0 -08-2016.as
Staff_PR_010 Attachment A Page 5 of 10
Mark Gabert Wood Pole Project Coordinator 20
Steve Plewman Manager Construction Design 20
Jason Thackston Senior Vice President Energy Resources 20
Tracy Van Orden Director of Internal Audit 20
Ruben Flores Meter Reader 15
Clint Hess Foreman Communications 15
James Mc Dougall Ethics and Compliance Manager 15
Kellee Quick Accounting Analyst 15
Gabriel Sather Journeyman Meterman 15
Jared Schmautz Real Time Scheduler 15
John Wilcox Manager Resource Accounting 15
Michael Busby Manager IT Operations 10
Jessica Sjothun Fleet Assistant 10
William Stone Electric Engineer 10
Eric Atkinson Electric Contract Crew Inspector 5
Brady Hansen Journeyman Lineman 5
Jeff Jones System Engineer SG Security 5
Todd Kiesbuy Regional Business Manager 5
Ian McLelland External Financial Reporting Analyst 5
Mac Mikkelsen Hydro Safety & EAP Coordinator 5
Margie Richards Business Analyst 5
Michael Whitby Manager Gas Replacement Project 5
(Back to top)
Snapshots of the week
Send in your snapshots that depict work/life balance to [e-mail]. Be sure to
include a brief description of your photo so we can share it in e.view.
Page 6 of 10The Avista e.view June 8, 201
6 9 201http://avanet.avistacorp.com/news/company/eview/2016/0 -08-2016.as
Staff_PR_010 Attachment A Page 6 of 10
The botanical gardens at Balboa Park by Kathleen Judd, fleet services.
A snapshot of the Pullman Operations crew by Jenny Blaylock, area operations manager.
(Back to top)
AVAnet Poll and Calendars
We asked . . . You answered
Page 7 of 10The Avista e.view June 8, 201
6 9 201http://avanet.avistacorp.com/news/company/eview/2016/0 -08-2016.as
Staff_PR_010 Attachment A Page 7 of 10
Our Vision - Delivering reliable energy service and the choices that matter most to our
customers.
Understanding the meaning and directional focus of our vision is more important than
being able to recite it correctly word for word. You can access our company vision,
purpose, principles, strategies and key focus areas here.
How do you connect with our company vision? Share your ideas here.
Have a poll question idea? Email your ideas to e.view editor Brandi Smith at
[e-mail].
Page 8 of 10The Avista e.view June 8, 201
6 9 201http://avanet.avistacorp.com/news/company/eview/2016/0 -08-2016.as
Staff_PR_010 Attachment A Page 8 of 10
What's Happening at Avista?
8: Vanguard Retirement Planning Workshop at the Mission Campus from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. in the
auditorium. This series of workshops is designed for employees over the age of 50 with 10 years of
service or more. If you would like to attend, please email Keith Rust at [e-mail] and
indicate if your spouse will be attending. Your RSVP will allow us to order the appropriate number of
workbooks.
Details: You and your spouse are invited to a 4-hour Vanguard workshop designed to help you learn
how to achieve the financial security that can help you realize the retirement of your dreams. This
workshop covers the important financial decisions that are facing those close to retirement. The
information will be presented by Steve Roberts from Vanguard. Avista benefit personnel will also be
there for questions and answers.
Sample of topics to be discussed:
• Transition from full-time work to life beyond the job
• Other lifestyle changes
• Exploring how expenses will change in retirement
• Looking at where the money will come from
• What is a sustainable rate of withdrawal in retirement
• Healthcare decisions
Note: Videotaping of this presentation is not allowed so we will not be able to provide this information
via the web etc. Please feel free to attend with your spouse if possible.
14: A modern master puts Spokane on the map. On Tuesday, June 14 in the Avista Auditorium, CK
Anderson, in conjunction with the American Institute of Architects Spokane, will present “Inside &
Outside the Box: The Uncompromising Vision of Kenneth W. Brooks.”
Architectural historian Glenn Davis will conduct a tour of some of the historical aspects of our Mission
Campus facility, designed by Brooks and fellow Spokane architect Bruce Walker. The event begins at
5:30 p.m. and is free and open to Avista employees and retirees.
July
30: Company Picnic. The Avista Company picnic is a great way to celebrate as a team and to spend
time with family. You and your immediate family are invited to Avista Stadium for a pre-game picnic. The
stadium will be yours to enjoy along with food, prizes and fun for an hour and a half prior to the start of
the baseball game.The picnic begins at 4 p.m. and the game is at 6:30 p.m.More information about how
to order tickets is coming soon. Stay tuned-in to e.view.
If you have an event that you would like to add to the "What's Happening at Avista" calendar, contact
editor Brandi Smith.
Diversity Calendar
Provided by the Avista Diversity Ambassadors
The United States is rich with diversity, which is reflected in the observances celebrated by
its various cultures and populations. Knowledge of the following diversity holidays and
celebrations can enhance Avista's workplace diversity and inclusion effort. If you are
interested in being a Diversity Ambassador at Avista, please contact HR Recruiter, Jen
Boettcher.
January February March April May June
July August September October November December
Page 9 of 10The Avista e.view June 8, 201
6 9 201http://avanet.avistacorp.com/news/company/eview/2016/0 -08-2016.as
Staff_PR_010 Attachment A Page 9 of 10
Corrections Section
We are indeed a human powered company. Thank you for calling the following error(s) to our attention.
While it is always our aim to have a publication free from factual, spelling or grammatical errors, they
sometimes happen. Thanks for your eagle eyes. You can report any corrections you happen upon to
e.view editor Brandi Smith.
(Back to top)
e.view and e.view EXTRA
Click here for other e.view archives
(If you have difficulty viewing graphics or attachments, go to Archives and click on the issue date.)
You are encouraged to submit items of interest to Avista employees for publication in The Avista
e.view. Send your news to Brandi Smith or call at extension 2874.
© Avista Corp. 2016 All rights reserved
Page 10 of 10The Avista e.view June 8, 201
6 9 201http://avanet.avistacorp.com/news/company/eview/2016/0 -08-2016.as
Staff_PR_010 Attachment A Page 10 of 10
AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 06/22/2016 CASE NO.: AVU-E-16-03 WITNESS: Elizabeth Andrews
REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Paul Kimball
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: State & Federal Regulation
REQUEST NO.: Staff-010 TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:

Please provide copies of all employee newsletters issued between 2012-2015.
RESPONSE:

The employee newsletter is the “e.view” which is emailed weekly to all employees. Please see Staff_PR_010 Attachment A for one copy of the newsletter, as a sample of the communications to
the employees as they are too voluminous to print.

All prior newsletters are available on the Company’s intranet. Staff will have digital access to
these employee newsletters while onsite.
Page 1 of 1
AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 06/20/2016 CASE NO.: AVU-E-16-03 WITNESS: Mark Thies
REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Margie Stevens
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: Finance
REQUEST NO.: Staff-011 TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:

Please provide a matrix identifying the major capital expenditure approval levels that includes the dollar level of authorization by employee title, division, and company. Please include within your response the dollar level at which individual capital expenditures require approval by the Board of
Directors or highest threshold available.

RESPONSE:
The Capital Planning Group (CPG), comprised of nine director-level employees from across the
organization, is responsible for prioritizing capital expenditures, allocating funds and ultimately
developing a recommended five-year capital plan. This five-year capital plan is discussed in detail with the Officer group and once agreement regarding funding is reached it is finalized for
submittal to the Finance Committee of the Board of Directors (FC). Through this process the
Officers are approving all funding through approval of the overall plan. The FC reviews the plan
and also approves funding of the individual projects and programs by approval of the overall plan for the first year of the five year plan. The Officers have delegated the CPG authority to make reallocations throughout the year to accommodate revisions and new projects to the extent that the
total approved capital budget is not exceeded. Any new projects over $10 million that were not
part of the original approved plan need to be approved by the FC.

AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 06/17/2016 CASE NO: AVU-E-16-03 WITNESS: Elizabeth Andrews
REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Ryan Finesilver
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: State & Federal Regulation
REQUEST NO.: Staff - 012 TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:

Please provide an analysis of the sale of land and plant for the years 2014 - 2016 to date. Please show gains, losses, and supporting documentation including accounting entries for removal of items from rate base.

RESPONSE: Please see Staff_PR_012 Attachment A for details regarding sales during 2014 – 2015. There has
been no sale of land in 2016. Also see Avista’s response to Staff_DR_013.
AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 06/10/2016 CASE NO: AVU-E-16-03 WITNESS: Liz Andrews
REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Ryan Finesilver
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: State & Federal Regulation
REQUEST NO.: Staff - 013 TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:

Please provide details of any planned sales of land and/or plant for the remainder of 2016 and 2017. Please include within your response the estimated date of those sales and planned treatment (including accounting entries).

RESPONSE: There are no planned sales of land and/or plant for the remainder of 2016 and 2017.
AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 06/15/2016 CASE NO: AVU-E-16-03 WITNESS: Elizabeth Andrews
REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Ryan Finesilver
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: State & Federal Regulation
REQUEST NO.: Staff - 015 TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:

Please provide a schedule showing injuries and damages for the years 2010-2016 to date. Please include within your response the description of each item, the amount for each item, and the account charged.

RESPONSE: Please see Avista's response 015C, which contains TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY or
CONFIDENTIAL information and exempt from public view and is separately filed under
IDAPA 31.01.01, Rule 067 and 233, and Section 9-340D, Idaho Code, and pursuant to the
Protective Agreement between Avista and IPUC Staff dated June 1, 2016. Please see Staff_PR_015C Confidential Attachment A for the requested information. Due to the
voluminous nature of the response, descriptions for all Idaho claims over a $2,000 threshold have
been provided. This accounts for $878,556.01 of the $1,030,238.61 of claims during the
2010-2016 YTD period.

Staff_PR_023 Attachment A Page 1 of 1


 
6X
P
P
D
U
\

R
I

0
L
V
V
W
D
W
H
P
H
Q
W
V

I
R
U

W
K
H

<
H
D
U

(
Q
G
H
G

'
H
F
H
P
E
H
U









$V
V
H
W
V

/
L
D
E
L
O
L
W
L
H
V
(T
X
L
W
\
1H
W


,
Q
F
R
P
H



   
$


3
R
Z
H
U
7
D
[

*
U
R
V
V

8
S

)
D
F
W
R
U

&
R
U
U
H
F
W
L
R
Q
'H
I
H
U
U
H
G

L
Q
F
R
P
H

W
D
[
H
V





















5H
J
X
O
D
W
R
U
\

D
V
V
H
W
V

I
R
U

G
H
I
H
U
U
H
G

L
Q
F
R
P
H

W
D
[






















%


&
R
U
U
H
F
W
L
R
Q

R
I

5
H
J
X
O
D
W
R
U
\

/
L
D
E
L
O
L
W
\

U
H
O
D
W
H
G

W
R

6
W
D
W
H

'
H
I
H
U
U
H
G

7
D
[

$
V
V
H
W
V
2W
K
H
U

Q
R
Q

F
X
U
U
H
Q
W

O
L
D
E
L
O
L
W
L
H
V

D
Q
G

G
H
I
H
U
U
H
G

F
U
H
G
L
W
V






















'H
I
H
U
U
H
G

L
Q
F
R
P
H

W
D
[
H
V






















,Q
F
R
P
H

W
D
[
H
V

U
H
F
H
L
Y
D
E
O
H






















,Q
F
R
P
H

W
D
[

H
[
S
H
Q
V
H























&X
P
X
O
D
W
L
Y
H

,
Q
F
R
P
H

7
D
[

,
P
S
D
F
W










$F
F
R
X
Q
W
V

S
D
\
D
E
O
H

D
Q
G

R
W
K
H
U

O
L
D
E
L
O
L
W
L
H
V






















3U
R
Y
L
V
L
R
Q

I
R
U

L
Q
F
R
P
H

W
D
[
H
V






















72
7
$
/

&
8
5
5
(
1
7

3
(
5
,
2
'

0
,
6
6
7
$
7
(
0
(
1
7
6



,
5
2
1

&
8
5
7
$
,
1

$
3
3
5
2
$
&
+



























































































!"#
&


3
R
Z
H
U
7
D
[






(
V
W
L
P
D
W
H

Y
V

$
F
W
X
D
O

'
L
I
I
H
U
H
Q
F
H
,Q
F
R
P
H

W
D
[

H
[
S
H
Q
V
H






















'


&
R
U
U
H
F
W
L
R
Q

R
I

(
F
R
Y
D

U
H
O
D
W
H
G

9
D
O
X
D
W
L
R
Q

$
O
O
R
Z
D
Q
F
H
,Q
F
R
P
H

I
U
R
P

G
L
V
F
R
Q
W
L
Q
X
H
G

R
S
H
U
D
W
L
R
Q
V





















52
/
/
2
9
(
5

,
0
3
$
&
7

2
)

3
5
,
2
5

3
(
5
,
2
'

0
,
6
6
7
$
7
(
0
(
1
7
6

7
+
$
7

5
(
0
$
,
1

8
1
&
2
5
5(
&
7
(
'
1R
Q
H

Q
R
W
H
G
&X
P
X
O
D
W
L
Y
H

,
Q
F
R
P
H

7
D
[

,
P
S
D
F
W










3U
R
Y
L
V
L
R
Q

I
R
U

L
Q
F
R
P
H

W
D
[
H
V






















72
7
$
/

&
8
5
5
(
1
7

3
(
5
,
2
'

0
,
6
6
7
$
7
(
0
(
1
7
6



5
2
/
/
2
9
(
5

$
3
3
5
2
$
&
+






















'H
E
L
W


&
U
H
G
L
W


L
Q





V
Staff_PR_023 Attachment B Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 06/16/2016 CASE NO.: AVU-E-16-03 WITNESS: Mark Thies
REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Adam Munson
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: Finance
REQUEST NO.: Staff - 023 TELEPHONE: [phone]

REQUEST:
Please provide a copy of each adjusting journal entry proposed by the Company’s independent
auditors in the two most recent audits of the Company. Please include within your response the documentation supporting these adjustments, and the documentation supporting any items that
the Company decided to not adjust that are not reflected in the Company’s financial records
and/or financial statements.

RESPONSE:
There were no adjusting entries proposed. Please see Staff_PR_023 Attachment A and B for the
“passed upon” adjustments.

Page 1 of 1

AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 06/20/2016 CASE NO.: AVU-E-16-03 WITNESS: Elizabeth Andrews
REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Adam Munson
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: Corporate Accounting
REQUEST NO.: Staff – 024 TELEPHONE: [phone]

REQUEST:
Please provide a list of all leased items in 2015 and 2016 to date. Please separate capital leases
from operating leases and show the dates, terms, amounts, and accounts used for each lease.

RESPONSE:

Please see Staff_PR_024 Attachment A for a list of all leased items in 2015 and 2016 year-to-date.

AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 06/16/2016 CASE NO.: AVU-E-16-03 WITNESS: Elizabeth Andrews
REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Adam Munson
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: Corporate Accounting
REQUEST NO.: Staff - 025 TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:

Please provide a schedule of prepaid items for 2015 showing amounts posted, vendor names, explanations, and accounts to which these items were booked. Please include within your response any significant changes to prepaid items (by account) occurring, or planned to occur, in
2016.

RESPONSE:
Please see Staff_PR_025 Attachment A for the prepaid and supporting documentation.
AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 06/22/2016 CASE NO.: AVU-E-16-03 WITNESS: Elizabeth Andrews
REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Annette Brandon
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: State & Federal Regulation
REQUEST NO.: Staff – 026 TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:

For each officer of the Company, please provide the total dollar amount of remuneration for 2012-2015, and 2016 and 2017 amounts included in the rate case. Please separate by year, salary, incentive pay, options, benefits, and other. For each officer, please provide the percentages of his
or her total remuneration that are allocated to other subsidiaries along with the basis for that
allocation.

RESPONSE:

Please see Avista's response 026C, which contains TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY or CONFIDENTIAL information and exempt from public view and is separately filed under IDAPA 31.01.01, Rule 067 and 233, and Section 9-340D, Idaho Code, and pursuant to the
Protective Agreement between Avista and IPUC Staff dated June 1, 2016.

Please see Staff_PR_026C Confidential Attachment A for total executive officer compensation
2012-2015. The data provided is categorized by individual executive officer, FERC account1, and expenditure type (regular payroll, paid time off, incentive). Benefits are part of an overall labor
loader which is applied to the general ledger account where the direct labor charges originate.
Overhead loaders are not tracked specific to individual employees. Please see the Company’s
response to Staff_PR_027 Attachment F for total company benefit charges for 2012-2015. Incentive compensation for executive officers is charged to general ledger account 920 for metrics related to customers and 417 for metrics related to earnings-per-share. Please see the Company’s
response to Staff_PR_027 Attachment G for incentive compensation broken down between
non-executive officer and executive officer for 2012-2015.
Please see the Company’s Pro-Forma adjustment No. 3.04 Pro-Forma Employee Benefits (including pension and medical) for calculation and 2.09 Restate Incentive for details of the
incentive calculation. For 2016 executive officer salaries please see Andrews’ electronic work
papers PF-Labor and Benefits/(2) (ID2016) FLB Labor-Executive. The basis for the pro-forma
non-utility allocation is the prior year’s actual labor percentage of 17% non-utility and 83% utility.

1 Included within the data are charges to non-utility accounts (400 level) which are not included in the Company’s filed case.
AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 06/22/2016 CASE NO.: AVU-E-16-03 WITNESS: Elizabeth Andrews
REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Annette Brandon
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: State & Federal Regulation
REQUEST NO.: Staff – 027 TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:

Please provide the following direct labor related information as recorded for the twelve months ended December 31, 2011-2015. Information, where applicable, should be listed by O&M expense, other expense, construction and other account groups (listed by functional categories, i.e.
generation, transmission, distribution, customer, A&G, etc.). Please provide the information on a
system-wide basis, and on an Idaho electric and Idaho gas jurisdiction basis. The response should
include wages and salaries for each employee category (officer, exempt, non-exempt, and union), paid time-off, overtime, bonuses, incentive pay, and overheads for pension, benefits, and payroll taxes. Please also include average and year-end number of employees by employee category.
Include part-time and temporary employees as full-time equivalents.

RESPONSE: Please see Staff_PR_027 Attachments A-E for 2011-2015 total labor charges, incentive
compensation, and benefits for System and Idaho electric and Idaho natural gas. Data is organized
by service (electric, gas north), FERC account and function (transmission, distribution, etc.). Benefit compensation is based on an overhead loader which is applied to the general ledger
account the labor costs originate from. For ease of reference, please see Staff_PR_027 Attachment
F for a summary of benefit compensation and Staff_PR_027 Attachment G for incentive
compensation for 2011-2015. See Staff_PR_027 Attachment H for average and year end number
of employees by employee category.
Due to the voluminous nature, data is provided in electronic format only.

Page 1 of 1
AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 06/22/2016 CASE NO.: AVU-E-16-03 WITNESS: Elizabeth Andrews
REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Annette Brandon
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: State & Federal Regulation
REQUEST NO.: Staff – 028 TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:

Please provide the quantifiable savings from any cost/workforce reduction programs during the past five years. Please provide any additional workforce reduction programs planned for 2016-2017.

RESPONSE:
Please see Staff_PR_028 Attachment A for the net benefits/cost reductions associated with the
Company’s 2012 Voluntary Severance Incentive Plan (VSIP).

To mitigate the annual growth in operating expenses, Avista has ongoing hiring restrictions, which requires approval by the Chairman/President/CEO, the President of the Utility, the Chief Financial
Officer, and the Sr. VP for Human Resources for all replacement or new hire positions.

In addition to that noted above, in an effort to keep benefit costs down, effective January 1, 2014
the Company made changes to its retirement income (pension) and post-retirement medical plans offered to non-union employees, as follows:

• For non-union employees, Avista no longer offers a pension plan for new hires (hired on or
after January 1, 2014). Avista will make a contribution to a 401(K) fund established for the employee, but no longer offers a defined benefit pension plan that provides an annual
annuity upon retirement. This reduces future utility operating costs associated with
employee benefits. Changes to plans offered to the bargaining unit employees will be
subject to future negotiations.
• Avista no longer provides funding for post-retirement medical for non-union new hires (hired on or after January 1, 2014). In addition, for both existing and new hire non-union
employees, when the retiree reaches age 65, Avista will no longer provide an
Avista-sponsored medical plan. Through these changes Avista is transitioning out of
funding medical coverage for retirees.
• In 2016 and 2017, savings related to the Company’s changes in its pension and post-
retirement medical plans on a system basis are estimated to be approximately $3.0 million
and $3.5 million, respectively, with increasing annual savings expected going forward.
These savings are reflected in the Company’s Pro Forma Studies, as the reduced level of labor
from the VSIP is already reflected in the Company’s twelve-months ended December 2015 results
of operations for Idaho, and the 2017 level of pension and post-retirement medical expenses have
been reflected in the Pro Forma Employee Benefit adjustments (see Andrews Adjustments 3.03 & 3.04).
Page 1 of 3
AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 06/22/2016 CASE NO.: AVU-E-16-03 WITNESS: Elizabeth Andrews
REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Annette Brandon
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: State & Federal Regulation
REQUEST NO.: Staff – 029 TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:

Please summarize all benefit and retirement plans provided to any classification of Company employees. Please also include any changes that have occurred to the benefits/accruals during the past five years.

RESPONSE:
All regular employees, including executive officers, are eligible for the Company’s Qualified
Defined Benefit plan (hires after 01.01.14 – see below), the Company’s 401(k) plan, health and
dental coverage, Company-paid term life insurance, disability insurance, paid time off and paid
holidays. This benefit package offers several choices as to the type of medical plan, dental plan, life insurance, etc to determine the best fit for their circumstances. These plans are designed to be
competitive with the overall market practices and are in place to attract and retain the talent needed
in the business. As with all portions of the plan, the Company works with a third-party
administrator to determine the annual rates for the Company and for each individual employee based on their elections. Avista sponsors a self-funded medical benefit plan that provides various levels of coverage for
medical, dental and vision. Avista encourages employees to take responsibility for their health care
decisions and make lifestyle changes to avoid health care issues. The Company also encourages participants to adopt and maintain healthy lifestyles, and use health care wisely. Proactive programs are set up to help individuals change their behaviors and live a healthier life. The
Company addresses this by using a health continuum; low risk (Wellness), moderate risk
(Wellness, Lifestyle Health Coaching) and high risk (Disease Management, Case Management).
Retirement programs are crucial to attracting and retaining a skilled workforce within the utility
industry. The Company provides a defined benefit pension plan and a defined contribution plan
(401k) to employees.

For employees hired before January 1, 2014, The Company provides a defined benefit pension plan which provides a retirement benefit based upon employees’ compensation and years of
credited service. The retirement benefit is based on a participant’s final average annual base salary
for the highest 36 consecutive months during the last 120 months of service with the Company.
Non- union employees hired on or after January 1, 2014 are no longer eligible to participate in this plan.

All employees are eligible to participate in the defined contribution plan, or 401(k) plan which
provides tax deferred savings providing partial matching of employee contributed dollars (except
Page 2 of 3
for union employees). The matching feature encourages participation in the plan and provides
incentive to maximize contributions to take full advantage of the Company match.

As a result of the 2013 benefit plan review, the following changes were made which will result in long term reduction in expenses:

• The defined benefit pension plan was revised such that as of January 1, 2014, the plan will
be closed to all non-union employees hired or rehired by Avista on or after January 1, 2014. All actively employed non-union employees that were hired prior to January 1, 2014, are
currently covered under the defined benefit pension plan, and will continue accruing
benefits as originally specified in the plan. A defined contribution 401(k) plan will replace
the defined benefit pension plan for all non-union employees hired or rehired on or after
January 1, 2014. Under the defined contribution plan the Company will provide a non-elective contribution as a percentage of each employee’s pay based on his or her age.
This defined contribution is in addition to the existing 401(k) contribution in which we
match a portion of the pay deferred by each participant.

• Revisions were made to the lump sum calculation effective January 1, 2014, for non-union participants who retire under the defined pension plan. The lump sum amount is equivalent
to the present value of the annuity based upon applicable discount rates.

• The health care benefit plan was also revised for non-union employees hired or rehired on
or after January 1, 2014. Upon retirement, the Company will no longer provide a
contribution toward the medical premiums for these employees. We will provide access to the retiree medical plan, but the non-union employees hired or rehired on or after January
1, 2014 will pay the full cost of premiums upon retirement.

• Also beginning in January 1, 2020 the method of calculating health insurance premiums
for non-union retirees under age 65 and active Company employees will be revised. The
revisions will result in separate health insurance premium calculations for each group.

In addition, executives are offered the following benefits:

1. Supplemental Executive Officer Retirement Plan (SERP) In addition to the Company’s retirement plan for all employees, the Company provides
additional pension benefits through the SERP to executive officers of the Company who
have attained the age of 55 and a minimum of 15 years of credited service with the
Company. The costs associated with SERP are excluded from retail rates.
2. Deferred Compensation
The Executive Officer Deferred Compensation plan provides the opportunity to defer up to
75% of base salary and up to 100% of cash bonuses for payment at a future date. This plan
is competitive in the market, and provides eligible employees and executive officers with a
tax-efficient savings method. The costs associated with Deferred Compensation are excluded from retail rates.

Avista regularly participates in a comprehensive benefit study, BENEVAL, conducted by Towers
Watson which compares the total value of our benefit package to the total benefit value of our peers. This study is comparable to the peer group benchmarking conducted annually for direct compensation.

Page 3 of 3
The Company’s process for determining executive pay and benefits effectively manages the costs
associated with total executive compensation while meeting the Company’s goal of recruiting and
retaining the executive officers needed to efficiently manage the Company.

AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 06/22/2016 CASE NO.: AVU-E-16-03 WITNESS: Elizabeth Andrews
REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Annette Brandon
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: State & Federal Regulation
REQUEST NO.: Staff – 030 TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:

Please provide the amount of Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan expense, if any, that is included in the test year.

RESPONSE:
No Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan expenses have been included in the test year.

Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 1 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 2 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 3 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 4 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 5 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 6 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 7 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 8 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 9 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 10 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 11 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 12 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 13 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 14 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 15 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 16 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 17 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 18 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 19 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 20 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 21 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 22 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 23 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 24 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 25 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 26 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 27 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 28 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 29 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 30 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 31 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 32 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 33 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment A Page 34 of 34
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 1 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 2 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 3 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 4 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 5 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 6 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 7 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 8 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 9 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 10 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 11 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 12 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 13 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 14 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 15 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 16 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 17 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 18 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 19 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 20 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 21 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 22 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 23 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 24 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 25 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 26 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 27 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 28 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 29 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 30 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 31 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment B Page 32 of 32
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
January 2013
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 1 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 2 of 32
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation i
January 2013
Table of Contents
Purpose and actuarial statement..........................................................................................................1
Section 1 : Summary of key results......................................................................................................3
Benefit cost, assets & obligations ......................................................................................................3
Comments on results .........................................................................................................................4
Participant information........................................................................................................................5
Section 2 : Accounting exhibits............................................................................................................7
2.1 Disclosed benefit cost ..............................................................................................................7
2.2 Balance sheet asset/(liability) ..................................................................................................8
2.3 Accumulated other comprehensive (income)/loss...................................................................9
2.4 Additional disclosure information ...........................................................................................10
2.5 Changes in disclosed liabilities and assets............................................................................11
2.6 Reconciliation of net balances ...............................................................................................12
2.7 Reconciliation with prior year’s disclosure .............................................................................13
Section 3 : Data exhibits......................................................................................................................15
3.1 Plan participant data ..............................................................................................................15
3.2 Age and service distribution of participating employees........................................................16
Appendix A............................................................................................................................................17
Statement of actuarial assumptions and methods ...........................................................................17
Appendix B............................................................................................................................................23
Summary of principal plan provisions ..............................................................................................23
Appendix C............................................................................................................................................27
Glossary ...........................................................................................................................................27
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 3 of 32
ii Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
This page is intentionally blank
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 4 of 32
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 1
January 2013
Purpose and actuarial statement
As requested by Avista Corporation (Avista), this report provides information for disclosure purposes
required by FASB Accounting Standards Codification Topic 715 (ASC 715) for your fiscal year ending
December 31, 2012 for the Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation (the Plan).
The exhibits present year-end disclosure information in accordance with ASC 715-20-50, including net
balance sheet position of the Plan, cash flow, Plan asset information, amortization amounts during the
fiscal year, participant information, the provisions on which the valuation is based, and the actuarial
assumptions and methods used in the calculations. Additional input is required by Avista in relation to
the plan asset disclosures specified in ASC 715-20-50-1(d) (public entities).
This year-end disclosure report supplements the Net Periodic Benefit Cost/(Income) report that was
previously provided to Avista Corporation. These two reports should be considered together as a
complete report for the Plan for your fiscal year ending December 31, 2012. See the Net Periodic
Benefit Cost/(Income) report for additional discussion of the nature of actuarial calculations and more
information related to participant data.
Accumulated other comprehensive (income)/loss amounts shown in the report are shown prior to
adjustment for deferred taxes. Any such deferred tax allowance should be made in consultation with
Avista’s tax advisors and auditors.
This report is provided subject to the terms set out herein and in our engagement letter dated
January 4, 2003 and the accompanying General Terms and Conditions of Business. This report is
provided solely for Avista’s use and for the specific purposes indicated above. It may not be suitable
for use in any other context or for any other purpose.
Except where we expressly agree in writing, this report should not be disclosed or provided to any
third party, other than as provided below. In the absence of such consent and an express assumption
of responsibility, no responsibility whatsoever is accepted by us for any consequences arising from
any third party relying on this report or any advice relating to its contents.
Avista may make a copy of this report available to its auditors, but we make no representation as to
the suitability of this report for any purpose other than that for which it was originally provided and
accept no responsibility or liability to Avista’s auditors in this regard. Avista should draw the provisions
of this paragraph to the attention of its auditors when passing this report to them.
In preparing these results, we have relied upon information and data provided to us orally and in
writing by Avista Corporation and other persons or organizations designated by Avista Corporation.
We have relied on all the data and information provided, including Plan provisions, membership data
and asset information, as being complete and accurate. We have not independently verified the
accuracy or completeness of the data or information provided, but we have performed limited checks
for consistency.
The results summarized in this report involve actuarial calculations that require assumptions about
future events. Avista Corporation is responsible for the selection of the assumptions. We believe that
the assumptions used in this report are reasonable for the purposes for which they have been used.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 5 of 32
2 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
In our opinion, all calculations are in accordance with US GAAP and the procedures followed and the
results presented are in conformity with applicable actuarial standards of practice.
The undersigned consulting actuaries are members of the Society of Actuaries and meet the
“Qualification Standards for Actuaries Issuing Statements of Actuarial Opinion in the United States”
relating to pension plans. Our objectivity is not impaired by any relationship between the plan sponsor
and our employer, Towers Watson Delaware Inc.
Susan E. Hedrick, FSA, EA
Senior Consulting Actuary
Towers Watson
Erik A. Heiskanen, ASA, EA
Consulting Actuary
Towers Watson
January 2013
K:\Avista\Db1\Rept\2012\2012 Pension Disclosure.docx
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 6 of 32
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 3
January 2013
Section 1: Summary of key results
Benefit cost, assets & obligations
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
Fiscal Year Beginnin 01/01/2012 01/01/2011
Benefit Cost/
(Income)
Net Periodic Benefit Cost/(Income) 25,795,032 20,956,583
Immediate Recognition of Benefit
Cost/(Income) due to Special Events1 0 400,000
Total Benefit Cost/(Income)25,795,032 21,356,583
Measurement Date 12/31/2012 12/31/2011
Plan Asset Fair Value of Assets (FVA)406,061,372 328,149,754
Market Related Value of Assets (MRVA)406,061,372 328,149,754
Return on Fair Value Assets during
Prior Year
15.769%4.716%
Benefit
Obligations
Accumulated Benefit Obligation (ABO)(481,327,417) (406,107,812)
Projected Benefit Obligation (PBO)(556,525,469) (468,149,118)
Funded Ratio Fair Value of Assets to ABO 84.4%80.8%
Fair Value of Assets to PBO 73.0%70.1%
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
(Income)/Loss
Net Transition Obligation/(Asset)0 0
Net Prior Service Cost/(Credit)319,064 665,264
Net Loss/(Gain)213,082,098 184,066,197
Total Accumulated Other Comprehensive
(Income)/Loss 213,401,162 184,731,461
Assumptions2 Discount Rate 4.150%5.050%
Expected Long-term Return on
Plan Assets 6.950% 7.400%
Rate of Compensation/Salary Increase 3.000% - 19.000% 3.000% - 19.000%
Pension Increase for In-Payment Benefits N/A N/A
Participant Dat Census Date 01/01/2012 01/01/2011
1 Additional benefits provided to former CP National employees.2 Rates are expressed on an annual basis where applicable.3 Census data as of January 1, 2012 with updates to reflect the voluntary severance program based on data provided by the
plan sponsor.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 7 of 32
4 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
Comments on results
The actuarial loss due to demographic experience, including any assumption changes during the prior
year was $70,070,047. The actuarial gain due to investment return different from assumed during the
prior year was $30,508,570.
The accumulated other comprehensive income prior to tax adjustment increased from $184,731,461
as of December 31, 2011 to $213,401,162 as of December 31, 2012. The increase resulted primarily
from the change in discount rate, and was offset by the gain from investment experience.
Plan provisions and assumptions
Appendix A outlines the assumptions and methods used in the valuation. The following assumption
changes are effective December 31, 2012:
The discount rate used to value plan liabilities changed from 5.05% to 4.15%.
The plan’s mortality assumption was updated to reflect mortality improvements through 2013.
The mortality assumption used in the prior valuation assumed mortality improvements through
2012.
The interest rate for valuing lump sums changed from 6.0% in all future years, to 4.0% in 2013
increasing 0.5% per year to the ultimate rate of 6.0% in 2017 and beyond.
There were no other changes to the assumptions and methods since the January 1, 2012 benefit cost
report.
There were 54 active participants as of January 1, 2012 that were included on the list of employees
electing the voluntary severance program during 2012 provided by Avista on January 2, 2013. These
participants were valued as retirees and deferred vested participants effective January 1, 2013 for the
December 31, 2012 disclosure results. This change increased the Projected Benefit Obligation by
$2,023,650 as of December 31, 2012. This event was not treated as a curtailment.
Appendix B outlines our understanding of the principal provisions of the Plan being valued. There
were no changes to the principal provisions of the Plan since January 1, 2012.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 8 of 32
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 5
January 2013
Participant information
Participant data used in the actuarial valuation are summarized below along with comparable
information from the prior Census Date.
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
Measurement Date
Census Date
12 31/2012
01/01/2012
12/31 2011
01/01/2011
Participatin Number 1,468 1,459
Employee
Average Annual Plan
Compensation/Salary (limited)
75,846 72,777
Average Age 46.90 47.07
Average Credited Service 14.98 15.32
Participants with Number 265 279
Deferred Benefit
Average Annual Deferred
Benefits
6,894 6,359
Participants Receiving Number 1,056 1,004
Benefit
Average Annual Benefit
Payments
16,148 16,226
1 There were 54 active participants as of January 1, 2012 that were included on the list of employees electing the voluntary
severance program during 2012 provided by Avista on January 2, 2013. These participants were valued as retirees and
participants with deferred benefits effective January 1, 2013 for the December 31, 2012 disclosure results.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 9 of 32
6 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
This page is intentionally blank
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 10 of 32
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 7
January 2013
Section 2: Accounting exhibits
2.1 Disclosed benefit cost
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
Fiscal Year Endin 12/31/2012 12/31/2011
Disclosed Benefit Cost
1 Employer service cost 15,585,349 12,835,036
2 Interest cost 23,128,160 22,872,891
3 Expected return on assets (23,810,253)(23,115,182)
4 Subtotal 14,903,256 12,592,745
5 Net transition obligation/(asset) amortization 0 0
6 Net prior service cost/(credit) amortization 346,200 474,663
7 Net loss/(gain) amortization 10,545,576 7,889,175
8 Amortization subtotal 10,891,776 8,363,838
9 Net periodic benefit cost/(income)25,795,032 20,956,583
10 Cost of curtailments 0 0
11 Cost of settlements 0 0
12 Cost of special benefits 0 400,000
13 Disclosed benefit cost 25,795,032 21,356,583
B Assumptions Used to Determine Benefit Cost2
1 Discount rate 5.050%5.700%
2 Long-term rate of return on assets 6.950%7.400%
3 Rate of compensation/salary increase 3.000% - 19.000% 3.000% - 19.000%
1 Additional benefits provided to former CP National employees.2 These assumptions were used to calculate Net Periodic Benefit Cost/(Income) as of the beginning of the year. Rates are
expressed on an annual basis where applicable. See Appendix A for interim measurements, if any.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 11 of 32
8 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
2.2 Balance sheet asset/(liability)
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
Fiscal Year Endin 12/31/2012 12/31/2011
Development of Balance Sheet Asset/(Liability)
1 Projected benefit obligation (PBO)(556,525,469) (468,149,118)
2 Fair value of assets (FVA)406,061,372 328,149,754
3 Net balance sheet asset/(liability)(150,464,097) (139,999,364)
B Current and Noncurrent Allocation
1 Noncurrent assets 0 0
2 Current liabilities 0 0
3 Noncurrent liabilities (150,464,097) (139,999,364)
4 Net balance sheet asset/(liability)(150,464,097) (139,999,364)
C Reconciliation of Net Balance Sheet Asset/(Liability)
1 Net balance sheet asset/(liability) at end of prior
fiscal year
(139,999,364) (103,230,170)
2 Employer service cost (15,585,349)(12,835,036)
3 Interest cost (23,128,160)(22,872,891)
4 Actual return on assets 54,318,823 14,704,702
5 Plan amendments 0 0
6 Actuarial gain/(loss)(70,070,047)(41,365,969)
7 Employer contributions 44,000,000 26,000,000
8 Benefits paid directly by Avista 0 0
9 Acquisitions/divestitures 0 0
10 Curtailments 0 0
11 Settlements 0 0
12 Special benefits 0 (400,000)
13 Net balance sheet asset /(liability) at end of current
fiscal year (150,464,097) (139,999,364)
D Assumptions and Dates Used at Disclosure
1 Discount rate 4.150%5.050%
2 Rate of compensation/salary increase 3.000% - 19.000% 3.000% - 19.000%
3 Census date 01/01/2012 01/01/2011
1 Additional benefits provided to former CP National employees.2 Rates are expressed on an annual basis where applicable.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 12 of 32
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 9
January 2013
2.3 Accumulated other comprehensive (income)/loss
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
Fiscal Year Endin 12/31/2012 12/31/2011
Accumulated Other Comprehensive (Income)/Los
1 Net transition obligation/(asset)0 0
2 Net prior service cost/(credit)319,064 665,264
3 Net loss/(gain)213,082,098 184,066,197
4 Accumulated other comprehensive
(income)/loss1 213,401,162 184,731,461
B Development of Accumulated Othe
Comprehensive (Income)/Loss (AOCI)
1 AOCI at prior fiscal year end 184,731,461 143,318,850
2 Less amounts amortized during the year
a Net transition obligation/(asset)0 0
b Net prior service cost/(credit)346,200 474,663
c Net loss/(gain)10,545,576 7,889,175
3 Occurring during the year
a Net prior service cost/(credit)0 0
b Net loss/(gain)39,561,477 49,776,449
4 AOCI at current fiscal year end 213,401,162 184,731,461
1 Amount shown is pre-tax and should be adjusted by plan sponsor for tax effects.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 13 of 32
10 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
2.4 Additional disclosure information
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
A Accumulated Benefit Obligation (ABO)
1 ABO at current fiscal year end (481,327,417)
2 ABO at prior fiscal year end (406,107,812)
B Expected Future Benefit Payment
1 During fiscal year ending 12/31/2013 23,158,595
2 During fiscal year ending 12/31/2014 22,918,151
3 During fiscal year ending 12/31/2015 23,983,843
4 During fiscal year ending 12/31/2016 25,077,351
5 During fiscal year ending 12/31/2017 26,278,255
6 During fiscal year ending 12/31/2018 through 12/31/2022 153,338,227
C Expected Contributions during fiscal year ending
December 31, 2013
Employer 44,000,000
D Expected Amortization Amounts during fiscal year ending
December 31, 20131
1 Amortization of net transition obligation/(asset)0
2 Amortization of net prior service cost/(credit)319,064
3 Amortization of net loss/(gain)12,298,415
1 These amounts have been determined assuming there are no special events, plan amendments, assumption changes, or
actuarial losses/(gains) during the upcoming fiscal year.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 14 of 32
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 11
January 2013
2.5 Changes in disclosed liabilities and assets
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
Fiscal Year Endin 12/31/2012 12/31/2011
Change in Projected Benefit Obligation
(PBO)
1 PBO at prior fiscal year end 468,149,118 409,942,399
2 Employer service cost 15,585,349 12,835,036
3 Interest cost 23,128,160 22,872,891
4 Actuarial loss/(gain)70,070,047 41,365,969
5 Plan participants’ contributions 0 0
6 Benefits paid from plan assets (20,407,205)(19,267,177)
7 Benefits paid from Avista 0 0
8 Administrative expenses paid 0 0
9 Plan change 0 0
10 Acquisitions/divestitures 0 0
11 Curtailments 0 0
12 Settlements 0 0
13 Special benefits 0 400,000
14 PBO at current fiscal year end 556,525,469 468,149,118
B Change in Plan Asset
1 Fair value of assets at prior fiscal year
end
328,149,754 306,712,229
2 Actual return on assets 54,318,823 14,704,702
3 Employer contributions 44,000,000 26,000,000
4 Plan participants’ contributions 0 0
5 Benefits paid (20,407,205)(19,267,177)
6 Administrative expenses paid 0 0
7 Acquisitions/divestitures 0 0
8 Settlements 0 0
9 Special benefits 0 0
10 Fair value of assets at current fiscal year
end 406,061,372 328,149,754
1 Additional benefits provided to former CP National employees.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 15 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 16 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 17 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 18 of 32
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 15
January 2013
Section 3: Data exhibits
3.1 Plan participant data
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
Censu Date 01/01/2012 01/01/2011
Participating Employee
1 Number 1,468 1,459
2 Total annual plan compensation/salary 111,341,444 106,181,784
3 Average plan compensation/salary 75,846 72,777
4 Average age (years) 46.90 47.07
5 Average credited service (years) 14.98 15.32
B Participants with Deferred Benefit
1 Number 265 279
2 Total annual pension 1,826,898 1,774,229
3 Average annual pension 6,894 6,359
4 Average age (years)54.69 54.30
5 Distribution at January 1, 2012
Age Numbe Annual Pension
Under 40 14 61,253
40-44 10 60,467
45-49 42 319,109
50-54 60 461,591
55-59 67 440,386
60-64 67 453,316
65 and over 5 30,776
C Participants Receiving Benefits
1 Number 1,056 1,004
2 Total annual pension 17,051,830 16,290,756
3 Average annual pension 16,148 16,226
4 Average age (years)73.76 73.83
5 Distribution at January 1, 2012
Age Numbe Annual Pension
Under 55 7 58,583
55-59 55 1,219,025
60-64 165 4,706,415
65-69 255 4,140,027
70-74 149 2,257,866
75-79 133 1,838,538
80-84 123 1,220,472
85 and over 169 1,610,904
1 There were 54 active participants as of January 1, 2012 that were included on the list of employees electing the voluntary
severance program during 2012 provided by Avista on January 2, 2013. These participants were valued as retirees and
deferred vested participants effective January 1, 2013 for the December 31, 2012 disclosure results.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 19 of 32
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 20 of 32
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 17
January 2013
Appendix A
Statement of actuarial assumptions and methods
Plan Sponsor
Avista Corporation
Statement of Assumptions
The assumptions disclosed in this Appendix are for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2012
disclosure.
Discount Rate
4.15%
Expected Long-Term Return on Assets
6.95% for 2012
Compensation/Salary Increases
Future compensation will increase at the following rates, compounded annually.
Ag Rat
Below 25
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
19.0%
10.5%
7.5%
6.0%
5.0%
4.5%
3.7%
3.5%
3.0%
Future Increases in Social Security
Not applicable
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 21 of 32
18 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
Future Increases in Maximum Benefits and Plan Compensation/Salary Limitations
It is assumed that maximum benefit and plan compensation limitations will increase 3.00% per year in
the future.
Inclusion Date
The valuation date coincident with or next following the date on which the employee becomes a
participant.
Administrative Expenses
The amount included this year for administrative expenses is $0.
Mortality
The mortality tables are the RP-2000 Combined Healthy Mortality for males and females, with
mortality improvements projected to 2013 using scale AA separately for males and females.
Retirement
It is assumed that participants will retire upon becoming eligible for normal retirement. The rates at
which participants are assumed to retire by age are shown below:
Age Rate
55 10.0%
56 5.0
57 5.0
58 10.0
59 10.0
60 10.0
61 25.0
62 30.0
63 25.0
64 40.0
65 100.0
Disability Rates
Rates of disability are based on experience from 1976 to 1980 under Group LTD plans as reported
under the transactions of the Society of Actuaries. Disabled annuitant mortality is assumed to be the
same as healthy life mortality at age 70 and over, but the mortality rates at lower ages are assumed to
be equal to the age 70 rates.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 22 of 32
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 19
January 2013
Disabled Mortality
The disability mortality table is 1992 Railroad Retirement Board Disabled Annuitants.
Representative Termination Rates (not due to disability, retirement or mortality)
The rates at which participants are assumed to leave Avista Corporation by age are shown below:
Attained Age Rate
Less than 25 4.0%
25-29 3.5
30-34 3.0
35-39 2.0
40-44 1.5
45-49 1.0
50-54 1.0
55-59 0.5
60-64 0.5
65 and over 0.0
Form of Payment
It is assumed that 50% of non-retirement-eligible participants elect a lump sum benefit and 50% elect
an annuity benefit payable in the normal form. Among retirement eligible participants, it is assumed
that 5% elect a lump sum and 95% elect an annuity payable in the normal form.
Lump sums were valued using an interest rate of 4.0% in 2013 increasing 0.5% per year to the
ultimate rate of 6.0% in 2017 and beyond, and the unisex PPA 2013 Applicable Mortality Table as
prescribed by IRS Notice 2008-35.
Marriage
For purposes of valuing the pre-retirement surviving spouse’s benefit, 85% of eligible male participants
are assumed to be married and 70% of eligible female participants are assumed to be married. Male
participants are assumed to be 3 years older than their spouses and female participants are assumed
to be 3 years younger than their spouses.
Employees
It was assumed that there will be no new or rehired employees.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 23 of 32
20 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
Plan Compensation/Salary
Compensation assumed paid in the current year beginning on the valuation date is the prior year pay
increased by the assumed compensation increase rate.
Cost Method
The Projected Unit Credit Cost Method is used to determine the present value of the Projected Benefit
Obligation and the related current service cost. Under this method, a “projected accrued benefit” is
calculated based upon service as of the date of valuation, but when the benefit formula is based on
future compensation and social security levels, using assumptions about the growth of those amounts
projected to the age at which the employee is assumed to leave active service. In normal
circumstances the "projected accrued benefit" is based upon the Plan's accrual formula. However, if
service in later years leads to a materially higher level of benefit than in earlier years, the "projected
accrued benefit" is calculated by attributing benefits on a straight-line basis over the relevant period.
Asset Method
The fair value of assets is used to determine the expected investment return during the year.
Participant Data
Participant data was supplied by Avista Corporation as of the census date. Information on 54 active
participants terminating employment through a voluntary severance program during 2012 was
provided by Avista Corporation on January 2, 2013.
Census Date/Measurement Date
The measurement date is December 31, 2012. For purposes of determining benefit obligations as of
the measurement date, participant data as of the census date, January 1, 2012 are used. Benefit
obligations are projected to the measurement date by assuming no actuarial gains or losses in the
interim, except for those assumption changes necessary to reflect the situation at the measurement
date. To the best of our knowledge, there were no significant events that would render the projection
inappropriate.
There were 54 active participants as of January 1, 2012 that were included on the list of employees
electing the voluntary severance program during 2012 provided by Avista on January 2, 2013. These
participants were valued as retirees and deferred vested participants effective January 1, 2013 for the
December 31, 2012 disclosure results.
Amortization of Net Gain or Loss
Amortization of the net gain or loss resulting from experience different from that assumed and from
changes in assumptions (excluding asset gains and losses not yet reflected in market-related value) is
included as a component of Net Periodic Benefit Cost/(Income) for the year.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 24 of 32
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 21
January 2013
If, as of the beginning of the year, that net gain or loss exceeds 10% of the greater of the projected
benefit obligation and the market-related value of plan assets, the amortization is that excess divided
by the average remaining service period of participating employees expected to receive benefits under
the plan.
Amortization of Net Prior Service Cost/(Credit)
Amortization of net prior service cost/(credit) resulting from a plan change is included as a component
of Net Periodic Benefit Cost/(Income) in the year first recognized and every year thereafter until such
time as it is fully amortized. The annual amortization payment is determined in the first year as the
increase in Projected Benefit Obligation due to the plan change divided by the average remaining
service period of participating employees expected to receive benefits under the Plan.
However, when the plan change decreases the Projected Benefit Obligation, existing positive prior
service costs and then, transition obligation are reduced or eliminated before a prior service credit
base is posted starting with the earliest established.
Benefits Not Included in Valuation
None. All benefits described in the Plan Provisions section of this report were valued based on
discussions with Avista Corporation. Towers Watson has reviewed the plan provisions with Avista
Corporation and, based on that review, is not aware of any significant benefits required to be valued
that were not.
Nature of Actuarial Calculations
The results documented in this report are estimates based on data that may be imperfect and on
assumptions about future events. Certain plan provisions may be approximated or deemed
insignificant and therefore are not valued. Assumptions may be made about participant data or other
factors. Reasonable efforts were made in this valuation to ensure that items that are significant in the
context of the actuarial liabilities or costs are treated appropriately, and not excluded or included
inappropriately. We believe that the use of approximations in our calculations, if any, has not resulted
in a significant difference relative to the results we would have obtained by using more detailed
calculations.
A range of results, different from those presented in this report could be considered reasonable. The
numbers are not rounded, but this is for convenience only and should not imply precision, which is not
inherent in actuarial calculations.
Future actuarial measurements may differ significantly from the current measurements presented in
this report due to such factors as:
plan experience differing from that anticipated by the economic or demographic assumptions
changes in economic or demographic assumptions
increases or decreases expected as part of the natural operation of the methodology used for
these measurements (such as the end of an amortization period or additional cost based on the
funded status)
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 25 of 32
22 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
changes in plan provisions or applicable law
significant events since last actuarial valuation
Significant Events since Last Actuarial Valuation Report
None.
Changes in Assumptions and Methods since Last Actuarial Valuation Report
Effective December 31, 2012, the discount rate was changed from 5.05% to 4.15%.
Effective December 31, 2012, the plan’s mortality assumption was updated to reflect mortality
improvements through 2013. The mortality assumption used in the prior valuation assumed
mortality improvements through 2012.
The interest rate for valuing lump sums changed from 6.0% in all future years, to 4.0% in 2013
increasing 0.5% per year to the ultimate rate of 6.0% in 2017 and beyond.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 26 of 32
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 23
January 2013
Appendix B
Summary of principal plan provisions
Plan Provisions
The plan was originally effective March 1, 1948, restated as of January 1, 2010.
Coverage and Participation An employee becomes a Member after completing a year of
service with at least 1,000 hours of Service.
Local 77 Member:
A member of IBEW Local 77 or a member of Local 77 who
transferred out of membership in Local 77 and remained
employed. A rehired former Local 77 member hired into a
position not covered by IBEW Local 77 shall not be treated as
a Local 77 member.
Definitions
Vesting service One month of Vesting Service for each month of employment.
Credited service Prior to 1/1/80
One month of Benefit Service for each month of employment
beginning on or after the Hire Date.
After 1/1/80
One year of Benefit Service for each Plan Year after the Hire
Date in which the Member has 2,080 Hours of Service.
Partial credit is given for a year in which the Member has at
least 1,000 Hours of Service at the rate of one-twelfth of a
year for each 173-1/3 Hours of Service (rounded up).
Pension Earnings Base pay excluding overtime and other special compensation, but
including contributions to a 401(k) plan.
Final average earnings The average of the highest consecutive 36 months earnings during
Member’s last 120 months.
Normal retirement date
(NRD)
The first day of the month coinciding with or next following the late
of 1) 65th birthday, or 2) 5 years since the first day of hire.
Monthly pension benefit For non-Local 77 participants hired on or after
January 1, 2006 and Local 77 members hired on or after
January 1, 2011, the benefit is 1.2% of Final Average
Earnings for each year of Benefit Service.
For all other participants, the benefit is 1.5% of Final Average
Earnings for each year of Benefit Service.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 27 of 32
24 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
Monthly preretirement
death benefit
The amount of a surviving spouse’s pension benefit shall be equal
to 66-2/3% of the Member’s Accrued Benefit until the spouse
reaches age 60 and shall be equal to 50% of the Member’s
Accrued Benefit thereafter.
Eligibility for Benefits
Normal retirement Retirement on NRD
Early retirement Eligibility A: Attained age 55 prior to termination with at least 15
years Vesting Service.
Eligibility B: Attained age 55 after termination with at least 15
years of Vesting Service.
Postponed retirement Continued employment beyond Normal Retirement Date.
Vested termination Five years of Vesting Service.
Disability Five Years of Vesting Service and a disability which prevents the
Member from performing assigned duties and which is expected to
be a permanent condition.
Pre-retirement death
benefit
Death while eligible for normal, early, postponed, or deferred
vested retirement benefits.
Benefits Paid Upon the Following Events
Normal retirement Monthly pension benefit determined as of NRD.
Early retirement Benefit A: Accrued benefit based on Benefit Service to early
retirement date payable in full at or after age 62. If
payments commence immediately at date of early
retirement the benefit is multiplied by the appropriate
factor from the following table:
Retirement Factor Table A
Age
Non-Local 77 Member
Hired before 1/1/2006 or
Local 77 Member Hired
Before January 1, 2011
Non-Local 77 Member
Hired on/after 1/1/2006 and
Local 77 Member Hired
on/after January 1, 2011
62 100%100%
61 96 95
60 92 90
59 88 85
58 84 80
57 80 75
56 76 70
55 72 65
For non-Local 77 participants hired before 1/1/2006 or
Local 77 members hired before January 1, 2011, the
Early Retirement Factor is increased, up to a maximum
of 100%, by 1.0% (one percentage point) for each year
of benefit service above 15.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 28 of 32
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 25
January 2013
Benefit B Accrued benefit based on Benefit Service to
termination date payable in full at or after age 65. If
payments commence upon early retirement eligibility,
the benefit is multiplied by the appropriate factor from
the following table:
Retirement Factor Table B
Age Retirement Factor
65 100%
64 95
63 90
62 85
61 80
60 75
59 70
58 65
57 60
56 55
55 50
For non-Local 77 participants who were hired before
1/1/2006 or Local 77 members hired before January 1,
2011, the Early Retirement Factor is increased, up to a
maximum of 100%, by 1.0% (one percentage point) for
each year of benefit service above 15.
Postponed retirement The Normal Retirement Benefit Formula applied to earnings and
Service up to deferred retirement date. Payment commences on
the actual retirement date.
Vested termination Accrued benefit at date of termination with payments commencing
at normal retirement date. If the Member has 15 years of Vesting
Service, an election may be made for benefits to commence at any
time after age 55, in which case benefits will be reduced from age
65 as discussed in “Early Retirement.”
Disablement Accrued benefit commencing at Normal Retirement Date based on
Final Average Earnings at time of disability but including as Benefit
Service the period of the Member’s disability, contingent upon five
years of Vesting Service at disability (10 years if employed in a
position covered by a collective bargaining agreement). A
disabled Member may elect Early Retirement when first eligible to
do so, in which case the benefit is reduced.
Pre-retirement
death
If the Member was eligible for Early or Normal Retirement, the
Monthly pre-retirement death benefit shall commence on the first
day of the month following the Member’s death. If the Member’s
death precedes Early or Normal Retirement eligibility, the Monthly
pre-retirement death benefit shall commence on the earliest date
on which the Member’s benefit could have commenced had he
survived. Benefits commencing before the Member’s Normal
Retirement Date will be reduced from Member’s age 65 as
discussed in “Early Retirement.”
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 29 of 32
26 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
Other Plan Provisions
Forms of payment The normal form of benefit for non-married participants is the
single life annuity. The normal form for married participants is a
oint and survivor benefit with 66 2/3% of the participant’s benefit
payable to the surviving spouse until the spouse is age 60 and
50% payable thereafter.
Pension Increases None
Plan participants’ contributions None
Maximum on benefits and
pay
All benefits and pay for any calendar year may not exceed the
maximum standard limitations for that year as defined in the
Internal Revenue Code. The plan provides for increasing the dolla
limits automatically as such changes become effective. Increases
in the dollar limits are assumed for determining pension cost but
not for determining contributions.
Future Plan Changes
No future plan changes were recognized.
Changes in Benefits Valued Since Prior Year
There have been no changes in plan provisions since the prior valuation report.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 30 of 32
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 27
January 2013
Appendix C
Glossary
Accumulated Benefit Obligation
This is the same as the Projected Benefit Obligation except that it is based on current and past
compensation levels instead of future compensation levels.
Balance Sheet Asset/(Liability)
This is the excess/(shortfall) of the fair value of Plan assets over the Projected Benefit Obligation.
Curtailment
A Curtailment is an event that significantly reduces the expected years of future service of present
employees or eliminates for a significant number of employees the accrual of defined benefits for
some or all of their future service.
Gain or Loss
From one year to the next, if the experience of the Plan differs from that anticipated using the actuarial
assumptions, a gain or loss occurs. For example, a gain would occur if the Plan assets earned 12%
for the year while the expected long-term rate of return on assets used in the valuation was 8%. Other
causes of gains or losses would include changes in actuarial assumptions and demographic changes
in the population profile.
Interest Cost
The Interest Cost is the increase in the Plan obligation over the accounting period due to interest (the
time value of money).
Net Gain or Loss
The cumulative net gain or loss that has not been amortized as a part of Net Periodic Benefit
Cost/(Income) or as a part of the accounting for the effects of a settlement or a curtailment. See also
Gain or Loss.
Net Prior Service Cost/(Credit)
The portion of prior service cost/(credit) that has not been amortized as a part of Net Periodic Benefit
Cost/(Income), as a reduction of the effects of a negative plan amendment, or as a part of the
accounting for the effects of a curtailment.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 31 of 32
28 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
Net Transition Obligation/(Asset)
The portion of the transition obligation/(asset) that has not been amortized either immediately as the
effect of a change in accounting or on a delayed basis as a part of Net Periodic Benefit Cost/(Income),
as an offset to certain gains, or as a part of accounting for the effects of a settlement or a curtailment.
Projected Benefit Obligation
The Projected Benefit Obligation is computed in accordance with ASC 715. This quantity is the
actuarial present value of all benefits attributed under the Cost Method to service rendered prior to the
measurement date. When the benefit formula is based on compensation, it is measured using an
assumption as to future compensation levels.
Service Cost
The Service Cost is computed in accordance with ASC 715. This component of the Net Periodic
Benefit Cost/(Income) is the actuarial present value of benefits attributed under the Cost Method to
services rendered by employees during the accounting period. When the benefit formula is based on
compensation, it is measured using future compensation levels.
Settlement
A Settlement is an irrevocable action that relieves the employer (or the Plan) of primary responsibility
for a benefit obligation and the assets used to effect the settlement.
Special/Contractual Termination Benefits
Special termination benefits are those benefits offered only for a short period of time. Contractual
termination benefits are required by the terms of a Plan only if a specified event, such as a plant
closing, occurs.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment C Page 32 of 32
Avista Corporation
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
January 2014
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 1 of 35
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 2 of 35
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation i
January 2014
Table of Contents
Purposes of valuation............................................................................................................................1
Section 1 : Summary of key results......................................................................................................3
Benefit cost, assets & obligations ......................................................................................................3
Comments on results .........................................................................................................................4
Basis for valuation..............................................................................................................................4
Actuarial certification.............................................................................................................................7
Section 2 : Accounting exhibits..........................................................................................................11
2.1 Disclosed benefit cost ............................................................................................................11
2.2 Balance sheet asset/(liability) ................................................................................................12
2.3 Accumulated other comprehensive (income)/loss.................................................................13
2.4 Additional disclosure information ...........................................................................................14
2.5 Changes in disclosed liabilities and assets............................................................................15
2.6 Reconciliation of net balances ...............................................................................................16
2.7 Reconciliation with prior year’s disclosure .............................................................................17
Section 3 : Data exhibits......................................................................................................................19
3.1 Plan participant data ..............................................................................................................19
3.2 Age and service distribution of participating employees........................................................20
Appendix A............................................................................................................................................21
Statement of actuarial assumptions and methods ...........................................................................21
Appendix B............................................................................................................................................27
Summary of principal pension plan provisions.................................................................................27
Non-Reliance Notice for Attachments to Reports Distributed to Third Parties.............................31
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 3 of 35
ii Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
This page is intentionally blank
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 4 of 35
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 1
January 2014
Purposes of valuation
Avista Corporation (Avista) engaged Towers Watson Delaware Inc. (“Towers Watson”) to value the
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Coporation.
As requested by Avista Corporation (Avista), this report provides information for year-end financial
reporting purposes required by FASB Accounting Standards Codification Topic 715-20-50 (ASC 715)
for your fiscal year ending December 31, 2013 for the Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista
Corporation (the Plan).
The exhibits present year-end financial reporting information in accordance with ASC 715-20-50,
including net balance sheet position of the Plan, cash flow, plan asset information, amortization
amounts during the fiscal year, participant information, the provisions on which the valuation is based,
and the actuarial assumptions and methods used in the calculations. Additional input is required (as
described below) by Avista in relation to the plan asset disclosures specified in ASC 715-20-50-1(d)
(public entities).
This report for purposes of year-end financial reporting supplements the Net Periodic Benefit
Cost/(Income) report that was previously provided to Avista Corporation. These two reports should be
considered together as a complete report for the Plan for your fiscal year ending December 31, 2013.
See the Net Periodic Benefit Cost/(Income) report for additional information.
Limitations
This valuation has been conducted for the purposes described above and may not be suitable for any
other purpose. In particular, please note the following:
1. As discussed above, certain year-end financial reporting information in accordance with ASC
715-20-50 is not included in this report and must be provided by Avista Corporation, as follows:
Categorization of assets, actual asset allocation at December 31, 2013 and
December 31, 2012, and the target asset allocation for 2014.
A description of Avista Corporation’s investment policy for the assets held by the
pension plan.
A description of the basis used to determine the expected long-term rate of return on
plan assets.
2. This report is not intended to constitute a certification of the Adjusted Funding Target Attainment
Percentage (AFTAP) under IRC §436 for any plan year.
3. This report does not determine the plan’s funding requirements under IRC §430.
4. This report does not provide information for plan reporting under ASC 960.
5. This report does not determine liabilities on a plan termination basis, for which a separate
extensive analysis would be required.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 5 of 35
2 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
This page is intentionally blank
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 6 of 35
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 3
January 2014
Section 1: Summary of key results
Benefit cost, assets & obligations
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
Fiscal Year Beginnin 01/01/201 01/01/2012
Benefit Cost/
(Income)
Net Periodic Benefit Cost/(Income) 26,495,255 25,795,032
Immediate Recognition of Benefit
Cost/(Income) due to Special Events
0 0
Total Benefit Cost/(Income)26,495,255 25,795,032
Measurement Date 12/31/201 12/31/2012
Plan Asset Fair Value of Assets (FVA)481,502,103 406,061,372
Market Related Value of Assets (MRVA)481,502,103 406,061,372
Return on Fair Value Assets during
Prior Year
12.46%15.77%
Benefit
Obligations
Accumulated Benefit Obligation (ABO)(441,923,999) (481,327,417)
Projected Benefit Obligation (PBO)(501,061,662) (556,525,469)
Funded Ratio Fair Value of Assets to ABO 109.0%84.4%
Fair Value of Assets to PBO 96.1%73.0%
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
(Income)/Loss
Net Prior Service Cost/(Credit)277,168 319,064
Net Loss/(Gain)99,986,661 213,082,098
Total Accumulated Other Comprehensive
(Income)/Loss
100,263,829 213,401,162
Assumption Discount Rate 5.10%4.15%
Expected Long-term Rate of Return on
Plan Assets
6.60% 6.95%
Rate of Compensation Increase 3.00% - 19.00% 3.00% - 19.00%
Participant Dat Census Date 01/01/2013 01/01/2012
1 Census data as of January 1, 2012 with updates to reflect the voluntary severance program based on data provided by the
plan sponsor.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 7 of 35
4 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
Comments on results
The actuarial gain due to demographic experience, including any assumption changes during the prior
year was $76,272,576. The gain due to demographic experience was primarily due to an increase in
discount rate from 4.15% to 5.10%.The actuarial gain due to investment return different from assumed
during the prior year was $24,831,912.
The accumulated other comprehensive income prior to tax adjustment decreased from $213,401,162
as of December 31, 2012 to $100,263,829 as of December 31, 2013. The decrease resulted primarily
from investment experience and the change in discount rate from 4.15% to 5.10%.
Basis for valuation
Appendix A summarizes the assumptions and methods used in the valuation. Appendix B summarizes
our understanding of the principal provisions of the plan being valued.
Changes in assumptions
The following assumption changes were made at December 31, 2013:
The discount rate was changed from 4.15% to 5.10%.
The plan’s mortality assumption was updated to reflect mortality improvements through 2014. The
mortality assumption used in the prior valuation assumed mortality improvements through 2013.
The interest rate for valuing lump sums changed to 4.6% in 2014 increasing 0.467% per year to
the ultimate rate of 6.0% in 2017 and beyond.
The termination and retirement decrement assumptions were updated based on an analysis of
recent plan experience.
The assumed form of payment for non-union retirement eligible participants was changed from 5%
electing a lump sum and 95% electing an annuity payable in the normal form to 10% electing a
lump sum and 90% electing an annuity in 2014, and 15% electing a lump sum and 85% electing
an annuity in years after 2014. This assumption was updated as a result of the lump sum payment
option plan change for non-union participants.
Changes in methods
None.
Changes in benefits valued
The lump sum payment option for non-union retirement eligible participants was changed to
include the value off the early retirement subsidy for participants who terminate on after
January 1, 2014 and retire before age 65.
Effective January 1, 2014, the plan is closed to non-union employees hired or rehired after
December 31, 2013.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 8 of 35
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 5
January 2014
Subsequent events
None.
Additional information
None.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 9 of 35
6 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
This page is intentionally blank
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 10 of 35
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 7
January 2014
Actuarial certification
This valuation has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted actuarial principles and
practices. However please note the information discussed below regarding this valuation.
Reliances
In preparing the results presented in this report, we have relied upon information regarding plan
provisions, participants, assets, and sponsor accounting policies and methods provided by Avista
Corporation and other persons or organizations designated by Avista Corporation. We have relied on
all the data and information provided as complete and accurate. We have reviewed this information for
overall reasonableness and consistency, but have neither audited nor independently verified this
information. Based on discussions with and concurrence by the plan sponsor, assumptions or
estimates may have been made if data were not available. We are not aware of any errors or
omissions in the data that would have a significant effect on the results of our calculations. The results
presented in this report are directly dependent upon the accuracy and completeness of the underlying
data and information. Any material inaccuracy in the data, assets, plan provisions or other information
provided to us may have produced results that are not suitable for the purposes of this report and such
inaccuracies, as corrected by Avista Corporation, may produce materially different results that could
require that a revised report be issued.
Measurement of benefit obligations, plan assets and balance sheet
adjustments
Census date/measurement date
The measurement date is December 31, 2013. The benefit obligations were measured as of Avista’s
December 31, 2013 fiscal year end and are based on participant data as of the census date,
January 1, 2013. We have projected forward benefit obligations to the end of the year, adjusting for
benefit payments, expected growth in benefit obligations, changes in key assumptions and plan
provisions, and any significant changes in plan demographics that occurred during the year. Based on
discussions with Avista, it is our understanding that no significant changes in plan demographics have
occurred during the year.
Plan assets and balance sheet adjustments
Information about the fair value of plan assets was furnished to us by Avista. Avista also provided
information about the general ledger account balances for the pension plan cost at
December 31, 2013, which reflect the expected funded status of the plans before adjustment to reflect
the plans’ funded status based on the year-end measurements. Towers Watson used information
supplied by Avista regarding amounts recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income as of
December 31, 2013. This data was reviewed for reasonableness and consistency, but no audit was
performed.
Accumulated other comprehensive (income)/loss amounts shown in the report are shown prior to
adjustment for deferred taxes. Any deferred tax effects in AOCI should be determined in consultation
with Avista’s tax advisors and auditors.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 11 of 35
8 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
Assumptions and methods under ASC 715-30-35
As required by U.S. GAAP, the actuarial assumptions and methods employed in the development of
the pension cost and other financial reporting have been selected by Avista. Towers Watson has
concurred with these assumptions and methods. ASC 715-30-35 requires that each significant
assumption “individually represent the best estimate of a particular future event.”
The results shown in this report have been developed based on actuarial assumptions that, to the
extent evaluated by Towers Watson, we consider to be reasonable and within the "best-estimate
range" as described by the Actuarial Standards of Practice. Other actuarial assumptions could also be
considered to be reasonable and within the best-estimate range. Thus, reasonable results differing
from those presented in this report could have been developed by selecting different points within the
best-estimate ranges for various assumptions.
A summary of the assumptions and methods used is provided in Appendix A. Note that any
subsequent changes in methods or assumptions for the December 31, 2013 measurement date will
change the results shown in this report.
Nature of actuarial calculations
The results shown in this report are estimates based on data that may be imperfect and on
assumptions about future events that cannot be predicted with any certainty. The effects of certain
plan provisions may be approximated, or determined to be insignificant and therefore not valued.
Reasonable efforts were made in preparing this valuation to confirm that items that are significant in
the context of the actuarial liabilities or costs are treated appropriately, and are not excluded or
included inappropriately. The numbers shown in this report are not rounded, but this is for
convenience only and should not imply precision, which is not a characteristic of actuarial calculations.
If overall future plan experience produces higher benefit payments or lower investment returns than
assumed, the relative level of plan costs reported in this valuation will likely increase in future
valuations (and vice versa). Future actuarial measurements may differ significantly from the current
measurements presented in this report due to many factors, including: plan experience differing from
that anticipated by the economic or demographic assumptions, increases or decreases expected as
part of the natural operation of the methodology used for the measurements (such as the end of an
amortization period), and changes in plan provisions or applicable law.
See Basis for Valuation in Section 1 above for a discussion of any material events that have occurred
after the valuation date that are not reflected in this valuation.
Limitations on use
This report is provided subject to the terms set out herein and in our engagement letter dated
January 4, 2002 and any accompanying or referenced terms and conditions.
The information contained in this report was prepared for the internal use of Avista and its auditors in
connection with our actuarial valuation of the pension plan as described in Purposes of Valuation
above. It is not intended for and may not be used for other purposes, and we accept no responsibility
or liability in this regard. Avista may distribute this actuarial valuation report to the appropriate
authorities who have the legal right to require Avista to provide them this report, in which case Avista
will use best efforts to notify Towers Watson in advance of this distribution and will include the non-
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 12 of 35
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 9
January 2014
reliance notice included at the end of this report. Further distribution to, or use by, other parties of all or
part of this report is expressly prohibited without Towers Watson’s prior written consent. In the
absence of such consent and an express assumption of responsibility, Towers Watson accepts no
responsibility for any consequences arising from any third party relying on this report or any advice
relating to its contents. There are no other intended beneficiaries of this report or the work underlying
it.
Professional qualifications
The undersigned consulting actuaries are members of the Society of Actuaries and meet the
“Qualification Standards for Actuaries Issuing Statements of Actuarial Opinion in the United States”
relating to pension plans. Our objectivity is not impaired by any relationship between the plan sponsor
and our employer, Towers Watson Delaware Inc.
Susan E. Hedrick, FSA, EA
Senior Consulting Actuary
January 2014
Towers Watson
Erik A. Heiskanen, FSA, EA
Consulting Actuary
January 2014
Towers Watson
V:\Avista Corporation - 110026\13\RET\Valuation\05 Deliver\Reports\2013 Pension Disclosure.docx
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 13 of 35
10 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
This page is intentionally blank
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 14 of 35
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 11
January 2014
Section 2: Accounting exhibits
2.1 Disclosed benefit cost
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
Fiscal Year Endin 12/31/201 12/31/2012
Disclosed Benefit Cost
1 Employer service cost 19,070,123 15,585,349
2 Interest cost 22,785,543 23,128,160
3 Expected return on assets (27,670,424)(23,810,253)
4 Subtotal 14,185,242 14,903,256
5 Net prior service cost/(credit) amortization 319,064 346,200
6 Net loss/(gain) amortization 11,990,949 10,545,576
7 Amortization subtotal 12,310,013 10,891,776
8 Net periodic benefit cost/(income)26,495,255 25,795,032
9 Curtailments 0 0
10 Settlements 0 0
11 Special/contractual termination benefits 0 0
12 Disclosed benefit cost 26,495,255 25,795,032
B Assumptions Used to Determine Benefit Cost
1 Discount rate 4.15%5.05%
2 Long-term rate of return on assets 6.60%6.95%
3 Rate of compensation increase 3.00% - 19.00%3.00% - 19.00%
1 These assumptions were used to calculate Net Periodic Benefit Cost/(Income) as of the beginning of the year. Rates are
expressed on an annual basis where applicable. See Appendix A for interim measurements, if any.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 15 of 35
12 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
2.2 Balance sheet asset/(liability)
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
Fiscal Year Endin 12/31/201 12/31/2012
Development of Balance Sheet Asset/(Liability)
1 Projected benefit obligation (PBO)(501,061,662) (556,525,469)
2 Fair value of assets (FVA)481,502,103 406,061,372
3 Net balance sheet asset/(liability)(19,559,559) (150,464,097)
B Current and Noncurrent Allocation
1 Noncurrent assets 0 0
2 Current liabilities 0 0
3 Noncurrent liabilities (19,559,559) (150,464,097)
4 Net balance sheet asset/(liability)(19,559,559) (150,464,097)
C Reconciliation of Net Balance Sheet Asset/(Liability)
1 Net balance sheet asset/(liability) at end of prior
fiscal year
(150,464,097) (139,999,364)
2 Employer service cost (19,070,123)(15,585,349)
3 Interest cost (22,785,543)(23,128,160)
4 Actual return on assets 52,502,336 54,318,823
5 Plan amendments (277,168)0
6 Actuarial gain/(loss)76,272,576 (70,070,047)
7 Employer contributions 44,262,460 44,000,000
8 Benefits paid directly by Avista 0 0
9 Transfer payments 0 0
10 Acquisitions/divestitures 0 0
11 Curtailments 0 0
12 Settlements 0 0
13 Special/contractual termination benefits 0 0
14 Net balance sheet asset /(liability) at end of current
fiscal year
(19,559,559) (150,464,097)
D Assumptions and Dates Used at Disclosure
1 Discount rate 5.10%4.15%
2 Rate of compensation increase 3.00% - 19.00% 3.00% - 19.00%
3 Census date 01/01/2013 01/01/2012
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 16 of 35
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 13
January 2014
2.3 Accumulated other comprehensive (income)/loss
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
Fiscal Year Endin 12/31/201 12/31/2012
Accumulated Othe Comprehensive (Income)/Los
1 Net prior service cost/(credit)277,168 319,064
2 Net loss/(gain)99,986,661 213,082,098
3 Accumulated other comprehensive
(income)/loss1 100,263,829 213,401,162
B Development of Accumulated Othe
Comprehensive (Income)/Loss (AOCI)
1 AOCI at prior fiscal year end 213,401,162 184,731,461
2 Less amounts amortized during the year
a Net prior service cost/(credit) 319,064 346,200
b Net loss/(gain) 11,990,949 10,545,576
3 Occurring during the year
a Net prior service cost/(credit) 277,168 0
b Net loss/(gain) (101,104,488) 39,561,477
4 AOCI at current fiscal year end 100,263,829 213,401,162
1 Amount shown is pre-tax and should be adjusted by plan sponsor for tax effects.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 17 of 35
14 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
2.4 Additional disclosure information
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
A Accumulated Benefit Obligation (ABO)
1 ABO at current fiscal year end 441,923,999
2 ABO at prior fiscal year end 481,327,417
B Expected Future Benefit Payment
1 During fiscal year ending 12/31/2014 23,771,239
2 During fiscal year ending 12/31/2015 25,199,232
3 During fiscal year ending 12/31/2016 26,216,252
4 During fiscal year ending 12/31/2017 27,295,736
5 During fiscal year ending 12/31/2018 28,584,670
6 During fiscal year ending 12/31/2019 through 12/31/2023 162,936,165
C Expected Contributions during fiscal year ending
December 31, 2014
Employer 32,000,000
D Expected Amortization Amounts during fiscal year ending
December 31, 20141
1 Amortization of net prior service cost/(credit)21,555
2 Amortization of net loss/(gain)3,817,638
3 Total 3,839,193
1 These amounts have been determined assuming there are no special events, plan amendments, assumption changes, or
actuarial losses/(gains) during the upcoming fiscal year.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 18 of 35
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 15
January 2014
2.5 Changes in disclosed liabilities and assets
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
Fiscal Year Endin 12/31/201 12/31/2012
Change in Projected Benefit Obligation
(PBO)
1 PBO at prior fiscal year end 556,525,469 468,149,118
2 Employer service cost 19,070,123 15,585,349
3 Interest cost 22,785,543 23,128,160
4 Actuarial loss/(gain)(76,272,576)70,070,047
5 Plan participants’ contributions 0 0
6 Benefits paid from plan assets (21,324,065)(20,407,205)
7 Benefits paid from Avista 0 0
8 Transfers from (to) other plans 0 0
9 Administrative expenses paid 0 0
10 Plan change 277,168 0
11 Acquisitions/divestitures 0 0
12 Curtailments 0 0
13 Settlements 0 0
14 Special/contractual termination benefits 0 0
15 PBO at current fiscal year end 501,061,662 556,525,469
B Change in Plan Asset
1 Fair value of assets at prior fiscal year
end
406,061,372 328,149,754
2 Actual return on assets 52,502,336 54,318,823
3 Employer contributions 44,262,460 44,000,000
4 Plan participants’ contributions 0 0
5 Benefits paid (21,324,065)(20,407,205)
6 Transfer payments 0 0
7 Administrative expenses paid 0 0
8 Acquisitions/divestitures 0 0
9 Settlements 0 0
10 Special/contractual termination benefits 0 0
11 Fair value of assets at current fiscal year
end
481,502,103 406,061,372
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 19 of 35
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 20 of 35
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 21 of 35
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 22 of 35
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 19
January 2014
Section 3: Data exhibits
3.1 Plan participant data
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
Census Date 01/01/201 01/01/2012
Active Employee
1 Number 1,466 1,468
2 Total annual plan compensation/salary 113,803,298 111,341,444
3 Average plan compensation 77,628 75,846
4 Average age (years)46.34 46.90
5 Average credited service (years)13.57 14.98
B Participants with Deferred Benefit
1 Number 246 265
2 Total annual pension 1,655,792 1,826,898
3 Average annual pension 6,731 6,894
4 Average age (years)54.42 54.69
5 Distribution at January 1, 2013
Age Numbe Annual Pension
Under 40 13 53,419
40-44 11 75,676
45-49 36 238,899
50-54 55 499,863
55-59 75 482,801
60-64 53 297,690
65 and over 3 7,444
C Participants Receiving Benefits
1 Number 1,139 1,056
2 Total annual pension 19,954,049 17,051,830
3 Average annual pension 17,519 16,148
4 Average age 73.34 73.76
5 Distribution at January 1, 2013
Age Numbe Annual Pension
Under 55 7 80,759
55-59 69 1,893,953
60-64 178 5,393,239
65-69 282 5,037,048
70-74 169 2,616,305
75-79 139 2,039,004
80-84 119 1,220,644
85 and over 176 1,673,097
1 There were 54 active participants as of January 1, 2012 that were included on the list of employees electing the voluntary severance program during 2012 provided by Avista on January 2, 2013. These participants were valued as retirees and
deferred vested participants effective January 1, 2013 for the December 31, 2012 disclosure results.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 23 of 35
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 24 of 35
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 21
January 2014
Appendix A
Statement of actuarial assumptions and methods
Plan Sponsor
Avista Corporation
Statement of Assumptions
The assumptions disclosed in this Appendix are for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2013
disclosure.
Discount Rate
5.10%
Expected Long-Term Return on Assets
6.60% for 2013
Compensation/Salary Increases
Future compensation will increase at the following rates, compounded annually.
Ag Rat
Below 25
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65 and over
19.0%
10.5%
7.5%
6.0%
5.0%
4.5%
3.7%
3.5%
3.0%
2.5%
Future Increases in Social Security
Not applicable
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 25 of 35
22 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
Future Increases in Maximum Benefits and Plan Compensation/Salary Limitations
It is assumed that maximum benefit and plan compensation limitations will increase 3.00% per year in
the future.
Inclusion Date
The valuation date coincident with or next following the date on which the employee becomes a
participant.
Administrative Expenses
The amount included this year for administrative expenses is $0.
Mortality
The mortality tables are the RP-2000 Combined Healthy Mortality for males and females, with
mortality improvements projected to 2014 using Scale AA separately for males and females.
Retirement
It is assumed that participants will retire upon becoming eligible for normal retirement. The rates at
which participants are assumed to retire by age are shown below:
Ag Rat
55 7.0%
56 5.0
57 8.0
58 11.0
59 11.0
60 11.0
61 18.0
62 30.0
63 25.0
64 20.0
65 40.0
66 50.0
67 25.0
68 25.0
69 75.0
70 100.0
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 26 of 35
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 23
January 2014
Disability Rates
Rates of disability are based on experience from 1976 to 1980 under Group LTD plans as reported
under the transactions of the Society of Actuaries. Disabled annuitant mortality is assumed to be the
same as healthy life mortality at age 70 and over, but the mortality rates at lower ages are assumed to
be equal to the age 70 rates.
Disabled Mortality
The disability mortality table is 1992 Railroad Retirement Board Disabled Annuitants.
Representative Termination Rates (not due to disability, retirement or mortality)
The rates at which participants are assumed to leave Avista Corporation by age are shown below:
Attained Age Rate
Less than 25 13.0%
25-29 3.5
30-34 3.5
35-39 1.5
40-44 3.0
45-49 1.5
50-54 1.5
55-59 3.0
60-64 6.0
65 and over 0.0
Form of Payment
It is assumed that 50% of non-retirement-eligible participants elect a lump sum benefit and 50% elect
an annuity benefit payable in the normal form.
The following table shows the assumed elections of retirement eligible participants:
Year Union Non-Union
Lump Sum Annuity Lump Sum Annuity
2013 5%95%5%95%
2014 5%95%10%90%
2015 +5%95%15%85%
Lump sums were valued using an interest rate of 4.6% in 2014 increasing 0.467% per year to the
ultimate rate of 6.0% in 2017 and beyond, and the unisex PPA 2014 Applicable Mortality Table as
prescribed by IRS Notice 2008-35.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 27 of 35
24 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
Marriage
For purposes of valuing the pre-retirement surviving spouse’s benefit, 85% of eligible male participants
are assumed to be married and 70% of eligible female participants are assumed to be married. Male
participants are assumed to be 3 years older than their spouses and female participants are assumed
to be 3 years younger than their spouses.
Employees
It was assumed that there will be no new or rehired employees.
Plan Compensation/Salary
Compensation assumed paid in the current year beginning on the valuation date is the prior year pay
increased by the assumed compensation increase rate.
Cost Method
The Projected Unit Credit Cost Method is used to determine the present value of the Projected Benefit
Obligation and the related current service cost. Under this method, a “projected accrued benefit” is
calculated based upon service as of the date of valuation, but when the benefit formula is based on
future compensation and social security levels, using assumptions about the growth of those amounts
projected to the age at which the employee is assumed to leave active service. In normal
circumstances the "projected accrued benefit" is based upon the Plan's accrual formula. However, if
service in later years leads to a materially higher level of benefit than in earlier years, the "projected
accrued benefit" is calculated by attributing benefits on a straight-line basis over the relevant period.
Asset Method
The fair value of assets is used to determine the expected investment return during the year.
Participant Data
Participant data was supplied by Avista Corporation as of the census date.
Census Date/Measurement Date
The measurement date is December 31, 2013. For purposes of determining benefit obligations as of
the measurement date, participant data as of the census date, January 1, 2013 are used. Benefit
obligations are projected to the measurement date by assuming no actuarial gains or losses in the
interim, except for those assumption changes necessary to reflect the situation at the measurement
date. To the best of our knowledge, there were no significant events that would render the projection
inappropriate.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 28 of 35
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 25
January 2014
Amortization of Net Gain or Loss
Amortization of the net gain or loss resulting from experience different from that assumed and from
changes in assumptions (excluding asset gains and losses not yet reflected in market-related value) is
included as a component of Net Periodic Benefit Cost/(Income) for the year.
If, as of the beginning of the year, that net gain or loss exceeds 10% of the greater of the projected
benefit obligation and the market-related value of plan assets, the amortization is that excess divided
by the average remaining service period of participating employees expected to receive benefits under
the plan.
Amortization of Net Prior Service Cost/(Credit)
Amortization of net prior service cost/(credit) resulting from a plan change is included as a component
of Net Periodic Benefit Cost/(Income) in the year first recognized and every year thereafter until such
time as it is fully amortized. The annual amortization payment is determined in the first year as the
increase in Projected Benefit Obligation due to the plan change divided by the average remaining
service period of participating employees expected to receive benefits under the Plan.
However, when the plan change decreases the Projected Benefit Obligation, existing positive prior
service costs and then, transition obligation are reduced or eliminated before a prior service credit
base is posted starting with the earliest established.
Benefits Not Included in Valuation
None. All benefits described in the Plan Provisions section of this report were valued based on
discussions with Avista Corporation. Towers Watson has reviewed the plan provisions with Avista
Corporation and, based on that review, is not aware of any significant benefits required to be valued
that were not.
Significant Events since Last Actuarial Valuation Report
None.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 29 of 35
26 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
Changes in Assumptions and Methods since Last Actuarial Valuation Report
The following assumption changes were made at December 31, 2013:
The discount rate was changed from 4.15% to 5.10%.
The plan’s mortality assumption was updated to reflect mortality improvements through 2014. The
mortality assumption used in the prior valuation assumed mortality improvements through 2013.
The interest rate for valuing lump sums changed to 4.6% in 2014 increasing 0.467% per year to
the ultimate rate of 6.0% in 2017 and beyond.
The termination and retirement decrement assumptions were updated based on an analysis of
recent plan experience.
The assumed form of payment for non-union retirement eligible participants was changed from 5%
electing a lump sum and 95% electing an annuity payable in the normal form to 10% electing a
lump sum and 90% electing an annuity in 2014, and 15% electing a lump sum and 85% electing
an annuity in years after 2014. This assumption was updated as a result of the lump sum payment
option plan change for non-union participants.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 30 of 35
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 27
January 2014
Appendix B
Summary of principal pension plan provisions
Plan Provisions
The plan was originally effective March 1, 1948, restated as of January 1, 2010. The plan was
amended effective January 1, 2014 to close the plan to non-union employees hired after December 31,
2013, and to include the value of early retirement subsidies for non-union retirement eligible
participants terminating on or after January 1, 2014.
Coverage and Participation An employee becomes a Member after completing a year of
service with at least 1,000 hours of Service.
The plan is closed to non-union employees hired or rehired
after December 31, 2013.
Local 77 Member:
A member of IBEW Local 77 or a member of Local 77 who
transferred out of membership in Local 77 and remained
employed. A rehired former Local 77 member hired into a
position not covered by IBEW Local 77 shall not be treated as
a Local 77 member.
Definitions
Vesting service One month of Vesting Service for each month of employment.
Credited service Prior to 1/1/80
One month of Benefit Service for each month of employment
beginning on or after the Hire Date.
After 1/1/80
One year of Benefit Service for each Plan Year after the Hire
Date in which the Member has 2,080 Hours of Service.
Partial credit is given for a year in which the Member has at
least 1,000 Hours of Service at the rate of one-twelfth of a
year for each 173-1/3 Hours of Service (rounded up).
Pension Earnings Base pay excluding overtime and other special compensation, but
including contributions to a 401(k) plan.
Final average earnings The average of the highest consecutive 36 months earnings during
Member’s last 120 months.
Normal retirement date
(NRD)
The first day of the month coinciding with or next following the later
of 1) 65th birthday, or 2) 5 years since the first day of hire.
Monthly pension benefit For non-Local 77 participants hired on or after
January 1, 2006 and Local 77 members hired on or after
January 1, 2011, the benefit is 1.2% of Final Average
Earnings for each year of Benefit Service.
For all other participants, the benefit is 1.5% of Final Average
Earnings for each year of Benefit Service.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 31 of 35
28 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
Monthly preretirement
death benefit
The amount of a surviving spouse’s pension benefit shall be equal
to 66-2/3% of the Member’s Accrued Benefit until the spouse
reaches age 60 and shall be equal to 50% of the Member’s
Accrued Benefit thereafter.
Eligibility for Benefits
Normal retirement Retirement on NRD
Early retirement Eligibility A: Attained age 55 prior to termination with at least 15
years Vesting Service.
Eligibility B: Attained age 55 after termination with at least 15
years of Vesting Service.
Postponed retirement Continued employment beyond Normal Retirement Date.
Vested termination Five years of Vesting Service.
Disability Five Years of Vesting Service and a disability which prevents the
Member from performing assigned duties and which is expected to
be a permanent condition.
Pre-retirement death
benefit
Death while eligible for normal, early, postponed, or deferred
vested retirement benefits.
Benefits Paid Upon the Following Events
Normal retirement Monthly pension benefit determined as of NRD.
Early retirement Benefit A: Accrued benefit based on Benefit Service to early
retirement date payable in full at or after age 62. If
payments commence immediately at date of early
retirement the benefit is multiplied by the appropriate
factor from the following table:
Retirement Factor Table A
Age
Non-Local 77 Member
Hired before 1/1/2006 or
Local 77 Member Hired
Before January 1, 2011
Non-Local 77 Member
Hired on/after 1/1/2006 and
Local 77 Member Hired
on/after January 1, 2011
62 100%100%
61 96 95
60 92 90
59 88 85
58 84 80
57 80 75
56 76 70
55 72 65
For non-Local 77 participants hired before 1/1/2006 or
Local 77 members hired before January 1, 2011, the
Early Retirement Factor is increased, up to a maximum
of 100%, by 1.0% (one percentage point) for each yea
of benefit service above 15.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 32 of 35
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 29
January 2014
Benefit B Accrued benefit based on Benefit Service to
termination date payable in full at or after age 65. If
payments commence upon early retirement eligibility,
the benefit is multiplied by the appropriate factor from
the following table:
Retirement Factor Table B
Age Retirement Factor
65 100%
64 95
63 90
62 85
61 80
60 75
59 70
58 65
57 60
56 55
55 50
For non-Local 77 participants who were hired before
1/1/2006 or Local 77 members hired before January 1,
2011, the Early Retirement Factor is increased, up to a
maximum of 100%, by 1.0% (one percentage point) for
each year of benefit service above 15.
Postponed retirement The Normal Retirement Benefit Formula applied to earnings and
Service up to deferred retirement date. Payment commences on
the actual retirement date.
Vested termination Accrued benefit at date of termination with payments commencing
at normal retirement date. If the Member has 15 years of Vesting
Service, an election may be made for benefits to commence at any
time after age 55, in which case benefits will be reduced from age
65 as discussed in “Early Retirement.”
Disablement ccrued benefit commencing at Normal Retirement Date based on
Final Average Earnings at time of disability but including as Benefit
Service the period of the Member’s disability, contingent upon five
years of Vesting Service at disability (10 years if employed in a
position covered by a collective bargaining agreement). A
disabled Member may elect Early Retirement when first eligible to
do so, in which case the benefit is reduced.
Pre-retirement
death
If the Member was eligible for Early or Normal Retirement, the
Monthly pre-retirement death benefit shall commence on the first
day of the month following the Member’s death. If the Member’s
death precedes Early or Normal Retirement eligibility, the Monthly
pre-retirement death benefit shall commence on the earliest date
on which the Member’s benefit could have commenced had he
survived. Benefits commencing before the Member’s Normal
Retirement Date will be reduced from Member’s age 65 as
discussed in “Early Retirement.”
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 33 of 35
30 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
Other Plan Provisions
Forms of payment The normal form of benefit for non-married participants is the
single life annuity. The normal form for married participants is a
oint and survivor benefit with 66 2/3% of the participant’s benefit
payable to the surviving spouse until the spouse is age 60 and
50% payable thereafter.
Pension Increases None
Plan participants’ contributions None
Maximum on benefits and
pay
All benefits and pay for any calendar year may not exceed the
maximum standard limitations for that year as defined in the
Internal Revenue Code. The plan provides for increasing the dolla
limits automatically as such changes become effective. Increases
in the dollar limits are assumed for determining pension cost but
not for determining contributions.
Future Plan Changes
No future plan changes were recognized.
Changes in Benefits Valued Since Prior Year
The lump sum payment option for non-union retirement eligible participants has changed to include
the value of early retirement subsidies for participants terminating on or after January 1, 2014 and
retiring before age 65.
Effective January 1, 2014, the plan is closed to non-union employees hired or rehired after
December 31, 2013.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 34 of 35
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 31
January 2014
Non-Reliance Notice for Attachments to
Reports Distributed to Third Parties
NOTICE
By accepting a copy of this report, the Recipient agrees that it has read and understands the
following:
1. Towers Watson Delaware Inc. (“Towers Watson”) represents and is responsible exclusively to its
client, Avista Corporation, with respect to all matters relating to this report. The information
contained in this report was prepared for the use of Avista Corporation and its auditors, in
connection with our determination as described in Purposes of Valuation above. There are no
other intended beneficiaries of this report or the work underlying it.
2. Recipient is responsible for its own due diligence with respect to all matters relating to this
report.
Recipient is DEEMED TO HAVE AGREED to the following conditions by receiving, downloading,
printing or otherwise having possession of this report:
Recipient recognizes that Towers Watson’s consulting staff is available, with Avista Corporation’s
prior consent and at Avista Corporation’s expense, to answer any questions concerning this
report; and
Recipient agrees that by accepting this report (including any information related to the report that
may be subsequently provided to Recipient by or on behalf of Towers Watson), Recipient will
place no reliance on this report or information contained herein, or related hereto, that would
result in the creation of any duty or liability by Towers Watson to Recipient.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment D Page 35 of 35
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
January 2015
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 1 of 36
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 2 of 36
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation i
January 2015
Table of Contents
Purposes of valuation.........................................................................................................................................1
Section 1 : Summary of key results ................................................................................................................3
Benefit cost, assets & obligations.................................................................................................................3
Comments on results ......................................................................................................................................4
Basis for valuation ...........................................................................................................................................4
Actuarial certification..........................................................................................................................................7
Section 2 : Accounting exhibits .................................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Disclosed benefit cost....................................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Balance sheet asset/(liability).......................................................................................................... 12
2.3 Accumulated other comprehensive (income)/loss....................................................................... 13
2.4 Additional disclosure information .................................................................................................... 14
2.5 Changes in disclosed liabilities and assets................................................................................... 15
2.6 Reconciliation of net balances ........................................................................................................ 16
2.7 Reconciliation with prior year’s disclosure .................................................................................... 17
Section 3 : Data exhibits.................................................................................................................................. 19
3.1 Plan participant data ......................................................................................................................... 19
3.2 Age and service distribution of participating employees.............................................................20
Appendix A - ....................................................................................................................................................... 21
Statement of actuarial assumptions and methods ..................................................................................21
Appendix B - ....................................................................................................................................................... 29
Summary of principal pension plan provisions......................................................................................... 29
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 3 of 36
ii Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
This page is intentionally blank
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 4 of 36
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 1
January 2015
Purposes of valuation
Avista Corporation (Avista) engaged Towers Watson Delaware Inc. (Towers Watson) to value the
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation.
As requested by Avista, this report provides information for year-end financial reporting purposes
required by FASB Accounting Standards Codification Topic 715-20-50 (ASC 715) for the fiscal year
ending December 31, 2014 for the Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation (the Plan).
The exhibits present year-end financial reporting information in accordance with ASC 715-20-50,
including net balance sheet position of the Plan, cash flow, plan asset information, amortization
amounts during the fiscal year, participant information, the provisions on which the valuation is based,
and the actuarial assumptions and methods used in the calculations. Additional input is required (as
described below) by Avista in relation to the asset disclosures specified in ASC 715-20-50-1(d) (public
entities).
This report for purposes of year-end financial reporting supplements the Net Periodic Benefit
Cost/(Income) report that was previously provided to Avista Corporation. These two reports should be
considered together as a complete report for the Plan for your fiscal year ending December 31, 2014.
See the Net Periodic Benefit Cost/(Income) report for additional information.
Limitations
This valuation has been conducted for the purposes described above and may not be suitable for any
other purpose. In particular, please note the following:
1. As discussed above, certain year-end financial reporting information in accordance with ASC
715-20-50 is not included in this report and must be provided by Avista Corporation, as follows:
Categorization of assets, actual asset allocation at December 31, 2014 and
December 31, 2013, and the target asset allocation for 2015.
A description of Avista Corporation’s investment policy for the assets held by the
pension plan.
A description of the basis used to determine the expected long-term rate of return on
plan assets.
2. This report is not intended to constitute a certification of the Adjusted Funding Target Attainment
Percentage (AFTAP) under IRC §436 for any plan year.
3. This report does not determine funding requirements under IRC §430.
4. This report does not provide information for plan reporting under ASC 960.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 5 of 36
2 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
5. This report does not determine liabilities on a plan termination basis, for which a separate
extensive analysis would be required. No funded status measure included in this report is
intended to assess, and none may be appropriate for assessing, the sufficiency of plan assets to
cover the estimated cost of settling benefit obligations, as all such measures differ in some way
from plan termination obligations. In addition, funded status measures shown in this report do not
reflect the current costs of settling obligations by offering immediate lump sum payments to
participants and/or purchasing annuity contracts for the remaining participants (e.g., insurer
profit, insurer pricing of contingent benefits and/or provision for anti-selection in the choice of a
lump sum vs. an annuity).
6. The comparisons of accounting obligations to assets presented in this report cannot be relied
upon to determine the need for nor the amount of required future plan contributions.
Nevertheless, such comparisons may be useful to assess the need for future contributions
because they reflect current interest rates at the measurement date in determining benefit
obligations. However, asset gains and losses, demographic experience different from assumed,
changes in interest rates, future benefit accruals, if any, and other factors will all affect the need
for and amount of future contributions. In addition, if a plan is not required by law to be funded,
benefit payments may also be paid directly as they come due.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 6 of 36
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 3
January 2015
Section 1: Summary of key results
Benefit cost, assets & obligations
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
Fiscal Year Beginnin 01/01/2014 01/01/2013
Benefit Cost/
(Income)
Net Periodic Benefit Cost/(Income) 12,393,57 26,495,25
Immediate Reco nition of Benefit
Cost/(Income) due to Special Events
0 0
Total Benefit Cost/(Income)12,393,57 26,495,25
Measurement Date 12/31/2014 12/31/2013
Plan Asset Fair Value of Assets (FVA)539,310,604 481,502,103
Market Related Value of Assets (MRVA)539,310,604 481,502,103
Return on Fair Value Assets during
Prior Year
11 56 12.46
Benefit
Obligations
Accumulated Benefit Obligation (ABO)(526,555,326) (441,923,999)
Projected Benefit Obligation (PBO)(604,811,181) (501,061,662)
Funded Ratio Fair Value of Assets to AB 102.4 109.0
Fair Value of Assets to PB 89.2 96.1
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
(Income)/Loss
Net Prior Service Cost/(Credit)255,613 277,16
Net Loss/(Gain)165,555,659 99,986,661
Total Accumulated Other Comprehensive
(Income)/Loss
165,811,272 100,263,829
Assumptions Discount Rate 4.21% 5.10%
Expected Lon -term Rate of Return on
Plan Assets
6.60 6.60
Rate of Compensation Increase 2.50% - 16.00 3.00% - 19.00
Participant Dat Census Date 01/01/2014 01/01/2013
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 7 of 36
4 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
Comments on results
The actuarial loss due to demographic experience, including any assumption changes during the prior
year was $93,309,137. The loss due to demographic experience was primarily due to a decrease in
discount rate from 5.10% to 4.21%. The gain due to investment return different from assumed during
the prior year was $23,843,027.
The accumulated other comprehensive income prior to tax adjustment increased from $100,263,829
as of December 31, 2013 to $165,811,272 as of December 31, 2014. The increase resulted primarily
from the change in discount rate from 5.10% to 4.21%.
Basis for valuation
Appendix A summarizes the assumptions and methods used in the valuation. Appendix B summarizes
our understanding of the principal provisions of the plan being valued.
Changes in assumptions
The following assumption changes were made at December 31, 2014:
The discount rate was changed from 5.10% to 4.21% to better reflect market conditions as of the
measurement date.
The mortality assumption was changed to use separate rates for non-annuitants (based on RP-
2014 “Employees” table as of 2007 without collar or amount adjustments) and annuitants (based
on RP-2014 “Healthy Annuitants” table as of 2007 without collar or amount adjustments), with
generational projection using Scale MP-2014 mortality improvement rates as of 2007 converging
linearly to 0.80% by 2017 (for ages 85 and below). Long-term mortality improvement rates grade
linearly from 0.80% at age 85 to 0.00% at age 95 and over. This change was made to better
reflect future anticipated mortality experience.
The interest rate for valuing lump sums changed to 4.0% in 2014 increasing 0.5% per year to the
ultimate rate of 6.0% in 2018 and beyond to better reflect market conditions as of the
measurement date.
The assumed mortality used in lump sum conversion of annuity benefits was changed from the
applicable IRC 417(e) mortality tables for 2014 to the applicable IRC 417(e) mortality tables for
2015 to better reflect the situation at the measurement date.
The assumed salary increases for participants under age 25 were reduced from 19.0% to 16.0%,
and the assumed salary increases for participants 25-29 were reduced from 10.5% to 10.0%
(based on the annual experience analysis) to better reflect anticipated experience.
The assumed form of payment for non-union retirement eligible participants was changed to 25%
electing a lump sum and 75% electing an annuity, based on an analysis of recent plan experience
and future anticipated experience.
Changes in methods
None.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 8 of 36
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 5
January 2015
Changes in benefits valued
None.
Subsequent events
None.
Additional information
None.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 9 of 36
6 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
This page is intentionally blank.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 10 of 36
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 7
January 2015
Actuarial certification
This valuation has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted actuarial principles and
practices. However, please note the information discussed below regarding this valuation.
Reliances
In preparing the results presented in this report, we have relied upon information regarding plan
provisions, participants, assets, and sponsor accounting policies and methods provided by Avista
Corporation and other persons or organizations designated by Avista Corporation. We have relied on
all the data and information provided as complete and accurate. We have reviewed this information for
overall reasonableness and consistency, but have neither audited nor independently verified this
information. Based on discussions with and concurrence by the plan sponsor, assumptions or
estimates may have been made if data were not available. We are not aware of any errors or
omissions in the data that would have a significant effect on the results of our calculations. The results
presented in this report are directly dependent upon the accuracy and completeness of the underlying
data and information. Any material inaccuracy in the data, assets, plan provisions or other information
provided to us may have produced results that are not suitable for the purposes of this report and such
inaccuracies, as corrected by Avista Corporation, may produce materially different results that could
require that a revised report be issued.
Except as otherwise provided herein, the results presented are based on the data, assumptions,
methods, plan provisions and other information outlined in the actuarial valuation report to determine
pension cost for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2014 sent on November 24, 2014. Therefore,
such information, and the reliances and limitations of the valuation report and its use, should be
considered part of this report for purposes of year-end financial reporting.
Measurement of benefit obligations, plan assets and balance sheet
adjustments
Census date/measurement date
The measurement date is December 31, 2014. The benefit obligations were measured as of Avista’s
December 31, 2014 fiscal year end and are based on participant data as of the census date,
January 1, 2014. We have projected forward benefit obligations to the end of the year, adjusting for
benefit payments, expected growth in benefit obligations, changes in key assumptions and plan
provisions, and any significant changes in plan demographics that occurred during the year. Based on
our discussions with Avista, it is our understanding that no significant changes in plan demographics
have occurred during the year.
Plan assets and balance sheet adjustments
Information about the fair value of plan assets was furnished to us by Avista. Avista also provided
information about the general ledger account balances for the pension plan cost at
December 31, 2014, which reflect the expected funded status of the plans before adjustment to reflect
the funded status based on the year-end measurements. Towers Watson used information supplied by
Avista regarding amounts recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income as of
December 31, 2014. This data was reviewed for reasonableness and consistency, but no audit was
performed.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 11 of 36
8 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
Accumulated other comprehensive (income)/loss amounts shown in the report are shown prior to
adjustment for deferred taxes. Any deferred tax effects in AOCI should be determined in consultation
with Avista’s tax advisors and auditors.
Assumptions and methods under U.S. GAAP
As required by U.S. GAAP, the actuarial assumptions and methods employed in the development of
the pension cost and other financial reporting have been selected by Avista. Towers Watson has
concurred with these assumptions and methods. U.S. GAAP requires that each significant assumption
“individually represent the best estimate of a particular future event”.
The results shown in this report have been developed based on actuarial assumptions that, to the
extent evaluated by Towers Watson, we consider to be reasonable. Other actuarial assumptions could
also be considered to be reasonable. Thus, reasonable results differing from those presented in this
report could have been developed by selecting different reasonable assumptions.
A summary of the assumptions and methods used is provided in Appendix A. Note that any
subsequent changes in methods or assumptions for the December 31, 2014 measurement date will
change the results shown in this report.
Nature of actuarial calculations
The results shown in this report are estimates based on data that may be imperfect and on
assumptions about future events that cannot be predicted with any certainty. The effects of certain
plan provisions may be approximated, or determined to be insignificant and therefore not valued.
Reasonable efforts were made in preparing this valuation to confirm that items that are significant in
the context of the actuarial liabilities or costs are treated appropriately, and are not excluded or
included inappropriately. Any rounding (or lack thereof) used for displaying numbers in this report is
not intended to imply a degree of precision, which is not a characteristic of actuarial calculations.
If overall future plan experience produces higher benefit payments or lower investment returns than
assumed, the relative level of plan costs reported in this valuation will likely increase in future
valuations (and vice versa). Future actuarial measurements may differ significantly from the current
measurements presented in this report due to many factors, including: plan experience differing from
that anticipated by the economic or demographic assumptions, changes in economic or demographic
assumptions, increases or decreases expected as part of the natural operation of the methodology
used for the measurements (such as the end of an amortization period), and changes in plan
provisions or applicable law. Due to the limited scope of our assignment, we did not perform an
analysis of the potential range of such future measurements.
See Basis for Valuation in Section 1 above for a discussion of any material events that have occurred
after the valuation date that are not reflected in this valuation.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 12 of 36
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 9
January 2015
Limitations on use
This report is provided subject to the terms set out herein and in our engagement letter dated
January 4, 2002 and any accompanying or referenced terms and conditions.
The information contained in this report was prepared for the internal use of Avista and its auditors in
connection with our actuarial valuation of the pension plan as described in Purposes of Valuation
above. It is not intended for and may not be used for other purposes, and we accept no responsibility
or liability in this regard. Avista may distribute this actuarial valuation report to the appropriate
authorities who have the legal right to require Avista to provide them this report, in which case Avista
will use best efforts to notify Towers Watson in advance of this distribution. Further distribution to, or
use by, other parties of all or part of this report is expressly prohibited without Towers Watson’s prior
written consent. Towers Watson accepts no responsibility for any consequences arising from any
other party relying on this report or any advice relating to its contents.
Professional qualifications
The undersigned consulting actuaries are members of the Society of Actuaries and meet the
“Qualification Standards for Actuaries Issuing Statements of Actuarial Opinion in the United States”
relating to pension plans. Our objectivity is not impaired by any relationship between the plan sponsor
and our employer, Towers Watson Delaware Inc.
Susan E. Hedrick, FSA, EA
Senior Consulting Actuary
January 2015
Towers Watson
Erik A. Heiskanen, FSA, EA
Consulting Actuary
January 2015
Towers Watson
V:\Avista Corporation - 110026\14\RET\Valuation\05 Deliver\Reports\Avista 2014 Disclosure Report.docx
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 13 of 36
10 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
This page is intentionally blank.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 14 of 36
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 11
January 2015
Section 2: Accounting exhibits
2.1 Disclosed benefit cost
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
Fiscal Year Endin 12/31/2014 12/31/2013
Disclosed Benefit Cost
1 Employer service cos 15,651,41 19,070,123
2 Interest cos 24,954,043 22,785,543
3 Expected return on assets (32,130,553)(27,670,424)
4 Subtotal 8,474,90 14,185,24
5 Net prior service cost/(credit) amortizatio 21,55 319,064
6 Net loss/(gain) amortizatio 3,897,11 11,990,949
7 mortization subtotal 3,918,667 12,310,013
8 Net periodic benefit cost/(income)12,393,57 26,495,25
9 Curtailments 0 0
10 Settlements 0 0
11 Special/contractual termination benefits 0 0
1 Disclosed benefit cos 12,393,57 26,495,25
B Assumptions Used to Determine Benefit Cost
1 Discount rate 5.10 4.1
2 Lon -term rate of return on assets 6.60 6.60
3 Rate of compensation increase 2.50% - 19.00 3.00% - 19.00
1 These assumptions were used to calculate Net Periodic Benefit Cost/(Income) as of the beginning of the year. Rates are
expressed on an annual basis where applicable. See Appendix A for interim measurements, if any.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 15 of 36
12 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
2.2 Balance sheet asset/(liability)
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
Fiscal Year Endin 12/31/2014 12/31/2013
Development of Balance Sheet Asset/(Liability)
1 Projected benefit obligation (PBO)(604,811,181) (501,061,662)
2 Fair value of assets (FVA) 539,310,604 481,502,103
3 Net balance sheet asset/(liability)(65,500,577)(19,559,559)
B Current and Noncurrent Allocatio
1 Noncurrent assets 0 0
2 Current liabilities 0 0
3 Noncurrent liabilities (65,500,577)(19,559,559)
4 Net balance sheet asset/(liability)(65,500,577)(19,559,559)
C Reconciliation of Net Balance Sheet Asset/(Liability)
1 Net balance sheet asset/(liability) at end of prior
fiscal year
(19,559,559) (150,464,097)
2 Employer service cos (15,651,418)(19,070,123)
3 Interest cos (24,954,043)(22,785,543)
4 ctual return on assets 55,973,580 52,502,336
5 Plan amendments 0 (277,168)
6 ctuarial gain/(loss)(93,309,137)76,272,576
7 Employer contributions 32,000,000 44,262,460
8 Benefits paid directly by vista 0 0
9 Transfer payments 0 0
10 cquisitions/divestitures 0 0
11 Curtailments 0 0
1 Settlements 0 0
13 Special/contractual termination benefits 0 0
14 Net balance sheet asset /(liability) at end of current
fiscal year
(65,500,577)(19,559,559)
D Assumptions and Dates Used at Disclosure
1 Discount rate 4.21 5.10
2 Rate of compensation increase 2.50% - 16.00 3.00% - 19.00
3 Census date 01/01/2014 01/01/2013
1 Excludes receivable contributions.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 16 of 36
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 13
January 2015
2.3 Accumulated other comprehensive (income)/loss
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
Fiscal Year Endin 12/31/2014 12/31/2013
Accumulated Other Comprehensive (Income)/Los
1 Net prior service cost/(credit)255,613 277,16
2 Net loss/(gain)165,555,659 99,986,661
3 Accumulated other comprehensive (income)/loss1 165,811,27 100,263,829
B Development of Accumulated Other
Comprehensive (Income)/Loss (AOCI)
1 AOCI at prior fiscal year end 100,263,829 213,401,16
2 Amounts amortized during the year
a Net prior service (cost)/credi (21,555)(319,064)
b Net (loss)/gai (3,897,112)(11,990,949)
3 Occurring during the year
a Net prior service cost/(credit)0 277,16
b Net loss/(gain)69,466,110 (101,104,488)
4 AOCI at current fiscal year end 165,811,27 100,263,829
1 Amount shown is pre-tax and should be adjusted by plan sponsor for tax effects.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 17 of 36
14 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
2.4 Additional disclosure information
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
A Accumulated Benefit Obligation (ABO)
1 ABO at current fiscal year end (526,555,326)
2 ABO at prior fiscal year end (441,923,999)
B Expected Future Benefit Payment
1 During fiscal year ending 12/31/201 26,506,374
2 During fiscal year ending 12/31/2016 27,604,19
3 During fiscal year ending 12/31/2017 28,612,374
4 During fiscal year ending 12/31/201 29,759,046
5 During fiscal year ending 12/31/2019 31,258,41
6 During fiscal year ending 12/31/2020 through 12/31/2024 175,083,41
C Expected Contributions during fiscal year ending
December 31, 2015
1 Employer 12,000,000
D Expected Amortization Amounts during fiscal year ending
December 31, 20151
1 Amortization of net prior service cost/(credit)21 55
2 Amortization of net loss/(gain)8,068,531
3 Total 8,090,086
1 These amounts have been determined assuming there are no special events, plan amendments, assumption changes, or
actuarial losses/(gains) during the upcoming fiscal year.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 18 of 36
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 15
January 2015
2.5 Changes in disclosed liabilities and assets
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
Fiscal Year Endin 12/31/2014 12/31/2013
Change in Projected Benefit Obligation (PBO)
1 PBO at prior fiscal year end 501,061,66 556,525,469
2 Employer service cos 15,651,41 19,070,123
3 Interest cos 24,954,043 22,785,543
4 ctuarial loss/(gain)93,309,137 (76,272,576)
5 Plan participants’ contributions 0 0
6 Benefits paid from plan assets 30,165,079 21,324,065
7 Benefits paid from vista 0 0
8 Transfers from (to) other plans 0 0
9 dministrative expenses paid 0 0
10 Plan change 0 277,16
11 cquisitions/divestitures 0 0
1 Curtailments 0 0
13 Settlements 0 0
14 Special/contractual termination benefits 0 0
1 PBO at current fiscal year end 604,811,181 501,061,66
B Change in Plan Asset
1 Fair value of assets at prior fiscal year end 481,502,103 406,061,37
2 ctual return on assets 55,973,580 52,502,336
3 Employer contributions 32,000,000 44,262,460
4 Plan participants’ contributions 0 0
5 Benefits paid (30,165,079)(21,324,065)
6 Transfer payments 0 0
7 dministrative expenses paid 0 0
8 cquisitions/divestitures 0 0
9 Settlements 0 0
10 Special/contractual termination benefits 0 0
11 Fair value of assets at current fiscal year end 539,310,604 481,502,103
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 19 of 36
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 20 of 36
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 21 of 36
18 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
This page is intentionally blank.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 22 of 36
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 19
January 2015
Section 3: Data exhibits
3.1 Plan participant data
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
Census Date 01/01/2014 01/01/2013
Active Employee
1 Number 1,507 1,466
2 Total annual plan compensation/salar 120,873,29 113,803,29
3 Average plan compensatio 80,20 77,62
4 Average age 46.4 46.34
5 Average credited service 13.5 13.57
B Participants with Deferred Benefit
1 Number 240 246
2 Total annual pensio 1,614,157 1,655,79
3 Average annual pensio 6,726 6,731
4 Average age 54.56 54.4
5 Distribution a Januar 1 2014
Age Number Annual Pensio
Under 40 16 79,29
40-44 8 61,716
4 -49 2 197,659
50-54 53 413,901
5 -59 7 511,78
60-64 6 348,116
65 and over 1 1,70
C Participants Receiving Benefits
1 Number 1,146 1,139
2 Total annual pensio 20,371,51 19,954,049
3 Average annual pensio 17,776 17,519
4 Average age 73.47 73.34
5 Distribution at Januar 1 2014
Age Number Annual Pensio
Under 5 9 73,53
5 -59 54 1,501,143
60-64 17 5,252,18
6 -69 293 5,619,551
70-74 181 2,797,303
7 -79 146 2,135,361
80-84 111 1,247,909
85 and over 177 1,744,526
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 23 of 36
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 24 of 36
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 21
January 2015
Appendix A -
Statement of actuarial assumptions and methods
Plan Sponsor
Avista Corporation
Statement of Assumptions
The assumptions disclosed in this Appendix are for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2014 financial
reporting.
Actuarial Assumptions and Methods
Economic Assumption
Discount Rate
4.21%
Expected Long-Term Return on Assets for 2014
6.60%
Compensation/Salary Increases
Future compensation will increase at the following rates, compounded annually.
Age Rate
Below 2
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65 and over
16.0%
10.0%
7.5%
6.0%
5.0%
4.5%
3.7%
3.5%
3.0%
2.5%
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 25 of 36
22 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
Lump Sum Conversion
In converting annuity benefits into lump sums, the applicable IRC 417(e) mortality tables for 2015 and
interest rates of 4.0% in 2014 increasing 0.5% per year to the ultimate rate of 6.0% in 2018 and
beyond, were used.
Future Increases in Social Security
Not applicable
Future Increases in Maximum Benefits and Plan Compensation/Salary Limitations
It is assumed that maximum benefit and plan compensation limitations will increase 3.00% per year in
the future.
Demographic and Other Assumption
Inclusion Date
The valuation date coincident with or next following the enrollment date on which the employee
becomes a participant.
Administrative Expenses
The amount included this year for administrative expenses is $0.
Mortality
Separate rates for non-annuitants (based on RP-2014 “Employees” table as of 2007 without collar or
amount adjustments) and annuitants (based on RP-2014 “Healthy Annuitants” table as of 2007 without
collar or amount adjustments), with generational projection using Scale MP-2014 mortality
improvement rates as of 2007 converging linearly to 0.80% by 2017 (for ages 85 and below). Long-
term mortality improvement rates grade linearly from 0.80% at age 85 to 0.00% at age 95 and over.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 26 of 36
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 23
January 2015
Retirement
It is assumed that participants will retire upon becoming eligible for normal retirement. The rates at
which participants are assumed to retire by age areshown below:
Age Rate
5 7.0%
56 5.0
57 8.0
58 11.0
59 11.0
60 11.0
61 18.0
62 30.0
63 25.0
64 20.0
65 40.0
66 50.0
67 25.0
68 25.0
69 75.0
70 100.0
Disability Rates
Rates of disability are based on experience from 1976 to 1980 under Group LTD plans as reported
under the transactions of the Society of Actuaries. Disabled annuitant mortality is assumed to be the
same as healthy life mortality at age 70 and over, but the mortality rates at lower ages are assumed to
be equal to the age 70 rates.
Disabled Mortality
The disability mortality table is 1992 Railroad Retirement Board Disabled Annuitants.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 27 of 36
24 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
Representative Termination Rates (not due to disability, retirement or mortality)
The rates at which participants are assumed to leave Avista Corporation by age are shown below:
Attained Age Rate
Less than 2 13.0%
2 -29 3.
30-34 3.5
35-39 1.5
40-44 3.0
4 -49 1.
50-54 1.
55-59 3.0
60-64 6.0
65 and over 0.0
Form of Payment
It is assumed that 50% of non-retirement-eligible participants elect a lump sum benefit and 50% elect
an annuity benefit payable in the normal form.
The following table shows the assumed elections of retirement eligible participants:
Union Non-Union
Lump Sum nnuit Lump Sum nnuit
5%95%25%75%
Marriage
For purposes of valuing the pre-retirement surviving spouse’s benefit, 85% of eligible male participants
are assumed to be married and 70% of eligible female participants are assumed to be married. Male
participants are assumed to be 3 years older than their spouses and female participants are assumed
to be 3 years younger than their spouses.
Employees
It was assumed that there will be no new or rehired employees.
Plan Compensation/Salary
Compensation assumed paid in the current year beginning on the valuation date is the prior year pay
increased by the assumed compensation increase rate.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 28 of 36
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 25
January 2015
Methods – Funded Position
Cost Method
The Projected Unit Credit Cost Method is used to determine the present value of the Projected Benefit
Obligation and the related current service cost. Under this method, a “projected accrued benefit” is
calculated based upon service as of the date of valuation, but when the benefit formula is based on
future compensation and social security levels, using assumptions about the growth of those amounts
projected to the age at which the employee is assumed to leave active service. In normal
circumstances the "projected accrued benefit" is based upon the Plan's accrual formula. However, if
service in later years leads to a materially higher level of benefit than in earlier years, the "projected
accrued benefit" is calculated by attributing benefits on a straight-line basis over the relevant period.
Asset Method
The fair value of assets is used to determine the expected investment return during the year.
Census Date/Measurement Date
The measurement date is December 31, 2014. For purposes of determining benefit obligations as of
the measurement date, participant data as of the census date, January 1, 2014 are used. Benefit
obligations are projected to the measurement date by assuming no actuarial gains or losses in the
interim, except for those assumption changes necessary to reflect the situation at the measurement
date. To the best of our knowledge, there were no significant events that would render the projection
inappropriate.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 29 of 36
26 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
Amortization of Net Gain or Loss
Amortization of the net gain or loss resulting from experience different from that assumed and from
changes in assumptions (excluding asset gains and losses not yet reflected in market-related value) is
included as a component of Net Periodic Benefit Cost/(Income) for the year.
If, as of the beginning of the year, that net gain or loss exceeds 10% of the greater of the projected
benefit obligation and the market-related value of plan assets, the amortization is that excess divided
by the average remaining service period of participating employees expected to receive benefits under
the plan.
Amortization of Net Prior Service Cost/(Credit)
Amortization of net prior service cost/(credit) resulting from a plan change is included as a component
of Net Periodic Benefit Cost/(Income) in the year first recognized and every year thereafter until such
time as it is fully amortized. The annual amortization payment is determined in the first year as the
increase in Projected Benefit Obligation due to the plan change divided by the average remaining
service period of participating employees expected to receive benefits under the Plan.
However, when the plan change decreases the Projected Benefit Obligation, existing positive prior
service costs and then, transition obligation are reduced or eliminated before a prior service credit
base is posted starting with the earliest established.
Benefits Not Included in Valuation
None. All benefits described in the Plan Provisions section of this report were valued based on
discussions with Avista Corporation. Towers Watson has reviewed the plan provisions with Avista
Corporation and, based on that review, is not aware of any significant benefits required to be valued
that were not.
Significant Events since Last Actuarial Valuation Report
There were no significant events since the last valuation that impact plan liabilities.
Data Source
Participant data was provided by Avista Corporation as of the census date.
Assumptions Rationale - Significant Economic Assumptions
Discount rate As required by U.S. GAAP, the discount rate was chosen by the
plan sponsor based on the plan’s expected benefit payments
discounted using Towers Watson’s BOND:Link discount rate
modeller.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 30 of 36
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 27
January 2015
Expected return on plan assets We understand that the expected return on assets assumption
reflects the plan sponsor’s estimate of future experience for trust
asset returns, reflecting the plan‘s current asset allocation and
any expected changes during the current plan year, current
market conditions and the plan sponsor’s expectations for future
market conditions.
Compensation/Salary
increases
Assumed increases were chosen by the plan sponsor based on
an annual review of plan experience. As required by U.S.
GAAP, this represents the plan sponsor’s estimate of future
experience.
Lump sum conversion rate The plan sponsor has selected a conversion rate of 4.0% in
2014, increasing by 0.5% per year to 6.0% for years 2018 and
beyond As required by U.S. GAAP, this represents the plan
sponsor’s estimate of future experience.
Rates of increase in maximum
benefits and plan
compensation/salary
limitations and National
Average Wages (NAW) CPI
Assumed increases were chosen by the plan sponsor and, as
required by U.S. GAAP, they represent an estimate of future
experience.
Source of Prescribed Methods
Accounting methods The methods used for accounting purposes as described in
Appendix A, are “prescribed methods set by another party”, as
defined in the actuarial standards of practice (ASOPs). As
required by U.S. GAAP, these methods were selected by the
plan sponsor.
Changes in Assumptions and Methods
The following assumption changes were made at December 31, 2014:
The discount rate was changed from 5.10% to 4.21% to better reflect market conditions as of the
measurement date.
The mortality assumption was changed to use separate rates for non-annuitants (based on RP-
2014 “Employees” table as of 2007 without collar or amount adjustments) and annuitants (based
on RP-2014 “Healthy Annuitants” table as of 2007 without collar or amount adjustments), with
generational projection using Scale MP-2014 mortality improvement rates as of 2007 converging
linearly to 0.80% by 2017 (for ages 85 and below). Long-term mortality improvement rates grade
linearly from 0.80% at age 85 to 0.00% at age 95 and over. This change was made to better
reflect future anticipated mortality experience.
The interest rate for valuing lump sums changed to 4.0% in 2014 increasing 0.5% per year to the
ultimate rate of 6.0% in 2018 and beyond to better reflect market conditions as of the
measurement date.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 31 of 36
28 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
The assumed mortality used in lump sum conversion of annuity benefits was changed from the
applicable IRC 417(e) mortality tables for 2014 to the applicable IRC 417(e) mortality tables for
2015 to better reflect the situation at the measurement date.
The assumed salary increases for participants under age 25 were reduced from 19.0% to 16.0%,
and the assumed salary increases for participants 25-29 were reduced from 10.5% to 10.0%
(based on the annual experience analysis) to better reflect anticipated experience.
The assumed form of payment for non-union retirement eligible participants was changed to 25%
electing a lump sum and 75% electing an annuity, based on an analysis of recent plan
experience and future anticipated experience.
There were no other changes in assumptions and methods since the prior valuation.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 32 of 36
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 29
January 2015
Appendix B -
Summary of principal pension plan provisions
Plan Provisions
The plan was originally effective March 1, 1948, restated as of January 1, 2010. The plan was
amended effective January 1, 2014 to close the plan to non-union employees hired after
December 31, 2013, and to include the value of early retirement subsidies in lump sums for non-union
retirement eligible participants terminating on or after January 1, 2014.
Coverage and Participation An employee becomes a Member after completing a year of service
with at least 1,000 hours of Service.
The plan is closed to non-union employees hired or rehired after
December 31, 2013.
Local 77 Member:
A member of IBEW Local 77 or a member of Local 77 who
transferred out of membership in Local 77 and remained
employed. A rehired former Local 77 member hired into a
position not covered by IBEW Local 77 shall not be treated as a
Local 77 member.
Definitions
Vesting service One month of Vesting Service for each month of employment.
Credited service Prior to 1/1/80
One month of Benefit Service for each month of employment
beginning on or after the Hire Date.
After 1/1/80
One year of Benefit Service for each Plan Year after the Hire
Date in which the Member has 2,080 Hours of Service. Partial
credit is given for a year in which the Member has at least 1,000
Hours of Service at the rate of one-twelfth of a year for each 173-
1/3 Hours of Service (rounded up).
Pension Earnings Base pay excluding overtime and other special compensation, but
including contributions to a 401(k) plan.
Final average earnings The average of the highest consecutive 36 months earnings during
Member’s last 120 months.
Normal retirement date
(NRD)
The first day of the month coinciding with or next following the later of
1) 65th birthday, or 2) 5 years since the first day of hire.
Monthly pension benefit For non-Local 77 participants hired on or after January 1, 2006
and Local 77 members hired on or after January 1, 2011, the
benefit is 1.2% of Final Average Earnings for each year of
Benefit Service.
For all other participants, the benefit is 1.5% of Final Average
Earnings for each year of Benefit Service.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 33 of 36
30 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
Monthly preretirement
death benefit The amount of a surviving spouse’s pension benefit shall be equal to
66-2/3% of the Member’s Accrued Benefit until the spouse reaches
age 60 and shall be equal to 50% of the Member’s Accrued Benefit
thereafter.
Eligibility for Benefits
Normal retirement Retirement on NRD
Early retirement Eligibility A: Attained age 55 prior to termination with at least 15 years
Vesting Service.
Eligibility B: Attained age 55 after termination with at least 15 years of
Vesting Service.
Postponed retirement Continued employment beyond Normal Retirement Date.
Vested termination Five years of Vesting Service.
Disability Five Years of Vesting Service and a disability which prevents the Member
from performing assigned duties and which is expected to be a permanent
condition.
Pre-retirement death
benefit
Death while eligible for normal, early, postponed, or deferred vested
retirement benefits.
Benefits Paid Upon the Following Events
Normal retirement Monthly pension benefit determined as of NRD.
Early retirement Benefit A: Accrued benefit based on Benefit Service to early retirement
date payable in full at or after age 62. If payments commence
immediately at date of early retirement the benefit is multiplied
by the appropriate factor from the following table:
Retirement Factor Table A
Age
Non-Local 77 Member
Hired before 1/1/2006 or
Local 77 Member Hired Before
January 1, 2011
Non-Local 77 Member
Hired on/after 1/1/2006 and
Local 77 Member Hired
on/after January 1, 2011
6 100%100%
61 96 9
60 92 90
59 88 8
58 84 80
57 80 75
56 76 70
55 72 65
For non-Local 77 participants hired before 1/1/2006 or Local
77 members hired before January 1, 2011, the Early
Retirement Factor is increased, up to a maximum of 100%, by
1.0% (one percentage point) for each year of benefit service
above 15.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 34 of 36
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 31
January 2015
Benefit B Accrued benefit based on Benefit Service to termination
date payable in full at or after age 65. If payments
commence upon early retirement eligibility, the benefit is
multiplied by the appropriate factor from the following
table:
Retirement Factor Table B
Age Retirement Factor
6 100
64 9
63 90
6 86180
60 7
59 70
5 6
57 60
56 5
5 50
For non-Local 77 participants who were hired before
1/1/2006 or Local 77 members hired before
January 1, 2011, the Early Retirement Factor is
increased, up to a maximum of 100%, by 1.0% (one
percentage point) for each year of benefit service above
15.
Postponed retirement The Normal Retirement Benefit Formula applied to earnings and
Service up to deferred retirement date. Payment commences on the
actual retirement date.
Vested termination Accrued benefit at date of termination with payments commencing at
normal retirement date. If the Member has 15 years of Vesting
Service, an election may be made for benefits to commence at any
time after age 55, in which case benefits will be reduced from age 65
as discussed in “Early Retirement.”
Disablement Accrued benefit commencing at Normal Retirement Date based on
Final Average Earnings at time of disability but including as Benefit
Service the period of the Member’s disability, contingent upon five
years of Vesting Service at disability (10 years if employed in a
position covered by a collective bargaining agreement). A disabled
Member may elect Early Retirement when first eligible to do so, in
which case the benefit is reduced
Pre-retirement
death
If the Member was eligible for Early or Normal Retirement, the
Monthly pre-retirement death benefit shall commence on the first day
of the month following the Member’s death. If the Member’s death
precedes Early or Normal Retirement eligibility, the Monthly pre-
retirement death benefit shall commence on the earliest date on which
the Member’s benefit could have commenced had he survived.
Benefits commencing before the Member’s Normal Retirement Date
will be reduced from Member’s age 65 as discussed in “Early
Retirement.”
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 35 of 36
32 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Towers Watson Confidential
Other Plan Provisions
Forms of payment The normal form of benefit for non-married participants is the single life
annuity. The normal form for married participants is a joint and survivor
benefit with 66 2/3% of the participant’s benefit payable to the surviving
spouse until the spouse is age 60 and 50% payable thereafter.
Pension Increases None
Plan participants’ contributions None
Maximum on benefits and
pay
ll benefits and pay for any calendar year may not exceed the maximum
standard limitations for that year as defined in the Internal Revenue
Code. The plan provides for increasing the dollar limits automatically as
such changes become effective. Increases in the dollar limits are
assumed for determining pension cost but not for determining
contributions.
Future Plan Changes
No future plan changes were recognized.
Changes in Benefits Valued Since Prior Year
There have been no changes in benefits valued since the prior valuation.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment E Page 36 of 36

Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Actuarial Valuation Report
Disclosure for Fiscal Year Ending
December 31, 2015 under US GAAP
January 2016
Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 1 of 37

Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 2 of 37
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 1
January 2016
Table of Contents
Purposes of valuation ................................................................................................................. 1
Section 1 : Summary of key results ........................................................................................... 3
Benefit cost, assets & obligations ........................................................................................... 3
Comments on results .............................................................................................................. 4
Basis for valuation ................................................................................................................... 4
Actuarial certification .................................................................................................................. 7
Section 2 : Accounting exhibits ............................................................................................... 11
2.1 Disclosed benefit cost ................................................................................................. 11
2.2 Balance sheet asset/(liability) ..................................................................................... 12
2.3 Accumulated other comprehensive (income)/loss ...................................................... 13
2.4 Additional disclosure information ................................................................................ 14
2.5 Changes in disclosed liabilities and assets ................................................................. 15
2.6 Reconciliation of net balances .................................................................................... 16
2.7 Reconciliation with prior year’s disclosure .................................................................. 17
Section 3 : Data exhibits ........................................................................................................... 19
3.1 Plan participant data ................................................................................................... 19
3.2 Age and service distribution of participating employees ............................................. 20
Appendix A - Statement of actuarial assumptions and methods ......................................... 21
Appendix B - Summary of plan provisions ............................................................................. 29

Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 3 of 37
2 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Willis Towers Watson Confidential
This page is intentionally blank

Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 4 of 37
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 1
January 2016
Purposes of valuation
Avista Corporation (Avista) engaged Towers Watson Delaware Inc. (Willis Towers Watson) to value
the Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation.
As requested by Avista, this report provides information for year-end financial reporting purposes
required by FASB Accounting Standards Codification Topic 715-20-50 (ASC 715) for your fiscal year
ending December 31, 2015 for the Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation (the Plan).
The exhibits present year-end financial reporting information in accordance with ASC 715-20-50,
including net balance sheet position of the Plan, cash flow, plan asset information, amortization
amounts during the fiscal year, participant information, the provisions on which the valuation is based,
and the actuarial assumptions and methods used in the calculations. Additional input is required (as
described below) by Avista in relation to the asset disclosures specified in ASC 715-20-50-1(d) (public
entities).
This report for purposes of year-end financial reporting supplements the Net Periodic Benefit
Cost/(Income) report that was previously provided to Avista. These two reports should be considered
together as a complete report for the Plan for your fiscal year ending December 31, 2015. See the Net
Periodic Benefit Cost/(Income) report for additional information.
Limitations
This valuation has been conducted for the purposes described above and may not be suitable for any
other purpose. In particular, please note the following:
1. As discussed above, certain year-end financial reporting information in accordance with ASC
715-20-50 is not included in this report and must be provided by Avista, as follows:
■ Categorization of assets, actual asset allocation at December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, and the target asset allocation for 2016.
■ A description of Avista’s investment policy for the assets held by the pension plan.
■ A description of the basis used to determine the expected long-term rate of return on plan
assets.
2. This report is not intended to constitute a certification of the Adjusted Funding Target Attainment
Percentage (AFTAP) under IRC §436 for any plan year.
3. This report does not determine funding requirements under IRC §430.
4. This report does not provide information for plan reporting under ASC 960.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 5 of 37
2 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Willis Towers Watson Confidential
5. This report does not determine liabilities on a plan termination basis, for which a separate
extensive analysis would be required. No funded status measure included in this report is
intended to assess, and none may be appropriate for assessing, the sufficiency of plan assets to
cover the estimated cost of settling benefit obligations, as all such measures differ in some way
from plan termination obligations. In addition, funded status measures shown in this report do not
reflect the current costs of settling obligations by offering immediate lump sum payments to
participants and/or purchasing annuity contracts for the remaining participants (e.g., insurer
profit, insurer pricing of contingent benefits and/or provision for anti-selection in the choice of a
lump sum vs. an annuity).
6. The comparisons of accounting obligations to assets presented in this report cannot be relied
upon to determine the need for nor the amount of required future plan contributions.
Nevertheless, such comparisons may be useful to assess the need for future contributions
because they reflect current interest rates at the measurement date in determining benefit
obligations. However, asset gains and losses, demographic experience different from assumed,
changes in interest rates, future benefit accruals, if any, and other factors will all affect the need
for and amount of future contributions. In addition, if a plan is not required by law to be funded,
benefit payments may also be paid directly as they come due.

Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 6 of 37
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 3
January 2016
Section 1: Summary of key results
Benefit cost, assets & obligations
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
Fiscal Year Beginning 01/01/2015 01/01/2014

Benefit Cost/
(Income)
Net Periodic Benefit Cost/(Income) 24,404,562 12,393,575
Immediate Recognition of Benefit Cost/(Income) due to Special Events 0 0
Total Benefit Cost/(Income) 24,404,562 12,393,575
Measurement Date 12/31/2015 12/31/2014
Plan Assets Fair Value of Assets (FVA) 517,233,942 539,310,604
Return on Fair Value Assets during Prior Year (0.81%) 11.56%
Benefit
Obligations
Accumulated Benefit Obligation (ABO) (516,797,867) (526,555,326)
Projected Benefit Obligation (PBO) (584,130,180) (604,811,181)
Funded Ratios Fair Value of Assets to ABO 100.1% 102.4%
Fair Value of Assets to PBO 88.5% 89.2%
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
(Income)/Loss
Net Prior Service Cost/(Credit) 25,336 255,613
Net Loss/(Gain) 154,777,035 165,555,659
Total Accumulated Other Comprehensive
(Income)/Loss
154,802,371 165,811,272
Assumptions Discount Rate 4.58% 4.21%
Expected Long-term Rate of Return on Plan Assets 5.30% 6.60%
Rate of Compensation Increase 2.50% - 14.00% 2.50% - 16.00%
Participant Data Census Date 01/01/2015 01/01/2014
Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 7 of 37
4 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Willis Towers Watson Confidential
Comments on results
The actuarial gain due to demographic experience, including any assumption changes, during the
prior year was $35,445,013. The gain due to demographic experience was primarily due to an
increase in the discount rate from 4.21% to 4.58%. The loss due to investment return different from
assumed during the prior year was $32,604,954.
The accumulated other comprehensive income prior to tax adjustments decreased from $165,811,272
as of December 31, 2014 to $154,802,371 as of December 31, 2015. The decrease resulted primarily
from the change in discount rate from 4.21% to 4.58%.
Basis for valuation
Appendix A summarizes the assumptions and methods used in the valuation. Appendix B summarizes
our understanding of the principal provisions of the plan being valued.
Changes in assumptions
The following assumption changes were made at December 31, 2015:
■ The discount rate was changed from 4.21% to 4.58% to better reflect market conditions as of the
measurement date.
■ The assumed mortality used in lump sum conversion of annuity benefits was changed from the
applicable IRC 417(e) mortality tables for 2015 to the applicable IRC 417(e) mortality tables for 2016 to better reflect the situation at the measurement date.
■ The assumed salary increases for participants under age 25 were reduced from 16.0% to 14.0%, ages 25-29 were reduced from 10.0% to 8.5%, ages 35-39 were reduced from 6.0% to 5.5%, ages
40-44 were reduced from 5.0% to 4.5%, ages 45-49 were reduced from 4.5% to 4.0%, and ages 50-54 were reduced from 3.7% to 3.5% (based on the annual experience analysis) to better reflect
anticipated experience.
Changes in methods
None.
Changes in benefits valued
None.
Subsequent events
None.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 8 of 37
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 5
January 2016
Additional information
None.

Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 9 of 37
6 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Willis Towers Watson Confidential
This page is intentionally blank
Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 10 of 37
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 7
January 2016
Actuarial certification
This valuation has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted actuarial principles and
practices. However, please note the information discussed below regarding this valuation.
Reliances
In preparing the results presented in this report, we have relied upon information regarding plan
provisions, participants, assets, and sponsor accounting policies and methods provided by Avista and
other persons or organizations designated by Avista. We have relied on all the data and information
provided as complete and accurate. We have reviewed this information for overall reasonableness
and consistency, but have neither audited nor independently verified this information. Based on
discussions with and concurrence by the plan sponsor, assumptions or estimates may have been
made if data were not available. We are not aware of any errors or omissions in the data that would
have a significant effect on the results of our calculations. The results presented in this report are
directly dependent upon the accuracy and completeness of the underlying data and information. Any
material inaccuracy in the data, assets, plan provisions or other information provided to us may have
produced results that are not suitable for the purposes of this report and such inaccuracies, as
corrected by Avista, may produce materially different results that could require that a revised report be
issued.
Except as otherwise provided herein, the results presented are based on the data, assumptions,
methods, plan provisions and other information outlined in the actuarial valuation report to determine
pension cost for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2015 provided to Avista on October 30, 2015.
Therefore, such information, and the reliances and limitations of the valuation report and its use,
should be considered part of this report for purposes of year-end financial reporting.
Measurement of benefit obligations, plan assets and balance sheet
adjustments
Census date/measurement date
The measurement date is December 31, 2015. The benefit obligations were measured as of Avista’s
December 31, 2015 fiscal year end and are based on participant data as of the census date,
January 1, 2015. We have projected forward benefit obligations to the end of the year, adjusting for
benefit payments, expected growth in benefit obligations, changes in key assumptions and plan
provisions, and any significant changes in plan demographics that occurred during the year. Based on
our discussions with Avista, it is our understanding that no significant changes in plan demographics
have occurred during the year.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 11 of 37
8 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Willis Towers Watson Confidential
Plan assets and balance sheet adjustments
Information about the fair value of plan assets was furnished to us by Avista. Avista also provided
information about the general ledger account balances for the pension plan cost at
December 31, 2015, which reflect the expected funded status of the plans before adjustment to reflect
the funded status based on the year-end measurements. Willis Towers Watson used information
supplied by Avista regarding amounts recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income as of
December 31, 2015. This data was reviewed for reasonableness and consistency, but no audit was
performed.
Accumulated other comprehensive (income)/loss amounts shown in the report are shown prior to
adjustment for tax effects. Any tax effects in AOCI should be determined in consultation with Avista’s
tax advisors and auditors.
Assumptions and methods under U.S. GAAP
As required by U.S. GAAP, the actuarial assumptions and methods employed in the development of
the pension cost and other financial reporting have been selected by Avista. Willis Towers Watson has
concurred with these assumptions and methods. U.S. GAAP requires that each significant assumption
“individually represent the best estimate of a particular future event.”
The results shown in this report have been developed based on actuarial assumptions that, to the
extent evaluated by Willis Towers Watson, we consider to be reasonable. Other actuarial assumptions
could also be considered to be reasonable. Thus, reasonable results differing from those presented in
this report could have been developed by selecting different reasonable assumptions.
A summary of the assumptions and methods used is provided in Appendix A. Note that any
subsequent changes in methods or assumptions for the December 31, 2015 measurement date will
change the results shown in this report.
Nature of actuarial calculations
The results shown in this report are estimates based on data that may be imperfect and on
assumptions about future events that cannot be predicted with any certainty. The effects of certain
plan provisions may be approximated, or determined to be insignificant and therefore not valued.
Reasonable efforts were made in preparing this valuation to confirm that items that are significant in
the context of the actuarial liabilities or costs are treated appropriately, and are not excluded or
included inappropriately. Any rounding (or lack thereof) used for displaying numbers in this report is
not intended to imply a degree of precision, which is not a characteristic of actuarial calculations.
If overall future plan experience produces higher benefit payments or lower investment returns than
assumed, the relative level of plan costs reported in this valuation will likely increase in future
valuations (and vice versa). Future actuarial measurements may differ significantly from the current
Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 12 of 37
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 9
January 2016
measurements presented in this report due to many factors, including: plan experience differing from
that anticipated by the economic or demographic assumptions, changes in economic or demographic
assumptions, increases or decreases expected as part of the natural operation of the methodology
used for the measurements (such as the end of an amortization period), and changes in plan
provisions or applicable law. Due to the limited scope of our assignment, we did not perform an
analysis of the potential range of such future measurements.
See Basis for Valuation in Section 1 above for a discussion of any material events that have occurred
after the valuation date that are not reflected in this valuation.
Limitations on use
This report is provided subject to the terms set out herein and in our engagement letter dated January
4, 2002 and any accompanying or referenced terms and conditions.
The information contained in this report was prepared for the internal use of Avista and its auditors in
connection with our actuarial valuation of the pension plan as described in Purposes of Valuation
above. It is not intended for and may not be used for other purposes, and we accept no responsibility
or liability in this regard. Avista may distribute this actuarial valuation report to the appropriate
authorities who have the legal right to require Avista to provide them this report, in which case Avista
will use best efforts to notify Willis Towers Watson in advance of this distribution. Further distribution
to, or use by, other parties of all or part of this report is expressly prohibited without Willis Towers
Watson’s prior written consent. Willis Towers Watson accepts no responsibility for any consequences
arising from any other party relying on this report or any advice relating to its contents.

Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 13 of 37
10 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Willis Towers Watson Confidential
Professional qualifications
The undersigned consulting actuaries are members of the Society of Actuaries and meet the
“Qualification Standards for Actuaries Issuing Statements of Actuarial Opinion in the United States”
relating to pension plans. Our objectivity is not impaired by any relationship between the plan sponsor
and our employer, Willis Towers Watson.

Susan E. Hedrick, FSA, EA
Senior Consulting Actuary
January 2016
Willis Towers Watson

Erik A. Heiskanen, FSA, EA
Consulting Actuary
January 2016
Willis Towers Watson
http://natct.internal.towerswatson.com/clients/603039/Avista2015RET/Documents/2015 Avista Pension Disclosure Report.docx

Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 14 of 37
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 11
January 2016
Section 2: Accounting exhibits
2.1 Disclosed benefit cost
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
Fiscal Year Ending 12/31/2015 12/31/2014
A Disclosed Benefit Cost
1 Employer service cost 19,839,411 15,651,418
2 Interest cost 24,924,083 24,954,043
3 Expected return on assets (28,299,830) (32,130,553)
4 Subtotal 16,463,664 8,474,908
5 Net prior service cost/(credit) amortization 2,333 21,555
6 Net loss/(gain) amortization 7,938,565 3,897,112
7 Subtotal 7,940,898 3,918,667
8 Net periodic benefit cost/(income) 24,404,562 12,393,575
9 Curtailments 0 0
10 Settlements 0 0
11 Special/contractual termination benefits 0 0
12 Disclosed benefit cost 24,404,562 12,393,575
B Assumptions Used to Determine Benefit Cost1
1 Discount rate 4.21% 5.10%
2 Long-term rate of return on assets 5.30% 6.60%
3 Rate of compensation increase 2.50% - 16.00% 2.50% - 19.00%

1 These assumptions were used to calculate Net Periodic Benefit Cost/(Income) as of the beginning of the year. Rates are expressed on an annual basis where applicable. See Appendix A for interim measurements, if any.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 15 of 37
12 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Willis Towers Watson Confidential
2.2 Balance sheet asset/(liability)
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
Fiscal Year Ending 12/31/2015 12/31/2014
A Development of Balance Sheet Asset/(Liability)
1 Projected benefit obligation (PBO) (584,130,180) (604,811,181)
2 Fair value of assets (FVA) 1 517,233,942 539,310,604
3 Net balance sheet asset/(liability) (66,896,238) (65,500,577)
B Current and Noncurrent Allocation
1 Noncurrent asset 0 0
2 Current liability 0 0
3 Noncurrent liability (66,896,238) (65,500,577)
4 Net balance sheet asset/(liability) (66,896,238) (65,500,577)
C Reconciliation of Net Balance Sheet Asset/(Liability)
1 Net balance sheet asset/(liability) at end of prior fiscal year (65,500,577) (19,559,559)
2 Employer service cost (19,839,411) (15,651,418)
3 Interest cost (24,924,083) (24,954,043)
4 Actual return on assets (4,305,124) 55,973,580
5 Plan amendments 227,944 0
6 Actuarial gain/(loss) 35,445,013 (93,309,137)
7 Employer contributions 12,000,000 32,000,000
8 Benefits paid directly by Avista 0 0
9 Transfer payments 0 0
10 Acquisitions/divestitures 0 0
11 Curtailments 0 0
12 Settlements (if settled using corporate cash) 0 0
13 Special/contractual termination benefits 0 0
14 Net balance sheet asset /(liability) at end of current fiscal year (66,896,238) (65,500,577)
D Assumptions and Dates Used at Disclosure
1 Discount rate 4.58% 4.21%
2 Rate of compensation increase 2.50% - 14.00% 2.50% - 16.00%
3 Census date 01/01/2015 01/01/2014

1 Excludes receivable contributions.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 16 of 37
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 13
January 2016
2.3 Accumulated other comprehensive (income)/loss
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
Fiscal Year Ending 12/31/2015 12/31/2014

A Accumulated Other Comprehensive (Income)/Loss
1 Net prior service cost/(credit) 25,336 255,613
2 Net loss/(gain) 154,777,035 165,555,659
3 Accumulated other comprehensive (income)/loss1 154,802,371 165,811,272

B Development of Accumulated Other
Comprehensive (Income)/Loss (AOCI)
1 AOCI at prior fiscal year end 165,811,272 100,263,829
2 Amounts amortized during the year
a Net prior service (cost)/credit (2,333) (21,555)
b Net (loss)/gain (7,938,565) (3,897,112)
3 Occurring during the year
a Net prior service cost/(credit) (227,944) 0
b Net loss/(gain) (2,840,059) 69,466,110
4 AOCI at current fiscal year end 154,802,371 165,811,272

1 Amount shown is pre-tax and should be adjusted by plan sponsor for tax effects.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 17 of 37
14 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Willis Towers Watson Confidential
2.4 Additional disclosure information
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars

A Accumulated Benefit Obligation (ABO)
1 ABO at current fiscal year end (516,797,867)
2 ABO at prior fiscal year end (526,555,326)

B Expected Future Benefit Payments
1 During fiscal year ending 12/31/2016 27,606,366
2 During fiscal year ending 12/31/2017 28,649,552
3 During fiscal year ending 12/31/2018 29,645,514
4 During fiscal year ending 12/31/2019 31,103,134
5 During fiscal year ending 12/31/2020 32,493,299
6 During fiscal years ending 12/31/2021 through 12/31/2025 180,146,706

C Expected Contributions during fiscal year ending
December 31, 2016
1 Employer 12,000,000

D Expected Amortization Amounts during fiscal year ending
December 31, 20161
1 Amortization of net prior service cost/(credit) 2,333
2 Amortization of net loss/(gain) 7,326,318
3 Total 7,328,651

1 These amounts have been determined assuming there are no special events, plan amendments, assumption changes, or actuarial losses/(gains) during the upcoming fiscal year.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 18 of 37
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 15
January 2016
2.5 Changes in disclosed liabilities and assets
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
Fiscal Year Ending 12/31/2015 12/31/2014

A Change in Projected Benefit Obligation (PBO)
1 PBO at prior fiscal year end 604,811,181 501,061,662
2 Employer service cost 19,839,411 15,651,418
3 Interest cost 24,924,083 24,954,043
4 Actuarial loss/(gain) (35,445,013) 93,309,137
5 Plan participants’ contributions 0 0
6 Benefits paid from plan assets (29,771,538)(30,165,079)
7 Benefits paid from Avista 0 0
8 Transfers from (to) other plans 0 0
9 Administrative expenses paid 0 0
10 Plan change (227,944) 0
11 Acquisitions/(divestitures) 0 0
12 Curtailments 0 0
13 Settlements 0 0
14 Special/contractual termination benefits 0 0
15 PBO at current fiscal year end 584,130,180 604,811,181

B Change in Plan Assets
1 Fair value of assets at prior fiscal year end 539,310,604 481,502,103
2 Actual return on assets (4,305,124) 55,973,580
3 Employer contributions 12,000,000 32,000,000
4 Plan participants’ contributions 0 0
5 Benefits paid (29,771,538)(30,165,079)
6 Transfer payments 0 0
7 Administrative expenses paid 0 0
8 Acquisitions/(divestitures) 0 0
9 Settlements 0 0
10 Fair value of assets at current fiscal year end 517,233,942 539,310,604

Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 19 of 37
16 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Willis Towers Watson Confidential
2.6 Reconciliation of net balances
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
A Reconciliation of Net Prior Service Cost/(Credit)
Measurement
Date
Established
Original
Amount
Net Amount at
12/31/2014 Other Events1 Effect of
Curtailments
Amortization
Amount in
2015 Net Amount at
12/31/2015
Remaining
Amortization
Period
Amortization
Amount in
2016

12/31/2013 277,168 255,613 (227,944) 0 2,333 25,336 10.85864 2,333
Total 255,613 (227,944) 0 2,333 25,336 2,333

All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
B Reconciliation of Net Loss/(Gain)

Net
Amount at
12/31/2014
mortization
Amount in
2015
Experience
Loss/(Gain)
Effect of
Curtailments
Effect of
Settlements
Net Amount at
12/31/2015
Amortization
Amount in
2016 2

165,555,659 7,938,565 (2,840,059)0 0 154,777,035 7,326,318

1 The decrease in PBO due to the plan amendment changing the lump sum benefit for Local 659 participants partially offsets the existing Net Prior Service Cost base. 2 (Gain)/Loss in excess of 10% of the greater of PBO and MRVA is amortized over the average expected future working lifetime of 13.15313 years.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 20 of 37
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 17
January 2016
2.7 Reconciliation with prior year’s disclosure
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars

Projected Benefit
Obligation
(i)
Fair Value of Assets
(ii)
Net Balance Sheet
Asset / (Liability)
(i+ii)
(iii)
Net Prior Service
Cost / (Credit)
(iv)
Net Loss / (Gain)
(v)
ccumulated Other
Comprehensive
(Income)/Loss
(iv+v)
(vi)

1 At December 31, 2014 (604,811,181) 539,310,604 (65,500,577) 255,613 165,555,659 165,811,272
2 Employer service cost (19,839,411) 0 (19,839,411) 0 0 0
3 Interest cost (24,924,083) 0 (24,924,083) 0 0 0
4 Expected asset return 0 28,299,830 28,299,830 0 0 0
5 Amortizations 0 0 (2,333) (7,938,565) (7,940,898)
6 Experience loss/gain 35,445,013 (32,604,954) 2,840,059 0 (2,840,059) (2,840,059)
7 Employer contributions 0 12,000,000 12,000,000 0 0 0
8 Plan participants’ contributions 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 Benefits paid 29,771,538 (29,771,538)0 0 0 0
10 Administrative expenses paid 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 Plan changes 227,944 0 227,944 (227,944) 0 (227,944)
12 Acquisitions/divestitures 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 Curtailments 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 Settlements 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 Special/contractual termination benefits 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 Transfer payments 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 At December 31, 2015 (584,130,180) 517,233,942 (66,896,238) 25,336 154,777,035 154,802,371

Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 21 of 37
18 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Willis Towers Watson Confidential
This page is intentionally blank
Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 22 of 37
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 19
January 2016
Section 3: Data exhibits
3.1 Plan participant data
All monetary amounts shown in US Dollars
Census Date 01/01/2015 01/01/2014

A Participating Employees
1 Number 1,536 1,507
2 Expected plan compensation for year beginning on the valuation date 124,784,124 120,873,295
3 Average expected plan compensation 81,240 80,208
4 Average age 46.28 46.48
5 Average credited service 13.22 13.52

B Participants with Deferred Benefits
1 Number 220 240
2 Total annual pension 1,489,929 1,614,157
3 Average annual pension 6,772 6,726
4 Average age 55.05 54.56
5 Distribution at January 1, 2015
Age Numbe Annual Pension
Under 40 11 47,448
40-44 10 60,971
45-49 20 171,439
50-54 50 372,901
55-59 70 512,886
60-64 55 305,614
65 and over 4 18,670

C Participants Receiving Benefits
1 Number 1,171 1,146
2 Total annual pension 21,235,090 20,371,515
3 Average annual pension 18,134 17,776
4 Average age 73.49 73.47
5 Distribution at January 1, 2015
Age Numbe Annual Pension
Under 55 9 54,979
55-59 48 1,351,255
60-64 167 5,129,064
65-69 311 6,339,871
70-74 200 3,237,464
75-79 148 2,135,627
80-84 111 1,270,503
85 and over 177 1,716,326
Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 23 of 37
20 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Wills Towers Watson Confidential
3.2 Age and service distribution of participating employees

Attained
Age
ttained Years of Credited Service and Number1
0 1 2 3 4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40 & Over Total
Under 25 0 9 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24

25-29 0 23 17 13 7 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84

30-34 0 21 21 26 9 62 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 158

35-39 0 25 18 19 12 64 44 23 0 0 0 0 0 205

40-44 0 11 16 15 11 46 59 36 13 0 0 0 0 207

45-49 0 11 11 16 12 40 39 48 30 11 2 0 0 220

50-54 0 3 9 9 12 33 44 45 40 33 11 1 0 240

55-59 0 3 3 6 1 24 31 42 37 37 65 19 0 268

60-64 0 3 3 6 3 13 8 20 18 9 14 12 4 113

65-69 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 3 2 1 2 0 2 17

70 & over 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 109 103 115 73 307 249 217 140 91 94 32 6 1,536

Average: Age 46.28 Number of Participants: Fully vested 1,145 Males 1,080
Service 13.22 Partially vested 0 Females 456
Census data as of January 1, 2015

1 Ages and service totals for purposes of determining category are based on exact (not rounded) values.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 24 of 37
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 21
January 2016
Appendix A - Statement of actuarial
assumptions and methods
Plan Sponsor
Avista Corporation
Statement of Assumptions
The assumptions disclosed in this Appendix are for the fiscal year end December 31, 2015 financial
reporting.
Actuarial Assumptions and Methods

Economic Assumptions
Discount Rate
4.58%
Expected Long-Term Return on Assets for 2015
5.30%
Compensation/Salary Increases
Future compensation will increase at the following rates, compounded annually.
Age Rate
Below 25
25-29 30-34
35-39 40-44
45-49 50-54
55-59 60-64
65 and over
14.0% 8.5% 7.5%
5.5% 4.5%
4.0% 3.5% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5%
Lump Sum Conversion
In converting annuity benefits into lump sums, the applicable IRC 417(e) mortality tables for 2016 and
interest rates of 4.5% in 2015 increasing 0.5% per year to the ultimate rate of 6.0% in 2018 and
beyond, were used.

Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 25 of 37
22 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Willis Towers Watson Confidential
Future Increases in Social Security
Not applicable
Future Increases in Maximum Benefits and Plan Compensation/Salary Limitations
It is assumed that maximum benefit and plan compensation limitations will increase 3.00% per year in
the future.
Demographic and Other Assumptions
Inclusion Date
The valuation date coincident with or next following the enrollment date on which the employee
becomes a participant.
Administrative Expenses
The amount included this year for administrative expenses is $0.
Mortality
Separate rates for non-annuitants (based on RP-2014 “Employees” table as of 2007 without collar or
amount adjustments) and annuitants (based on RP-2014 “Healthy Annuitants” table as of 2007 without collar or amount adjustments), with generational projection using Scale MP-2014 mortality
improvement rates as of 2007 converging linearly to 0.80% by 2017 (for ages 85 and below). Long-term mortality improvement rates grade linearly from 0.80% at age 85 to 0.00% at age 95 and over.
Benefit Commencement Date
■ Preretirement death benefit The later of the death of the active participant or
the date the participant would have been eligible to retire.
■ Deferred vested The later of age 55 or termination of employment for current actives, age 65 for
deferred vested participants at the valuation date.
■ Disablilty benefit At age 65 for current actives, and the later of age 55 and 15 years of vesting service for
current disabled participants.
■ Retirement benefit Upon termination of employment

Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 26 of 37
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 23
January 2016
Retirement
It is assumed that participants will retire upon becoming eligible for normal retirement. The rates at
which participants are assumed to retire by age are shown below:
Age Rate 55 7.0%
56 5.0 57 8.0
58 11.0 59 11.0
60 11.0 61 18.0
62 30.0 63 25.0
64 20.0 65 40.0
66 50.0 67 25.0
68 25.0 69 75.0
70 100.0
Disability Rates
Rates of disability are based on experience from 1976 to 1980 under Group LTD plans as reported
under the transactions of the Society of Actuaries. Disabled annuitant mortality is assumed to be the
same as healthy life mortality at age 70 and over, but the mortality rates at lower ages are assumed to
be equal to the age 70 rates.
Disabled Mortality
The disability mortality table is 1992 Railroad Retirement Board Disabled Annuitants.
Representative Termination Rates (not due to disability, retirement or mortality)
The rates at which participants are assumed to leave Avista Corporation by age are shown below:
Attained Age Rate
Less than 25 13.0%
25-29 3.5
30-34 3.5
35-39 1.5
40-44 3.0
45-49 1.5
50-54 1.5
55-59 3.0
60-64 6.0
65 and over 0.0

Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 27 of 37
24 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Willis Towers Watson Confidential
Form of Payment
It is assumed that 50% of non-retirement-eligible participants elect a lump sum benefit and 50% elect an annuity benefit payable in the normal form.
The following table shows the assumed elections of retirement eligible participants:
Local 77 Non-Union and Local 659
Lump Sum Annuity Lump Sum Annuity
5% 95% 25% 75%
Marriage
For purposes of valuing the pre-retirement surviving spouse’s benefit, 85% of eligible male participants
are assumed to be married and 70% of eligible female participants are assumed to be married. Male
participants are assumed to be 3 years older than their spouses and female participants are assumed
to be 3 years younger than their spouses.
Employees
It was assumed that there will be no new or rehired employees.
Plan Compensation/Salary
Compensation assumed paid in the current year beginning on the valuation date is the prior year pay
increased by the assumed compensation increase rate.
Methods – Funded Position
Cost Method
The Projected Unit Credit Cost Method is used to determine the present value of the Projected Benefit
Obligation and the related current service cost. Under this method, a “projected accrued benefit” is
calculated based upon service as of the date of valuation, but when the benefit formula is based on
future compensation and social security levels, using assumptions about the growth of those amounts
projected to the age at which the employee is assumed to leave active service. In normal
circumstances the "projected accrued benefit" is based upon the Plan's accrual formula. However, if
service in later years leads to a materially higher level of benefit than in earlier years, the "projected
accrued benefit" is calculated by attributing benefits on a straight-line basis over the relevant period.
Asset Method
The fair value of assets is used to determine the expected investment return during the year.
Census Date/Measurement Date
The measurement date is December 31, 2015. For purposes of determining benefit obligations as of
the measurement date, participant data as of the census date, January 1, 2015 are used. Benefit
obligations are projected to the measurement date by assuming no actuarial gains or losses in the
interim, except for those assumption changes necessary to reflect the situation at the measurement
date. To the best of our knowledge, there were no significant events that would render the projection
inappropriate.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 28 of 37
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 25
January 2016
Amortization of Net Gain or Loss
Amortization of the net gain or loss resulting from experience different from that assumed and from changes in assumptions (excluding asset gains and losses not yet reflected in market-related value) is
included as a component of Net Periodic Benefit Cost/(Income) for the year.
If, as of the beginning of the year, that net gain or loss exceeds 10% of the greater of the projected
benefit obligation and the market-related value of plan assets, the amortization is that excess divided by the average remaining service period of participating employees expected to receive benefits under
the plan.
Amortization of Net Prior Service Cost/(Credit)
Amortization of net prior service cost/(credit) resulting from a plan change is included as a component
of Net Periodic Benefit Cost/(Income) in the year first recognized and every year thereafter until such
time as it is fully amortized. The annual amortization payment is determined in the first year as the
increase in Projected Benefit Obligation due to the plan change divided by the average remaining
service period of participating employees expected to receive benefits under the Plan.
However, when the plan change decreases the Projected Benefit Obligation, existing positive prior
service costs and then, transition obligation are reduced or eliminated before a prior service credit
base is posted starting with the earliest established.
Benefits Not Included in Valuation
None. All benefits described in the Plan Provisions section of this report were valued based on
discussions with Avista Corporation. Willis Towers Watson has reviewed the plan provisions with
Avista Corporation and, based on that review, is not aware of any significant benefits required to be
valued that were not.
Significant Events since Last Actuarial Valuation Report
There were no significant events since the last valuation that impact plan liabilities.
Data Sources
Participant data was provided by Avista Corporation as of the census date.
Assumptions Rationale - Significant Economic Assumptions
Discount rate As required by U.S. GAAP, the discount rate was chosen by the
plan sponsor based on the plan’s expected benefit payments discounted using Willis Towers Watson’s BOND:Link discount
rate modeller.
Expected return on plan assets We understand that the expected return on assets assumption
reflects the plan sponsor’s estimate of future experience for trust asset returns, reflecting the plan‘s current asset allocation and
any expected changes during the current plan year, current market conditions and the plan sponsor’s expectations for future
market conditions.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 29 of 37
26 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Willis Towers Watson Confidential
Compensation/Salary increases Assumed increases were chosen by the plan sponsor based on
an annual review of plan experience. As required by U.S. GAAP, this represents the plan sponsor’s estimate of future
experience.
Lump sum conversion rate The plan sponsor has selected a conversion rate of 4.5% in
2015, increasing by 0.5% per year to 6.0% for years 2018 and beyond. As required by U.S. GAAP, this represents the plan
sponsor’s estimate of future experience.
Rates of increase in maximum
benefits and plan
compensation/salary limitations
and National Average Wages
(NAW) CPI
Assumed increases were chosen by the plan sponsor and, as
required by U.S. GAAP, they represent an estimate of future experience.

Assumptions Rationale – Significant Demographic Assumptions
Healthy mortality The mortality assumption represents a best estimate of future experience.
The base table was chosen after considering the mixed collar composition
of the covered group.
Mortality improvement was assumed generationally using a modified
version of Scale MP. Modifications were supported by recent trends in
mortality improvement for age 95 and above. Mortality improvement is
assumed beyond the valuation date because recent experience evidenced
by the Society of Actuaries’ study that produced the RP 2014 table
indicates that longevity has continued to improve.
Termination Termination rates were based on the 2008-2012 experience analysis
presented to Avista in December 2013, and were adjusted for future
expectations.
Retirement Retirement rates were based on the 2008-2012 experience analysis
presented to Avista in December 2013, and were adjusted for future
expectations.
Deferred vested benefit
commencement date
Deferred vested participants’ assumed commencement age is a single age
intended to capture the average age at commencement, based on plan
experience.
Source of Prescribed Methods
Accounting methods The methods used for accounting purposes as described in Appendix A, are “prescribed methods set by another party”, as defined in the actuarial standards of practice (ASOPs). As
Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 30 of 37
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 27
January 2016
required by U.S. GAAP, these methods were selected by the plan
sponsor.
Changes in Assumptions and Methods
The following assumption changes were made at December 31, 2015:
■ The discount rate was changed from 4.21% to 4.58% to better reflect market conditions as of the measurement date.
■ The assumed mortality used in lump sum conversion of annuity benefits was changed from the applicable IRC 417(e) mortality tables for 2015 to the applicable IRC 417(e) mortality tables for
2016 to better reflect the situation at the measurement date.
■ The assumed salary increases for participants under age 25 were reduced from 16.0% to 14.0%,
ages 25-29 were reduced from 10.0% to 8.5%, ages 35-39 were reduced from 6.0% to 5.5%, ages 40-44 were reduced from 5.0% to 4.5%, ages 45-49 were reduced from 4.5% to 4.0%, and ages
50-54 were reduced from 3.7% to 3.5% (based on the annual experience analysis) to better reflect anticipated experience.
There were no other changes in assumptions and methods since the prior valuation.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 31 of 37
28 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Willis Towers Watson Confidential

This page is intentionally blank
Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 32 of 37
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 29
January 2016
Appendix B - Summary of plan provisions
Plan Provisions
The plan was originally effective March 1, 1948, restated as of January 1, 2010. The plan was amended effective April 1, 2014 to close the plan to Local 659 Members hired after
March 31, 2014, and to include the value of early retirement subsidies in lump sums for Local 659 retirement eligible participants terminating on or after April 1, 2014.
Coverage and Participation n employee becomes a Member after completing a year of service with at
least 1,000 hours of Service.
■ The plan is closed to non-union employees hired or rehired after
December 31, 2013.
■ The plan is closed to Local 659 Members hired or rehired after March
31, 2014.
■ Local 77 Member:
A member of IBEW Local 77 or a member of Local 77 who transferred out of membership in Local 77 and remained employed.
A rehired former Local 77 member hired into a position not covered by IBEW Local 77 shall not be treated as a Local 77 member.
Definitions
Vesting service One month of Vesting Service for each month of employment.
Credited service ■ Prior to 1/1/80
One month of Benefit Service for each month of employment beginning on or after the Hire Date.
■ After 1/1/80
One year of Benefit Service for each Plan Year after the Hire Date in
which the Member has 2,080 Hours of Service. Partial credit is given for a year in which the Member has at least 1,000 Hours of Service at
the rate of one-twelfth of a year for each 173-1/3 Hours of Service (rounded up).
Pension Earnings Base pay excluding overtime and other special compensation, but including contributions to a 401(k) plan.
Final average earnings The average of the highest consecutive 36 months earnings during Member’s last 120 months.
Normal retirement date (NRD) The first day of the month coinciding with or next following the later of 1) 65th birthday, or 2) 5 years since the first day of hire.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 33 of 37
30 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Willis Towers Watson Confidential
Monthly pension benefit ■ For non-Local 77 participants hired on or after January 1, 2006 and Local 77 members hired on or after January 1, 2011, the benefit is
1.2% of Final Average Earnings for each year of Benefit Service.
■ For all other participants, the benefit is 1.5% of Final Average Earnings for each year of Benefit Service.
Monthly preretirement
death benefit
The amount of a surviving spouse’s pension benefit shall be equal to 66-
2/3% of the Member’s Accrued Benefit until the spouse reaches age 60
and shall be equal to 50% of the Member’s Accrued Benefit thereafter.
Eligibility for Benefits
Normal retirement Retirement on NRD
Early retirement Eligibility A: Attained age 55 prior to termination with at least 15 years
Vesting Service.
Eligibility B: Attained age 55 after termination with at least 15 years of
Vesting Service.
Postponed retirement Continued employment beyond Normal Retirement Date.
Vested termination Five years of Vesting Service.
Disability Five Years of Vesting Service and a disability which prevents the Member from performing assigned duties and which is expected to be a permanent condition.
Pre-retirement death benefit Death while eligible for normal, early, postponed, or deferred vested retirement benefits.
Benefits Paid Upon the Following Events
Normal retirement Monthly pension benefit determined as of NRD.

Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 34 of 37
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 31
January 2016
Early retirement Benefit A: Accrued benefit based on Benefit Service to early retirement
date payable in full at or after age 62. If payments commence
immediately at date of early retirement the benefit is multiplied
by the appropriate factor from the following table:
Retirement Factor Table A

Age
Non-Local 77 Member
Hired before 1/1/2006 or
Local 77 Member Hired Before
January 1, 2011
Non-Local 77 Member
Hired on/after 1/1/2006 and
Local 77 Member Hired
on/after January 1, 2011
62 100% 100%
61 96 95 60 92 90
59 88 85 58 84 80
57 80 75 56 76 70
55 72 65
For non-Local 77 participants hired before 1/1/2006 or Local 77 members hired before January 1, 2011, the Early Retirement Factor is increased, up to a maximum of 100%, by 1.0% (one percentage point) for each year of benefit service above 15.
Benefit B: Accrued benefit based on Benefit Service to termination date
payable in full at or after age 65. If payments commence upon
early retirement eligibility, the benefit is multiplied by the
appropriate factor from the following table:
Retirement Factor Table B
Age Retirement Factor
65 100% 64 95 63 90 62 85 61 80 60 75 59 70 58 65
57 60 56 55 55 50

For non-Local 77 participants who were hired before 1/1/2006
or Local 77 members hired before January 1, 2011, the Early
Retirement Factor is increased, up to a maximum of 100%, by
1.0% (one percentage point) for each year of benefit service
above 15.
Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 35 of 37
32 Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation
Willis Towers Watson Confidential
Postponed retirement The Normal Retirement Benefit Formula applied to earnings and Service up to deferred retirement date. Payment commences on the actual
retirement date.
Vested termination Accrued benefit at date of termination with payments commencing at normal retirement date. If the Member has 15 years of Vesting Service, an election may be made for benefits to commence at any time after age 55,
in which case benefits will be reduced from age 65 as discussed in “Early Retirement.”
Disablement Accrued benefit commencing at Normal Retirement Date based on Final Average Earnings at time of disability but including as Benefit Service the period of the Member’s disability, contingent upon five years of Vesting Service at disability (10 years if employed in a position covered by a
collective bargaining agreement). A disabled Member may elect Early Retirement when first eligible to do so, in which case the benefit is
reduced.
Pre-retirement death If the Member was eligible for Early or Normal Retirement, the Monthly pre-retirement death benefit shall commence on the first day of the month following the Member’s death. If the Member’s death precedes Early or
Normal Retirement eligibility, the Monthly pre-retirement death benefit shall commence on the earliest date on which the Member’s benefit could have
commenced had he survived. Benefits commencing before the Member’s Normal Retirement Date will be reduced from Member’s age 65 as
discussed in “Early Retirement.”
Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 36 of 37
Retirement Plan for Employees of Avista Corporation 33
January 2016
Other Plan Provisions
Forms of payment The normal form of benefit for non-married participants is the single life annuity. The normal form for married participants is a joint and survivor benefit with 66 2/3% of the participant’s benefit payable to the surviving spouse until the spouse is age 60 and 50% payable thereafter.
Pension Increases None
Plan participants’ contributions None
Maximum on benefits and pay ll benefits and pay for any calendar year may not exceed the maximum
standard limitations for that year as defined in the Internal Revenue Code. The plan provides for increasing the dollar limits automatically as such changes become effective. Increases in the dollar limits are assumed for determining pension cost but not for determining
contributions.
Future Plan Changes
No future plan changes were recognized.
Changes in Benefits Valued Since Prior Valuation
None.

Staff_PR_031 Attachment F Page 37 of 37
Page 1 of 1

AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 06/15/2016 CASE NO.: AVU-E-16-03 WITNESS: Mark Thies
REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Lauren Pendergraft
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: Finance
REQUEST NO.: Staff - 031 TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:
Please provide copies of the Company’s pension and actuarial reports for the years 2010-2016.
Also, please provide any actuarial calculations and documentation that show the development of FAS 87 expense (ASC 715 Compensation – Retirement Benefits as codified), company
contributions, balances and assumptions.

RESPONSE: See Staff_PR_031 Attachments A – F for the 2010-2016 actuarial reports. The reports contain
the calculations, company contributions, balances, and assumptions. Due to the voluminous
nature of the attachments, they are being provided in electronic format only.
AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 06/20/2016 CASE NO.: AVU-E-16-03 WITNESS: Scott Morris/Mark Thies
REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Paul Kimball
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: State & Federal Regulation
REQUEST NO.: Staff - 032 TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:

Please provide copies of the Board of Directors’ Materials distributed for/at meetings from 2014-2016 to date. Please also include the same for the Compensation Committee.

RESPONSE:
The Company has prepared a Virtual Data Room which houses the requested materials. Please
contact Paul Kimball via email – [e-mail] – to get the required login and
password information.

AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 06/10/2016 CASE NO: AVU-E-16-03 WITNESS: Elizabeth Andrews
REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Ryan Finesilver
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: State & Federal Regulation
REQUEST NO.: Staff-034 TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:

Please describe the fixed costs associated with the use of the Company-owned aircraft, such as pilot salaries, hangar fees, etc. Please provide the dollar amount posted in 2015 at the system level, the account(s) posted, how those costs were allocated or assigned to Idaho gas and Idaho electric
operations.

RESPONSE:
Please see Staff_PR_034 Attachment A for a listing of utility costs associated with the company
aircraft. These costs are allocated 23.040% to Idaho Electric and 5.432% to Idaho Gas. In general,
fixed costs include the following:
• Plane lease payments
• Pilot salaries
• Insurance • Hanger Rent • Maintenance

These costs are primarily captured using Master Activity Code (MAC) 011, Corporate Aircraft
Operations. Outside of the MAC 011 Project / Task combinations, there are two additional project / task combinations for training and professional fees which are included for Org Code L54; these costs are expensed as incurred.

AVISTA CORPORATION RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

JURISDICTION: IDAHO DATE PREPARED: 06/17/2016 CASE NO: AVU-E-16-03 WITNESS: Elizabeth Andrews
REQUESTER: IPUC RESPONDER: Ryan Finesilver
TYPE: Production Request DEPARTMENT: State & Federal Regulation
REQUEST NO.: Staff - 035 TELEPHONE: [phone]
REQUEST:

Please describe the variable costs associated with the use of the Company-owned aircraft, such as fuel. Please provide the dollar amount posted in 2014 at the system level, the account(s) posted, how those costs were allocated or assigned to Idaho gas and Idaho electric operations.

RESPONSE: Please see Staff_PR_035 Attachment A for a listing of all variable costs associated with the
company aircraft during the 2015 test period. Please also see Staff_PR_035 Attachment B for
costs included in the pooling account.
Variable Costs:
• Fuel
• Landing Fees Variable costs such as fuel and landing fees are captured in Project 77700115 / Task 184110. This
is a pooling account that is used to captures costs. As the plane is used, a standard per minute rate
is billed to the Projects and tasks which utilize the plane; this charge is used to offset costs pooled
in the above account. Representatives from multiple departments may utilize the plane at any given time. When this occurs, the per-minute rate is allocated among the appropriate projects
based on the number of travelers.

All variable costs are allocated based on the number of passengers listed on the manifest and the
purpose of their travel, and appropriately charge the use of the plane to either Utility or Non-Utility / Subsidiary operations.

A total of $6,224 Idaho Electric expenses related to the company aircraft were removed from test
period expenses in the Miscellaneous Restating Adjustment (adjustment 2.08 E-MR).
Summary of Rate Orders
Avista Corporation
Q1 2015

Purpose: This report summarizes the findings and rulings of the various state Utility
Commissions as they apply to Avista Corporation. These rate orders are available from
the different state Utility Commission websites that Avista provides service, including:

 Oregon – www.puc.idaho.gov
 Washington – www.utc.wa.gov

OREGON

Case No. UG 284
Order No. 15-0547 (02/23/15)

Background: On September 2, 2014, Avista filed for a general rate increase in Oregon for retail
customers. The Commission suspended Avista’s filing until July 3, 2015 for investigations. A
public meeting to take public comments on the proposed rate increase was held on December 11,
2014. The meeting was held simultaneously in White City, and Grants Pass, Oregon, with the
Commissioners participating via video conference from Salem. In addition, the Commission
received public comment via telephone, e-mail, and U.S. Mail. Following settlement discussions,
Avista, Staff, CUB, and NWIGU filed an all-party stipulation on January 21, 2015, to resolve all
issues in this docket. On January 28, 2015, the parties filed joint testimony in support of their
stipulation. On January 29, 2015, Staff filed its own testimony in support of the stipulation,
together with witness affidavits. The stipulation, joint testimony, and Staff’s testimony were
received in evidence.
On February 23, 2015, the Commission rejected Avista’s all-party settlement stipulation, for the
requested General Rate Revision. The Commission rejected the stipulation due to concerns
related to proposed early rate implementation credit, rate spread, and customer count tracking
mechanism. The Judge is directed to convene a prehearing conference to set a schedule for
further proceedings.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-054.pdf

Case No. UM 1012
Order No. 15-057 (02/24/15)

Background: At its public meeting on February 24, 2015, the PUC of Oregon Staff
recommended the Commission issue an order setting the annual fee rate at 0.25 percent of 2014
gross operating revenues for electric, natural gas, water, and wastewater utilities.
Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 1 of 34
Effective March 1, 2015, the Commission issued an order to impose annual Regulatory Fees upon
Public Utilities operating within the State of Oregon. The annual fee assessment rate is 0.25
percent in 2015 for electric, natural gas, water, and wastewater utilities.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-057.pdf

Case No. LC 61
Order No. 15-063 (03/02/15)
Background: on August 29, 2014, Avista filed its 2014 IRP. After rounds of comments filed by
Staff, CUB, and Avista, the Staff presented its final recommendation on Avista’s 2014 IRP at the
February 24, 2015 Public Meeting.
On March 2, 2015, the Commission issued an order in the matter of Avista’s 2014 Integrated
Resource Plan (IRP). The order acknowledged the IRP with certain revisions and additional
requirements as follows:

1. Supply Side Actions
a. No Major Resource Acquisition
2 Demand Side Actions
a. By May 1, 2015, in addition to those items specified in Order No. 13-159, Avista
shall file for Commission approval specific DSM targets for the next
two to four years. As part of the filing, Avista should:
i. Provide Total Resource Cost (TRC) benefit/cost ratios (BCR) and utility
cost test (UCT) BCRs for each measure and program that has a TRC or
UCT BCR of less than one;
ii. Provide projected achievable savings for each measure and program
identified in item a. above; and.
iii. Recommend which, if any, measures it is requesting an exception for
under docket UM 551, Order No. 94-590.
b. Participate in NEEA’s new gas market transformation initiative, and in the next, IRP
include and note specific gas market transformation savings potential that are part of
the achievable resource potential.

Additional Commission Directives:

1. As part of its next IRP process, Avista must convene workshops with Staff and
stakeholders to explore how best to model major resource acquisitions and major capital
investments.

2. For the next IRP, Avista must work with Staff and stakeholders to resolve forecasting
methodology concerns, and seek to identify the most reliable methodology so that future
resource needs may be clearly identified.

3. In its next IRP, Avista must include a clear presentation of how Avista decides which
distribution system projects to include in the IRP, and a clear description of the included
projects, along with a justification for recommending or proceeding with the projects.

4. As part of its next IRP process, Avista must convene discussions with Staff and
stakeholders to discuss potential impacts associated with: 1) new regulations to reduce
methane emissions; and 2) potential increases in natural gas prices stemming from
Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 2 of 34
increased demand for natural gas for generation under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air
Act.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-063.pdf

WASHINGTON

Case Nos. UE-150204 and UG-150205
Order No. 01, 02, 03

Background: On February 9, 2015, Avista, filed with the UTC revisions to its currently
effective Tariff WN U-28, Electric Service, the stated effective date is March 12, 2015. The
purpose is to increase rates and charges for electric and gas service provided to customers in
the state of Washington.
On February 20, 2015, the Commission issued a Complaint and Order suspending Tariff
Revisions and an Order of Consolidation for Dockets UE-150204 and UG-150205 in Avista’s
General Rate Case. On February 20, 2015, the Commission issued a Protective Order in Dockets
Confidentiality Agreements will have to be signed and returned in order to receive confidential
materials and discovery items.

On March 16, 2015, the Commission issued a Prehearing Conference Order and Notice of
Hearing, set for October 5-8, 2015. The Procedural Schedule is found in Appendix B.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=258&year=201
5&docketNumber=150205

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=285&year=201
5&docketNumber=150204

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=332&year=201
5&docketNumber=150204
Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 3 of 34
Summary of Rate Orders
Avista Corporation
Q2 2015

Purpose: This report summarizes the findings and rulings of the various state Utility
Commissions as they apply to Avista Corporation. These rate orders are available from
the different state Utility Commission websites that Avista provides service, including:

 Oregon – www.puc.idaho.gov
 Washington – www.utc.wa.gov

OREGON

Case No. UG 284
Order No. 15109 (04/09/15), 15171, 15170

Background: On September 2, 2014, Avista filed for a general rate increase in Oregon for
retail customers. The Commission suspended Avista’s filing until July 3, 2015 for
investigations. A public meeting to take public comments on the proposed rate increase
was held on December 11, 2014. The meeting was held simultaneously in White City,
and Grants Pass, Oregon, with the Commissioners participating via video conference
from Salem. In addition, the Commission received public comment via telephone, e-mail,
and U.S. Mail. Following settlement discussions, Avista, Staff, CUB, and NWIGU filed
an all-party stipulation on January 21, 2015, to resolve all issues in this docket. On
January 28, 2015, the parties filed joint testimony in support of their stipulation. On
January 29, 2015, Staff filed its own testimony in support of the stipulation, together with
witness affidavits. The stipulation, joint testimony, and Staff’s testimony were received
in evidence.

The Commission issued a final order that approved the amended settlement stipulation
between Avista, Commission Staff, CUB and the Northwest Industrial Gas Users.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-109.pdf

On June 4, 2015, the Commission issued a Fund Grant request for CUB in the amount of
$20,425.20.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-171.pdf

On June 4, 2015, the Commission issued a Fund Grant request for NWIGU in the amount
of $31,686.81.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-170.pdf
Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 4 of 34
Case No. UG 288
Order No. 15141 (05/06/15), 15143

Background: On May 1, 2015, Avista filed a request for General Rate Revision and a
motion for a general protective order. Avista states that the order is needed to protect
commercially sensitive and confidential business information related to the company's
request. Specifically, Avista anticipates parties will seek confidential information
including propriety cost data and models, commercially sensitive load and resource
projections, confidential market analyses and business projections, confidential employee
data, and confidential contract information. Avista adds that the order will facilitate the
projection of relevant information and expedite the discovery process.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-141.pdf

On May 6, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Prehearing Conference and the tariff
sheets were suspended, not to exceed nine months from June 3, 2015.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-143.pdf

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-143.pdf

Case No. LC 61
Order No. 15186 (06/09/15)

Background: On August 29, 2014 Avista filed its 2014 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP).
In the matter of Avista’s 2014 IRP, the Commission issued an order to approve CUB’s
issue grant request in the amount of $5,225.30.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-186.pdf

WASHINGTON

Case Nos. UE-150204 and UG-150205
Order No. 01(02/20/15), 02 (02/20/15), 03 (03/16/15)

Background: On February 9, 2015, Avista, filed with the UTC revisions to its currently
effective Tariff WN U-28, Electric Service, the stated effective date is March 12, 2015.
The purpose is to increase rates and charges for electric and gas service provided to
customers in the state of Washington.

Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 5 of 34
On February 20, 2015, the Commission issued a Complaint and Order suspending Tariff
Revisions and an Order of Consolidation for Dockets UE-150204 and UG-150205 in
Avista’s General Rate Case. On February 20, 2015, the Commission issued a Protective
Order in Dockets Confidentiality Agreements will have to be signed and returned in order
to receive confidential materials and discovery items.

On March 16, 2015, the Commission issued a Prehearing Conference Order and Notice
of Hearing, set for October 5-8, 2015. The Procedural Schedule is found in Appendix B.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=258&y
ear=2015&docketNumber=150205

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=285&y
ear=2015&docketNumber=150204

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=332&y
ear=2015&docketNumber=150204

Case Nos. UE-131056
Order No. 02 (6/25/15)

Background: On May 31, 2013, Avista initiated this docket by filing with the
Commission a Renewable Report under RCW 19.285.070 and WAC 480-109-210 (RPS
Report). Based on its average annual load for 2011 and 2012, Avista reported that its
2013 renewable energy target was 166,740 megawatt-hours (MWh). In Order 01 in this
docket, dated Sept. 9, 2013, the Commission accepted Avista’s calculation of its 2013
target.

On June 25, 2015, the Commission issued an order for Avista’s Final 2015 Renewable
Compliance report under RCW 19.285.070 and WAC 480-109-210, the order
acknowledges compliance with 2013 Renewable Energy Target.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=45&yea
r=2013&docketNumber=131056

Case Nos. UE-140188 & UG-140189
Order No. 06 (06/25/15)

Background: On November 25, 2014, the Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission (Commission) entered a final order rejecting the tariff filing of Avista
Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 6 of 34
Corporation d/b/a Avista Utilities (Avista or the Company), accepting with conditions a
full settlement stipulation (Settlement), authorizing tariff filing, and requiring compliance
filings in Dockets UE-140188 and UG-140189 (Order 05). Among other things, the
Settlement required Avista to meet with the Commission’s regulatory staff (Staff) and
other interested parties to develop and implement appropriate service quality metrics,
customer guarantees and reporting, with the agreed upon tariff revisions filed on or
before June 1, 2015, with a program in place on July 1, 2015.

On May 29, 2015, Avista filed its proposed Service Quality Measures (SQM) Program
(SQM Filing) language and accompanying tariffs, after discussions with Staff, Public
Counsel, and The Energy Project on six separate occasions. Staff and Public Counsel
filed responses to the Company’s SQM Filing on June 10, 2015. Avista filed comments
in reply on June 17, 2015 (Avista’s Reply).

The Commission issued a final order approving Avista’s Service Quality Measures program compliance filing.

Avista will implement customer guarantee credits-(07/01/15)

Avista will provide potential natural gas SQM report see the attached responsibility
matrix-(12/30/15)

Avista will guarantee credits borne by shareholders.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=1140&
year=2014&docketNumber=140188

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=553&y
ear=2014&docketNumber=140189

Case Nos. UE-140188 & UG-140189
Order No. 07 (06/25/15)

Background: On November 25, 2014, the Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission (Commission) entered a final order rejecting the tariff filing of Avista
Corporation d/b/a Avista Utilities (Avista or the Company), accepting with conditions a
full settlement stipulation (Settlement), authorizing tariff filing, and requiring compliance
filings in Dockets UE-140188 and UG-140189 (Order 05). Among other things, Order 05
required Avista to double its funding increase for the Company’s Low-Income Rate
Assistance Program (LIRAP) from the amount proposed in the Settlement. The
settlement provided that the parties would work together to develop mutually agreed
upon additions and modifications to LIRAP. Order 05 provided that if the Parties could
Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 7 of 34
not agree upon modifications or additions to the program they would file alternative or
competing proposals with the Commission no later than June 1, 2015.

On June 25, 2015, the Commission issued a final order granting the Joint Petition and
approving modifications and additions to Avista’s Low-Income Rate Assistance Program
compliance filing.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=1143&
year=2014&docketNumber=140188

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=556&y
ear=2014&docketNumber=140189

Program Modifications

The first modification provides funding as a fixed annual budget, rather than collecting
and allocating funding to Community Action Agencies on a variable monthly basis. To
accomplish this, Avista will make an annual true-up filing to ensure recovery of the
annual budget each year. The total LIRAP revenue requirement will continue to be set in
a GRC or other proceeding. Unspent funds will remain available for the next program
year. This change will benefit Community Action Agencies by enabling them to know
their fixed annual allocations by the end of May each year, and to budget accordingly.

Second, Avista will establish an ongoing energy assistance program advisory group to
continue to monitor and explore ways to improve LIRAP. The group will hold at least
two meetings per year. The costs of convening the advisory group will be recovered
through general rates, not through Schedules 92 and 192, which fund the LIRAP electric
and gas programs.

Finally, the Parties propose various other changes. Notably, administrative changes will
improve communication between Avista, the Community Action Agencies, and program
participants.

Program Additions

As an addition to the current LIRAP program, the Parties propose a pilot rate discount
program for seniors and customers with disabilities. The Parties believe the addition of
this program will enable LIRAP to reach more senior customers than the current program
alone, lower these customers’ energy burden, and may be more effective in preventing
disconnections than a one-time grant.

Fixed-income seniors and fixed-income customers with a disability whose household
income is between 126-200% of the federal poverty line (FPL) will be eligible for this
Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 8 of 34
pilot program. The program will provide a rate discount with an average benefit of $300
per participant per program year. Up to 800 customers will be eligible to participate
from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2017.

The program’s budget is $700,000, which includes $50,000 for a third-party evaluation.
Parties propose to increase LIRAP funding by $350,000 per year to fund this two-year
pilot. A total of $210,992 will be recovered annually through electric Schedule 92, and
$113,238 through natural gas schedule 192. NWIGU, representing transportation
customers on Schedule 146, agreed to contribute $25,770 annually to LIRAP.

The Parties also filed a study published by SNAP and Eastern Washington University on
the incidence of poverty in Avista’s service territory. This study relies on data from the
American Community Survey, which provides an estimated 5-year rolling average
household income by census tract. The Parties argue that the study shows that over eight
percent of households live below 50 percent of the federal poverty line (FPL), and that
over one-third of households in Avista’s service area live below 200 percent of the FPL.

In light of this high level of need, and experiences from other states, the Parties plan to
continue to discuss the addition of new LIRAP programs. Specifically, the Parties will
explore the feasibility of implementing percentage of bill payment and arrearage
management plans. Percentage of bill payment plans lower the customer’s energy bill to a
set percentage of total household income. Arrearage management plans mitigate the
hardship caused by a large arrearage by establishing achievable monthly payments. The
Parties intend to investigate these program options further, and file a pilot proposal or
status update by January 15, 2017.

RFP for third party evaluator due 7/16/15

LIRAP 3rd Party evaluation 12/15/17

Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 9 of 34
Summary of Rate Orders
Avista Corporation
Q3 2015

Purpose: This report summarizes the findings and rulings of the various state Utility
Commissions as they apply to Avista Corporation. These rate orders are available from
the different state Utility Commission websites that Avista provides service, including:

 Alaska – www.rca.alaska.gov
 Idaho – www.puc.state.id.us
 Montana – psc.mt.gov
 Oregon – www.puc.idaho.gov
 Washington – www.utc.wa.gov

Alaska

Nothing to report

IDAHO

Case No. AVU-E-15-06
Order No. 33350 (07/30/15),

Background: On May 13, 2015, Avista Corporation and Clearwater Paper Corporation filed
a Joint Petition requesting that the Commission approve an amendment to their Electric
Service Agreement approved by the Commission in June 2013. See Order No. 32841. In their
amendment dated May 4, 2015, the Parties agreed to make two modifications to their
Agreement outlined, in greater detail, in the link below. The Parties requested that their
Petition be processed under Modified Procedure with an effective date of August 1, 2015. On
June 3,2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Petition and Modified Procedure requesting
public comment on the Petition no later than July 17, 2015. Commission Staff was the only
party to comment and recommended the Commission approve Amendment No. 1.

On July, 30, 2015, the Commission approved the Joint Petition.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Final_Order_No_33350.pdf

Case No. AVU-E-15-01
Order No. 33286 (04/23/15), 33311 (06/02/15), 33357 (08/20/15)

Background: On January 30, 2015, Idaho Power filed a Petition asking the Commission
to reduce the length of its PURPA contracts from 20 years to two years (Case No. IPC-E-
15-01). The Commission granted Idaho Power interim relief, reducing the term for the
Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 10 of 34
utility’s new PURPA contracts to five years while the Commission investigated the
matter. Order No. 33222. Shortly thereafter, Avista Corporation and Rocky Mountain
each filed petitions seeking the same or similar permanent and interim relief (Case Nos.
AVU-E-15-01, PAC-E-15-03). On March 13, 2015, the Commission consolidated the
three cases and granted Avista and Rocky Mountain the same interim relief granted Idaho
Power. Order No. 33250.

On April 23, 2015, the Commission issued order 33286, which denied Simplot and
Clearwater’s Joint Petition for Clarification.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Order_No_33286.pdf

On May 7, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Public Customer Hearings. The
hearings will be held on June 24, 2015 at 7pm in the Commission Hearing Room and on
June 30, 2015 at 7pm a telephonic customer hearing will be held, in the Commission
Hearing Room.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Notice_of_Public_Hearings.pdf

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Notice_of_Public_Hearings_Errata.pdf

On June 2, 2015, the Commission allowed Ecoplexus to conditionally intervene. The
Commission denied Ecoplexus’s motion to Late File Direct Testimony.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Order_No_33311.pdf

On August 20, 2015, the Commission issued a final order to approve Avista’s Petition to
reduce the length of its IRP based PURPA contracts to two years and to allow Avista to enter
IRP-based QF contracts in excess of two years on a case-by-case basis with appropriate
justification.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Final_Order_No_33357.pdf

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Final_Order_No_33287.pdf

Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 11 of 34
OREGON

Case No. UM 903
Order No. 15-210 (07/07/15)

Background: Avista and the other two Oregon-regulated natural gas distribution companies
recover gas costs under an automatic adjustment clause known as the Purchased Gas
Adjustment (PGA). The purpose of the PGA is to permit each natural gas utility to adjust
revenue annually to reflect actual increases or decreases in gas costs/

On July 7, 2015, the Commission accepted that Avista’s earnings for the 12 months ended
December 31, 2014, were calculated correctly, are below the earnings threshold established
in UM 903 and there should be no earnings shared in this filing.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-210.pdf

Case No. AR 588
Order No. 15-232 (08/11/15)

Background: On August 11, 2015 the Commission adopted a rule, OAR 860-027-0350, to
require regulated energy utilities to file depreciation studies no less frequently than once
every five years.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-232.pdf

Case No. AR 591
Order No. 15-266 (09/08/15)

Background: On July 15, 2015, we filed a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Statement of
Need and Fiscal Impact for this rulemaking with the Secretary of State, and we provided
notice to all interested persons on the service lists established under OAR 860-001-0030(1)
(b) and to legislators specified in ORS 183.335(l)(d). Notice of the rulemaking was published
in the August 2015 Oregon Bulletin. The notice established a comment due date of August
24, 2015. No comments were filed.

On September 8, 2015, the Commission adopted changes to OAR 860-021-0034, 860-021-0036,
860-032-0095, 860-034-0095, 860-036-0095, and 860-037-0095 to implement 2015 Senate Bill
329 changes to 756.310. The changes to ORS 756.310 became effective on June 8, 2015. The
changes increase the maximum percentage rate of gross revenues that may be imposed from 25
one-hundredths of one percent (0.25 percent) to three-tenths of a one percent (0.3 percent).

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-266.pdf
Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 12 of 34
Case No. LC 61
Order No. 15-288 (09/22/15)

Background: On August 31, 2012, Avista Corporation (Avista or Company) filed its 2012
Natural Gas Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). Within the IRP, Avista's DSM Business Plan
anticipated that the natural gas DSM portfolio could be marginally cost effective presuming a 25
percent reduction in avoided costs. This presumed decline in avoided costs, was replaced with a
new avoided cost forecast that was 50 percent lower than the original forecast leading to a non-
cost effective DSM portfolio. Avista filed to suspend its natural gas DSM.
On April 30, 2013, within Order 13-159, the Commission directed Avista to continue its
DSM programs in Oregon and achieve a minimum savings of 225,000 therms in 2013and
250,000 therms in 2014. In addition, the Commission required that Avista provide additional
reporting within two years. On March 2, 2015, the Commission provided additional direction to
Avista related to DSM in Order No. 15-063, which acknowledges Avista's 2014 IRP Action plan.

Avista filed the required reports on May 1, 2015, in response to the Commission Order
Nos. 13-150 in LC 55 and 15-063 in LC61, Upon receipt of the reports, Staff found the reports
inadequate and was initially unable to provide a clear recommendation to the
Commission based upon the information provided and asked Avista to provide additional follow-
up information (Appendix B). Due to recent loss of key planning staff at the Company, Avista
requested additional time to respond to questions, over the course of a six-week period, Avista
was extremely responsive to Staff's requests, answered all clarifying questions and provided
additional data to sufficiently address the requirements in the two orders.

On September 22, 2015, the Commission approved Avista’s request for 2015-2016 DSM targets
and granted cost effectiveness exceptions to the measures summarized in the following link.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-288.pdf

WASHINGTON

Case Nos. UE-150520
Order No. 01(07/30/15)

Background: The Utilities and Transportation Commission (Commission), in its Fifth
supplemental Order, in Docket UE-011595 (June 18, 2002), authorized Avista Corporation
dba Avista Utilities (Avista or Company) to implement an Energy Recovery Mechanism
(ERM). The ERM allows for positive or negative adjustments to its rates to account for
fluctuations in power costs, outside of an authorized band, for power-cost recovery in base
rates. Under the Settlement Stipulation approved by the Commission in the same order,
Avista is required to make a filing by April 1 of each year regarding the power costs it
deferred the prior calendar year under the ERM.

Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 13 of 34
On July 30, 2015, the Commission issued an order regarding Avista’s Energy Recovery
Mechanism (ERM) Annual Filing to review deferrals for Calendar Year 2014. The Order
recognizes that Avista meets the requirements in Dockets UE-011595 and UE-030751 and
Avista has properly calculated the 2014 Energy Recovery Mechanism amount. Pursuant to the
terms of the Energy Recovery Mechanism, Avista is authorized to record a 2014 rate-payer
deferral or rebate amount of $4,224,011.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=21&year=2
015&docketNumber=150520

Case Nos. UE-150715
Order No. 01 (07/30/15)

Background: On May 1, 2015, Avista Corporation (Avista or Company) filed a petition for
an order approving a Lease Agreement between the Company and Mobius Science Center
(Mobius), a non-profit science center that opened in Spokane in 2012. The Lease Agreement
will allow Avista to form an educational partnership with Mobius and fulfill its hydro-dam
relicensing requirements to provide educational displays on the operations and environmental
aspects of hydro power. The Lease Agreement grants Mobius occupancy of the ground floor
of the Post Street Annex, which is a three-story facility. Avista will continue to use the other
two floors of the Annex as a supporting facility for the Post Street substation next door.

On July 30, 2015, the Commission approved the lease agreement related to the Post
Street Annex between Avista and Mobius Science Center.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=15&yea
r=2015&docketNumber=150715

Case Nos. UE-151145
Order No. 01 (07/30/15)

Background: The Energy Independence Act (EIA or Act) requires qualifying electric
utilities to obtain certain percentages of their electricity from eligible renewable resources.
The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (Commission) enforces
compliance with the EIA by investor-owned utilities. Ultimately, the Commission must
determine “whether the utility has generated, acquired or arranged to acquire enough
renewable energy credits or qualifying generation to comply with its renewable resource
target.”

On July 30, 2015, Commission issued an order approving compliance with eligible
renewable energy target reporting requirements for 2015.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=59&yea
r=2015&docketNumber=151145
Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 14 of 34

Case Nos. P-150462
Order No. 01 (08/27/15)

Background: The Commission imposes an annual pipeline safety fee pursuant to RCW
80.24.060 and RCW 81.24.090 to meet the costs of its pipeline safety program. RCW
8024.060(1) requires that every gas company and every interstate gas pipeline company
subject to inspection or enforcement by the Commission must pay an annual pipeline safety
fee to the Commission. RCW 81.24.090(1) requires that every hazardous liquid pipeline
company as defined in RCW 81.88.010 must pay an annual pipeline safety fee to the
Commission. The fee is determined by the fee methodology established in WAC 480-93-240
(gas) and WAC 480-75-240 (hazardous liquid).

On August 27, 2015, the Commission issued an order regarding the pipeline safety fees to be
paid to the Commission for fiscal year 2016 (July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016). Under
the provisions of RCW 80.24.060 and RCW 81.24.090, and the fee methodology in WAC
480-93-240 and WAC 480-75-240, are established as set out in Exhibit A, attached to this
Order. Avista’s fees are part of the Commission Fees paid in April 2015. No other payments
are necessary.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=6&year=20
15&docketNumber=150462

Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 15 of 34
Summary of Rate Orders
Avista Corporation
Q4 2015

Purpose: This report summarizes the findings and rulings of the various state Utility
Commissions as they apply to Avista Corporation. These rate orders are available from
the different state Utility Commission websites that Avista provides service, including:

 Alaska – www.rca.alaska.gov
 Idaho – www.puc.state.id.us
 Montana – psc.mt.gov
 Oregon – www.puc.idaho.gov
 Washington – www.utc.wa.gov

Alaska

Nothing to report

IDAHO

Case No. AVU-E-15-01
Order No. 33286 (04/23/15), 33311 (06/02/15), 33357 (08/20/15), 33395 (10/08/15),
33419 (11/05/15)

Background: On January 30, 2015, Idaho Power filed a Petition asking the Commission
to reduce the length of its PURPA contracts from 20 years to two years (Case No. IPC-E-
15-01). The Commission granted Idaho Power interim relief, reducing the term for the
utility’s new PURPA contracts to five years while the Commission investigated the
matter. Order No. 33222. Shortly thereafter, Avista Corporation and Rocky Mountain
each filed petitions seeking the same or similar permanent and interim relief (Case Nos.
AVU-E-15-01, PAC-E-15-03). On March 13, 2015, the Commission consolidated the
three cases and granted Avista and Rocky Mountain the same interim relief granted Idaho
Power. Order No. 33250.

On April 23, 2015, the Commission issued order 33286, which denied Simplot and
Clearwater’s Joint Petition for Clarification.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Order_No_33286.pdf

On May 7, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Public Customer Hearings. The
hearings will be held on June 24, 2015 at 7pm in the Commission Hearing Room and on
June 30, 2015 at 7pm a telephonic customer hearing will be held, in the Commission
Hearing Room.
http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Notice_of_Public_Hearings.pdf
Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 16 of 34
http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Notice_of_Public_Hearings_Errata.pdf

On June 2, 2015, the Commission allowed Ecoplexus to conditionally intervene. The
Commission denied Ecoplexus’s motion to Late File Direct Testimony.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Order_No_33311.pdf

On August 20, 2015, the Commission issued a final order to approve Avista’s Petition to
reduce the length of its IRP based PURPA contracts to two years and to allow Avista to enter
IRP-based QF contracts in excess of two years on a case-by-case basis with appropriate
justification.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Final_Order_No_33357.pdf

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Final_Order_No_33287.pdf

On October 8, 2015, the Commission granted Simplot and Clearwater’s Petition for
Reconsideration. The Commission anticipates issuing a final order within 28 days.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Order_No_33395.pdf

On November 5, 2015 Avista, Idaho Power, and Rocky Mountain Power’s petition to
modify terms and conditions of PURPA Purchase Agreements, the Commission denied
Clearwater’s and Simplot’s request to amend the final Order No. 33357.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Reconsideration_Order_No_33419.pdf

Case No. AVU-G-15-02
Order No. 33402 (10/23/15)

Background: On August 27, 2015, Avista filed its annual Purchased Gas Cost
Adjustment (PGA) Application. The PGA is a Commission-approved mechanism that
adjusts rates up or down to reflect changes in Avista’s costs to buy natural gas from
suppliers—including changes in transportation, storage, and other related costs. Avista
defers these costs into its PGA account, and then passes them to customers through an
increase or decrease in rates. With this Application, Avista proposes to decrease its PGA
rates by about $10.3 million (14.5%), effective November 1, 2015.

On September 1, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Application and Notice of
Modified Procedure setting an October 9, 2015 deadline for interested persons to
Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 17 of 34
comment on the Application, and an October 15, 2015 deadline for Avista to file reply
comments. Commission Staff filed the only comments in the case, and supported
Avista’s Application.

On October 23, 2015, the Commission issued an order to approve Avista’s Purchased
Gas Adjustment (PGA). Avista will establish a weighted average cost of gas (WACOG)
of $0.252 per therm, and a Schedule 155 amortization rate of $0.02886 per therm. Tariffs
are for service rendered on and after November 1, 2015.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Final_Order_No_33402.pdf

Case No. AVU-E-15-05 and AVU-G-15-01
Order No. 33400 (10/20/15)

Background: On June 1, 2015, Avista applied to increase its general rates for electric and
natural gas service. The Company proposed a two-phase rate plan that would increase
electric billed revenues by $13.2 million (5.2%) on January 1, 2016, and by $13.7 million
(5.1%) on January 1, 2017.

On October 20, 2015, regarding Avista’s application for authority to increase its rates and
charges for electric and natural gas service the commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Settlement, a Notice of Amended Schedule and a Notice of Public and Technical
Hearings.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Notice_of_Proposed_Settlement_Order_No_334
00.pdf

On December 18, 2015, the Commission issued a final order to approve Avista’s
settlement stipulation to increase its rates and charges for Electric and Natural Gas
service. As part of the settlement, the electric revenues will be increased to $1.7 million
and the natural gas revenues will be increased to $2.5 million. The new tariffs will go
into effect January 1, 2016.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Final_Order_No_33437.pdf

Case No. AVU-U-15-01
Order No. 33401 (10/23/15)

Background: On September 14, 2015, Avista applied for authority to issue and sell up to
$300,000,000 of debt securities and 1,635,000 shares of unissued Common Stock under
the Long-Term Incentive Plan.

Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 18 of 34
On October 23, 2015, The Commission issued a final order to approve Avista’s
application to issue and sell debt securities up to $300,000,000 and to issue up to
1,635,000 shares of Common Stock.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Final_Order_No_33401.pdf

Case No. AVU-E-15-09
Order No. 33416 (11/04/15)

Background: Pursuant to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA)
and the implementing regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC), the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission) has approved an
incremental cost Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) methodology to calculate avoided cost
rates paid to certain PURPA qualifying facilities (QFs). The avoided cost rate is the
purchase price paid to QFs for purchases of QF energy and capacity.
In Order Nos. 32697 and 32802, the Commission determined that the load forecast
and natural gas forecast inputs to the IRP avoided cost methodology should be updated
annually on October 15 of each year.

On November 4, 2015, the Commission issued an order to approve Avista’s annual
update to its load and gas price forecast and long-term contract status for purposes of its
incremental cost IRP (Integrated Resource Plan) methodology. The recent energy load
forecast remains, on average, a 0.6 percent annual average growth rate. The peak
forecast growth rated decreased from 0.7 percent to 0.6 percent. These will go into effect
October 15, 2015.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Final_Order_No_33416.pdf

Case No. AVU-G-15-03
Order No. 33422 (11/20/15), 33444 (12/24/15)

Background: On October 28, 2015, Avista filed an Application for authority to: (1)
resume natural gas energy efficiency programs and projects to residential (including low-
income), commercial and industrial natural gas customers under Schedule 190 (Natural
Gas Efficiency Programs); and (2) fund these programs by increasing its “Energy
Efficiency Rider” surcharge rates in tariff Schedule 191. Application at 1. Avista
proposes that the gas demand-side management (DSM) programs “be offered through
prescriptive rebates to customer segments for eligible weatherization and high efficiency
equipment measures as well as custom incentives for 27 non-residential projects.” Id.
Avista asks that the case be processed by Modified procedure, and that new Schedule 191
Rider rates take effect on January 1, 2016.
In 2012, Avista filed and the Commission approved an application to suspend Avista’s
natural gas DSM programs. In its 2012 application, Avista advised the Commission that
Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 19 of 34
new natural gas costs were about 50% lower than existing avoided costs and that these
lower gas costs render the “natural gas energy efficiency portfolio cost-ineffective going
forward.” Order No. 32650 at 1. After evaluating a number of cost-effectiveness tests,
Avista now seeks to re-establish those programs.

On November 20, 2015, The Commission issued a Notice of Application and a Notice of
Modified procedure in Avista’s application to resume natural gas efficiency programs
and increase the rider surcharge in schedules 190 and 191, dealing with Demand Side
Management (DSM) natural gas efficiency programs. Comments are due no later than
December 10, 2015.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Notice_of_Application_Order_No_33422.pdf

On December 24, 2015, the Commission issued an order to approve Avista’s application
to resume natural gas efficiency programs and increase the rider surcharge in schedules
190 and 191. Tariff Schedules 190 and 191 will become effective January 1, 2016 and
will increase the monthly bill of the average gas customer using 61 therms by about $1.11
per month.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Final_Order_No_33444.pdf

Case No. GNR-U-15-01
Order No. 33426 (12/07/15)

Background: The Commission’s Customer Relations Rules for Gas, Electric and Water
Utilities (IDAPA 31.21.01.106) and the Customer Relations Rules for Telephone
Companies (IDAPA 31.41.01.104) both provide for the payment of interest on customer
deposits. Pursuant to both of these rule sets, the interest rate on deposits is determined by
calculating the 12-month average interest rate for one-year treasury bills for the previous
November 1 through October 31. The resulting rate is then rounded to the nearest whole
percent. The calculated rate will be in effect for the following calendar year. Using the
weekly rates as posted by the U.S. Department of Treasury, the average interest rate for
one-year treasury bills for the 12-month period from November 1, 2014 through
October 31, 2015, is 0.26%. Consistent with our previous findings, we accept Staff’s
position that zero is not a “whole percent” interest rate. Accordingly, public utilities shall
pay 1.0% annual interest on all customer deposits held pursuant to IDAPA Rules
31.21.01.106 and 31.41.01.104 for calendar year 2016. This interest rate is the same as
the interest rate for the years 2010 through 2015.

On December 7, 2015, the Commission issued an order regarding the interest rate on
deposits collected from customers of gas, electric, telephone and water public utilities for
calendar year 2016. The Commission ordered a 1.0% annual interest rate to be paid
Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 20 of 34
during the 2016 calendar year. The rate on deferred accounts using the customer deposit
rate will also be 1.0% for calendar year 2016.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Final_Order_No_33426.pdf

OREGON

Case No. UF 4294
Order No. 15-305 (10/06/15)

Background: On October 6, 2015, the Commission approved Avista’s application to issue an
incremental $300 million of debt securities, and an incremental 1,635,000 shares of common
stock through its Long Term Incentive Plan (LTIP).

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-305.pdf

Case No. UM 1356 (8)
Order No. 15-306 (10/06/15)

Background: On October 6, 2015, the Commission approved Avista’s request for
reauthorization to defer costs related to intervenor funding grants effective November 1,
2015.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-306.pdf

Case No. UM 1497(5)
Order No. 15-319 (10/19/15)

Background: Avista requested reauthorization to use deferred accounting for purchased
gas cost differences. Due to the volatility of the price of natural gas purchased and
transported for customer use, the associated costs are difficult to establish with certainty,
which necessitates the use of deferred accounting to accurately capture the costs for later
incorporation in rates.
October 19, 2015, the Commission approved Avista’s application for reauthorization to
defer gas cost-related differences with the PGA (Purchased Gas Adjustment) mechanism,
for accounting purposes, for the 12-month period beginning November 1, 2015.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-319.pdf

Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 21 of 34

Case No. UG 289
Order No. 15-322 (10/19/15)

Background: The Commission accepted Avista’s changes in the cost of purchased gas
and amortization rate for the Purchased Gas Adjustment balancing account and rates will
become effective with service on and after November 1, 2015.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-322.pdf

Case No. UG 290
Order No. 15-327 (10/19/15)

Background: Avista requested to update the rate increments in its Schedule No. 476, for
intervenor Funding Grants in Oregon, to reflect currently deferred account balances, in
accordance with Order No. 07-397, which requires the costs associated with intervenor
funding be allocated to the customer class on whose behalf the intervenor is acting.

October 19, 2015, the Commission accepted the filing to update rates on Intervenor
Funding and they will become effective with service on and after November 1, 2015.
The residential amortization rate will increase by 22%.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-327.pdf

Case No. UG 291
Order No. 15-328 (10/19/15)

Background: On July 31, 2015, Avista requested to revise Schedule 478, DSM Cost
Recovery. The Company updates this schedule annually with its Purchased Gas
Adjustment (PGA) filing. The Company is proposing to increase the DSM cost recovery
rate by $0.00423 (i.e. from $0.01789 per therm to $0.02212 per therm). The proposed
rate combines the effect of amortizing residual balances from prior periods with DSM
costs that the Company incurred during the twelve months ending June 30, 2015.
The Commission approved updates to Avista’s Demand Side Management (DSM) Cost
Recovery. Avista will increase the DSM cost recovery rate from $0.01789 per therm to
$0.02212 per therm. The increase will go into effect on November 1, 2015.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2015ords/15-328.pdf

Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 22 of 34
Case No. UM 779
Order No. 15-370 (11/17/15)

Background: The Commission issued an order to approve a late-payment rate of no
greater than 1.8 percent monthly on overdue customer accounts and to approve an annual
interest rate of 0.3 percent on customer deposits for calendar year 2016.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/edockets/orders.asp?OrderNumber=15-370

Case No. UG 288
Order No. 15-392 (12/09/15)

Background: On December 3, 2015, the Citizens' Utility Board of Oregon (CUB) filed a
Request for Payment from Avista’s, Issue Fund Grant. Section 7 .3 of the Third Amended
and Restated Intervenor Funding Agreement (Agreement), adopted by the Commission in
Order No. 15-335, governs the procedures for payment of Issue Fund Grants. CUB was
automatically pre-certified to receive Issue Fund Grants under Section 5.2(a) of the
Agreement and under OAR 860-001 -0120(3)(a).

On December 9, 2015, the Commission approved CUB’s request for Avista to pay
$19,800 from the 2015 Issue Fund and $20,451 from the 2016 Issue Fund within 30 days
of December 9, 2015. The grant will be assessed to Avista’s residential customers.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/edockets/orders.asp?OrderNumber=15-392

WASHINGTON

Case Nos. UE-151822
Order No. 01(10/29/15)

Background: On September 11, 2015, Avista filed a statement of a planned securities
issuance and application for an order affirming compliance with RCW 80.08.040. In its
application, Avista proposes to issue up to $300,000,000 of Debt Securities, and 1,635,000
authorized but unissued shares of Common Stock. The application was filed pursuant to
RCW 80.08.040.

On October 29, 2015, the Commission approved Avista’s proposal to issue and sell up to
$300,000,000 of Debt Securities and 1,635,000 authorized by unissued shares of
Common Stock, the Commission issued an order establishing compliance with RCW
80.08.040, Securities.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=9&year
=2015&docketNumber=151822
Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 23 of 34
Case Nos. UE-132045
Order No. 02 (10/29/15)

Background: Electric utilities with 25,000 or more customers are required, under the
Energy Independence Act (EIA or Act) 1, to set and meet energy conservation targets. In
pursuit of all available, cost-effective, reliable, and feasible conservation, electric utilities
must provide progress information and reporting.

On October 29, 2015, the Commission approved Avista’s 2014-2023 Ten-Year
Achievable Electric Conservation Potential of 394,200 MWh and Its 2014-2015 Electric
Biennial Conservation Target of 58,231 MWh, under RCW 19.285.040 and WAC 480-
109-120.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=83&yea
r=2013&docketNumber=132045

Case Nos. UE-152406
Order No. 02 (12/30/15)

Background: On December 22, 2015, Avista filed a revision to its currently effective
Tariff WN U-28, designated as 11th Revision of Sheet 93, Power Cost Surcharge –
Washington. The purpose of the filing is to align the expiration of the current Energy
Recovery Mechanism (ERM) rebate with the effective date of the base rates to be
established through Docket UE-150204.

On December 30, 2015, the Commission granted Avista’s petition to allow less than
statutory notice in connection with Tariff revisions. The filing aligned the expiration of
the current Energy Recovery Mechanism (ERM) rebate with the effective date of the base
rates to be established through Docket UE-150204 (2015 GRC).

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=8&year
=2015&docketNumber=152406
Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 24 of 34
Summary of Rate Orders
Avista Corporation
Q1 2016

Purpose: This report summarizes the findings and rulings of the various state Utility
Commissions as they apply to Avista Corporation. These rate orders are available from
the different state Utility Commission websites that Avista provides service, including:

 Alaska – www.rca.alaska.gov
 Idaho – www.puc.state.id.us
 Montana – psc.mt.gov
 Oregon – www.puc.idaho.gov
 Washington – www.utc.wa.gov

Alaska

Nothing to report

IDAHO

Case No. AVU-E-15-05 and AVU-G-15-01
Order No. 33455 (01/25/16)

Background: On June 1, 2015, Avista applied to increase its general rates for electric and
natural gas service. The Company proposed a two-phase rate plan that would increase
electric billed revenues by $13.2 million (5.2%) on January 1, 2016, and by $13.7 million
(5.1%) on January 1, 2017.

On October 20, 2015, regarding Avista’s application for authority to increase its rates and
charges for electric and natural gas service the commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Settlement, a Notice of Amended Schedule and a Notice of Public and Technical
Hearings.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Notice_of_Proposed_Settlement_Order_No_334
00.pdf

On December 18, 2015, the Commission issued a final order to approve Avista’s
settlement stipulation to increase its rates and charges for Electric and Natural Gas
service. As part of the settlement, the electric revenues will increase to $1.7 million and
the natural gas revenues will be increased to $2.5 million. The new tariffs will go into
effect January 1, 2016.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Final_Order_No_33437.pdf
Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 25 of 34
Craig Kerwin filed a Petition for Reconsideration in the matter of Avista’s request to increase
rates and charges for electric and natural gas service. Mr. Kerwin states that the increase is due to
inflated executive compensation. The Commission issued an order to deny Mr. Kerwin’s
petition.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Reconsideration_Order_No_33455.pdf

Case No. AVU-E-16-01 & AVU-G-16-01
Order No. 33459 (01/29/16)

Background: On January 13, 2016, Avista applied for an order authorizing it to record,
as a regulatory asset, the costs it incurs to offer a fee-free payment program to its
residential customers. Avista requested an Accounting Order that will let it defer and
record the costs so it will have the opportunity to recover those costs through future rates.

The Commission issued a Notice of Application and a Notice of Modified Procedure
comments were due no later than March 14, 2016.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Notice_of_Application_Order_No_33459.pdf

Case No. AVU-G-15-03
Order No. 33464 (02/09/16)

Background: On November 20, 2015, the Commission solicited public comment on
Avista’s proposals to resume various natural gas demand-side management (DSM)
programs. Two public commenters provided the Commission with highly detailed and
technical comments opposing the Application. In the Commission’s Order their remarks
were analyzed and summarized together as the comments of “Technical Commenters.”
They generally argued that the Application warranted heightened scrutiny, offered a
detailed analysis of Avista’s proposal, and provided an alternative view of the proposed
DSM programs. Their comments provided the Commission with additional analysis and
perspective and the Commission lauded the efforts. Ultimately, however, the
Commission concluded that Avista had demonstrated that restarting the DSM programs
and the surcharge were reasonable.
In approving Avista’s Application, the Commission allowed certain modifications to the
previous iteration of the Company’s natural gas DSM programs. For instance, the
Commission approved the use of Utility Cost Test (UCT) as the benchmark measurement
for cost-effectiveness, and allowed the use of “gross”, rather than “net” savings estimates
in the Company’s cost-effectiveness calculations.

Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 26 of 34
The Commission issued an Order of Reconsideration. The Commission clarified some
portions of the order and stated that Avista has met its burden of showing that approval of
the DSM Application is fair, just and reasonable and is in the public interest.

http://www.puc.idaho.gov/orders/recent/Reconsideration_Order_No_33464.pdf

OREGON

Case No. UG 288 & UM 1753
Order No. 16-059 (02/19/16), 16-076 (02/29/16), 16-109 (03/15/16)

Background: Avista’s request for General Rate Revision.

The Commission approved the Issue Fund Grant from CUB in the matter of Avista’s
request for General Rate Revision 2015. Avista will pay $4,549.00 by March 18, 2016.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2016ords/16-059.pdf

In the matters of Avista’s request for General Rate Revision (UG 288) and application for
authorization to defer expenses or revenues related to the Natural Gas Decoupling
Mechanism (UM 1753), the Commission approved a revenue increase of $4.5 million,
new rates were effective March 1, 2016 (UG 288), and approved the application for
deferred accounting. This was a Preliminary Order.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2016ords/16-076.pdf

The Commission issued a Final Order. The Commission approved an increase in revenue
requirement by $4,460,000, representing a 4.9 percent increase to the company’s
previous rates. The Decoupling Mechanism will implement a revenue-per-customer
decoupling mechanism. To implement this mechanism, Avista filed an application for
deferred accounting (UM 1753).

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2016ords/16-109.pdf

Case No. UM 1012
Order No. 16-067 (02/23/16)

Background: Commission Staff requested an order to establish the annual fee level for
electric, gas, water, and wastewater utilities at 2.75 mills per dollar (0.275 percent).

Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 27 of 34

The Commission issued an order setting the annual fee rate at 0.275 percent of 2015
gross operating revenues for electric, natural gas, water, and wastewater utilities.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2016ords/16-067.pdf

Case No. UM 1759
Order No. 16-122 (03/23/16)

Background: Avista filed a request to defer 90 percent of the transactional fees, up to a
cap of $150,000, associated with Avista’s planned debit and credit card fee free payment
program for residential customers.

The Commission approved Avista’s request for accounting purposes only, the deferral
period will commence with Avista’s implementation of the fee free payment program and
will end 12 months later.

http://apps.puc.state.or.us/orders/2016ords/16-122.pdf

WASHINGTON

Case No. UE-150204 & UG-150205
Order No. 5, 6 (01/06/16)

Background: Avista’s request for General Rate Revision 2015

On January 6, 2016, the Commission approved Avista’s partial settlement stipulation
filed on May 1, 2015 including the proposed capital structure of 9.5 percent return on
equity, 7.29 percent rate of return, and 48.5 percent equity component. Avista will file
revised tariff sheets with natural gas rates that will recover $10.8 million, for a 6.3
increase in rates and electric rates that will recover $8.1 million less in revenue, for a 1.63
percent rate decrease.

On January 19, 2016, Staff filed a Motion to Reconsider with the Commission and ICNU
and Public Counsel filed a Motion for Clarification. Rates will stay in effect until the
Commission makes a ruling. On February 3, 2016, the Commission will conduct an
order conference, in this matter. Accounting specialists from Avista, Staff, ICNU, and
Public Counsel will replicate their respective electric revenue requirement and attrition
adjustment calculations.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=1885&
year=2015&docketNumber=150204

Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 28 of 34

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=1888&
year=2015&docketNumber=150204

On February 19, 2016, the Commission issued an order denying the Joint Motion for
Clarification, denying the Petition for Reconsideration, and denying the Motion to
Reopen the Record.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=1968&
year=2015&docketNumber=150204

Case No. UE-152076
Order No. 1 (01/28/16)

Background: Electric utilities with 25,000 or more customers are required under the
Energy Independence Act (EIA or Act) to set and meet energy conservation targets every
two years. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (Commission)
promulgated rules implementing the EIA. These rules further require that each utility
must file a report with the Commission identifying its ten-year achievable conservation
potential and its biennial conservation target every two years.

On October 30, 2015 Avista filed its Biennial Conservation Plan (BCP) identifying a
2016-2025 ten year achievable conservation potential of 391,000 megawatt-hours (MWh)
and a 2016-2017 biennial conservation target of 72, 464 MWh.

On January 5, 2016 Avista filed a revised BCP, where Avista identified a 2016-2025
achievable conservation potential of 383, 063 MWh and a 2016-2017 two year
achievable conservation potential of 60, 212 MWh.

On January 28, 2016, the Commission issued an order approving Avista’s 2016-2025
Achievable Conservation Potential and its 2016-2017 Biennial Conservation Target.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=69&yea
r=2015&docketNumber=152076

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=67&yea
r=2015&docketNumber=152076

Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 29 of 34
Case No. A-140166
Order No. 2 (02/25/16)

Background: RCW Title 80 and RCW Title 81 authorize the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission (Commission) to impose, set, increase, or decrease certain
fees on regulated companies. The following statutes set out specific authority for
imposing regulatory fees according to the industries over which the Commission has
jurisdiction.

On February 25, 2016, the Commission issued an order for Electric and Natural Gas
Companies to pay 0.1% of the first fifty thousand dollars of gross operating revenue, plus
0.2% of any gross operation revenue in excess of the fifty thousand dollars. Fees are due
to the Commission on May 2, 2016 because May 1 is a Sunday.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=6&year
=2014&docketNumber=140166

Case No. UG-152394
Order No. 1 (02/25/16)

Background: On December 16, 2015, Avista filed a Petition for an Order Authorizing
Approval of Changes to the Company’s Natural Gas Line Extension Tariff, Limited
Waiver of WAC 480-90-223 (1), and Accounting Ratemaking Treatment (Petition).
Avista requested approval to make changes to its natural gas line extension tariff, Tariff
WN U-29, Schedule 151, including 1) a modification to the calculation for line extension
allowances, 2) a limited waiver of WAC 480-90-223(1) related to natural gas advertising,
and 3) accounting and ratemaking treatment related to the use of any excess single-family
residential line extension allowance. Avista proposed these changes be approved on a
temporary basis, for a pilot period of three years, with a subsequent review to determine
their effectiveness.

On February 25, 2016, the Commission approved the Gas Line Extension Tariff and
accounting ratemaking treatment on a temporary basis for a three-year period. Avista
must file with the Commission semi-annual reports showing the impact of the increased
allowance and rebates during the three-year pilot period from March 1, 2016 to February
28, 2019.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=23&yea
r=2015&docketNumber=152394

Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 30 of 34
Case No. UG-151148
Order No. Multiparty Settlement Stipulation (02/25/16)

On July 7, 2015, Staff and Public Counsel performed an on-site audit of Avista’s
conservation incentive and non-incentive expenditures. Prior to the on-site audit, Staff
reviewed over 1000 expenditures, and selected 34 electric and natural gas line items for
comprehensive on-site review. Public Counsel selected 10 additional line items for
review, including:

o Invoice dollar match to line-item expenditures;
o Existence of proper supporting documentation for expenditures;
o Appropriate Washington allocation of expenditures;
o Overall appropriateness of expenditures; and
o Presence of proper internal control mechanisms.

All line item expenditures were supported by invoices, and supporting documentation
was provided upon request. All reviewed expenditures were found to be appropriately
allocated to Washington. However, Staff and Public Counsel discovered seven issues that
warranted further investigation and discussion. In the matter of Avista’s proposed
revisions to the electric tariff rider, which provides funding for demand side management
(DSM) programs as well as evaluation, measurement, and verification, the Commission
approved and adopted the multiparty settlement agreement.

On February 26, 2016, the Commission approved Avista’s proposed revisions to the
electric tariff rider, which provides funding for demand side management (DSM)
programs as well as evaluation, measurement, and verification, and adopted the
multiparty settlement agreement.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=115&y
ear=2015&docketNumber=151148

Case No. UE-160228 & UG-160229
Order No. 1 (03/07/16), 2 (03/09/16)

Background: Avista’s request for General Rate Revision 2016

On March 7, 2016, the Commission issued a complaint and Order Suspending Tariff
Revisions and an Order of Consolidation.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=320&y
ear=2016&docketNumber=160228

Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 31 of 34
On March 9, 2016, the Commission issued a Protective Order

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=326&year=201
6&docketNumber=160228\

Case No. UE-160100
Order No. 1 (03/15/16)

Background: On January 20, 2016, Avista Corporation, (Avista or Company) filed with
the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (Commission) a petition
requesting an order authorizing deferred accounting treatment of its remaining
undepreciated net book value of its existing electric meters (Petition). The Company
proposes an investment project that would retire and replace existing electric meters with
new Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) meters.1 Under the Company’s proposal,
approximately 253,000 electric customers in the state of Washington would receive new
meters. The Company also plans to upgrade its existing natural gas meters with digital
communication modules.

On March 4, 2016, Avista filed with the Commission an amended petition seeking an
accounting order authorizing deferral of the remaining net book value of its existing
electric meters as the meters are removed from service, rather than immediately, to a
regulatory asset account, Other Regulatory Assets – 182.3 (Amended Petition). If the
Amended Petition is approved, the Company intends to execute contracts with its
selected AMI vendors for the advanced meters and supporting software. In its Amended
Petition, Avista states that if the Company’s Petition is granted, the installation of
advanced meters and related infrastructure to support AMI will begin immediately on a
four or five year schedule commencing in early 2017.

On March 15, 2016, the Commission granted Avista’s petition for an accounting order
authorizing deferred accounting treatment related to the undepreciated net book value of
the Company’s existing electric meters.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=81&yea
r=2016&docketNumber=160100

Case No. UE-160071 & UG-160072
Order No. 1 (03/24/16)

Background: On January 12, 2016, Avista Corporation (Avista or Company) filed with
the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (Commission) a petition
requesting an order authorizing accounting and ratemaking treatment of fees for credit
Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 32 of 34
and debit card payments made by residential customers (Petition). Avista seeks to defer,
for up to 36 months, all fees paid by Avista related to offering a fee-free program for
payment of bills by Washington residential customers that use credit and debit cards.
Absent approval of this deferral, the company states that it will not move forward with a
fee-free program. Avista has also sought similar treatment in Oregon and Idaho.

On March 24, 2016, the Commission issued an order to grant Avista’s petition to defer all
fees paid by Avista related to offering a fee-free program, in both Electric and Gas
dockets, for payment of bills by Washington residential customers that use credit and
debit cards.

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=14&yea
r=2016&docketNumber=160071

http://www.utc.wa.gov/_layouts/CasesPublicWebsite/GetDocument.ashx?docID=14&yea
r=2016&docketNumber=160072

Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 33 of 34
Summary of Rate Orders
Avista Corporation
Q2 2016

Purpose: This report summarizes the findings and rulings of the various state Utility
Commissions as they apply to Avista Corporation. These rate orders are available from
the different state Utility Commission websites that Avista provides service, including:

 Alaska – www.rca.alaska.gov
 Idaho – www.puc.state.id.us
 Montana – psc.mt.gov
 Oregon – www.puc.idaho.gov
 Washington – www.utc.wa.gov

Alaska

Nothing to report

IDAHO

Case No. AVU-E-16-03 (GRC)
Order No. 33536 (06/07/16)

Application to increase electric rates.

MONTANA

Nothing to report

OREGON

Nothing to report

WASHINGTON

Case No. PG-160292
Order No. 1 (04/07/16)

Pipe replacement Plan 2015 - 2017

Staff_PR_008 Attachment A State Orders Listing Page 34 of 34

BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

AVISTA CORPORATION’S ORDER 02

ORDER ACKNOWLEDGING
COMPLIANCE WITH 2013

BACKGROUND
A. The Energy Independence Act
1 Washington voters approved Initiative 937, the Energy Independence Act (EIA), in the
2006 general election. Now codified at RCW 19.285, the EIA includes a renewable
portfolio standard (RPS), which requires electric utilities with 25,000 or more customers
to obtain certain percentages of their electricity from new renewable resources beginning
in 2012. RCW 19.285.060(6) authorizes the Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission (Commission) to enforce the EIA with respect to investor-owned utilities.1
2 On March 13, 2015, the Commission adopted new rules for EIA enforcement.2 The new
rules were adopted after an extensive public process involving Commission Staff (Staff),
utility representatives, and other stakeholders. The new rule, WAC 480-109, imposes
additional RPS reporting requirements on investor-owned utilities. All references to
WAC 480-109 in this order refer to the rule as adopted on March 13, 2015.
3 RCW 19.285.030(20) authorized the Washington State Department of Commerce
(Commerce) to select a tracking body to verify the certificates representing eligible
generation that utilities use for compliance with the EIA. Commerce selected the Western
Renewable Energy Generation Information System (WREGIS) to perform this function.

1 RCW 19.285.030(11) defines “investor-owned utility” by reference to RCW 19.29A.010. RCW
19.29A.010(19) provides: “ʻInvestor-owned utility’ means a company owned by investors that meets the definition of RCW 80.040.010 and is engaged in distributing electricity to more than one retail customer in
the state.” 2 Docket UE-131723, General Order R-578 (March 13, 2015).
DOCKET UE-131056 PAGE 2 ORDER 02
WAC 480-109-200(3) requires that all eligible renewable generation used by investor-
owned utilities for EIA compliance be registered and retired in WREGIS.
B. Company Filings
4 On May 31, 2013, Avista Corporation (Avista or Company) initiated this docket by filing
with the Commission a Renewable Report under RCW 19.285.070 and WAC
480-109-210 (RPS Report). Based on its average annual load for 2011 and 2012, Avista
reported that its 2013 renewable energy target was 166,740 megawatt-hours (MWh). In
Order 01 in this docket, dated Sept. 9, 2013, the Commission accepted Avista’s
calculation of its 2013 target.
5 WAC 480-109-210(6) requires utilities to submit a final RPS compliance report within
two years of the initial report, in which the utility documents the certificates that it retired
in WREGIS to comply with its target and request a compliance determination from the
Commission. Avista filed its final RPS report on May 29, 2015. At Staff’s request, the
Company filed a substitute report on June 2, 2015. Avista’s substitute report identifies the
following 170,089 WREGIS certificates that the Company retired for 2013 RPS
compliance:
Facility Name (Location) Resource Type Vintage Amount (MWh)
Facility On-
Long Lake #3 (Spokane River,
WA)
Water (Incremental
Hydro) 2013 14,197 10/29/1999
Avista-
owned
Little Falls #4 (Spokane River,
WA)
Water (Incremental
Hydro) 2013 4,862 11/14/2001
Avista-
owned
Cabinet Gorge #2
(Clark Fork R., ID)
Water (Incremental
Hydro) 2013 29,008 3/19/2004
Avista-
owned
Cabinet Gorge #3
(Clark Fork R., ID)
Water
(Incremental
Hydro) 2013 45,808 3/27/2001
Avista-
owned
Cabinet Gorge #4
(Clark Fork R., ID)
Water
(Incremental
Hydro) 2013 20,517 4/5/2007
Avista-
owned
DOCKET UE-131056 PAGE 3 ORDER 02

Noxon Rapids #1 (Clark Fork R., MT)
Water (Incremental Hydro) 2013 21,435 5/21/2009 Avista-owned
Noxon Rapids #2 (Clark Fork R.,
MT)
Water (Incremental
Hydro) 2013 7,709 5/6/2001
Avista-
owned
Noxon Rapids #3 (Clark Fork R.,
MT)
Water (Incremental
Hydro) 2013 14,529 6/11/2010
Avista-
owned
Noxon Rapids #4
(Clark Fork R.,
MT)
Water
(Incremental
Hydro) 2013 12,024 2012
Avista-
owned
Total eligible certificates retired: 170,089
2013 Target (MWh): 166,740

C. Use of Hydropower
6 WAC 480-109-200(7) lists three methods from which a utility may choose to calculate
the portion of an upgraded hydropower facility’s output that is eligible renewable
generation (incremental hydropower) per RCW 19.285.030(12)(b). Avista used Method
Three to calculate the eligible output of Company-owned hydro facilities.
7 In its initial 2013 RPS report, Avista identified 21,927 MWh of eligible generation from
Wanapum Dam, an upgraded hydropower facility owned and operated by Grant County
PUD, which would be available to the Company for 2013 RPS compliance.
8 Subsequent to the Company’s initial 2013 RPS report, the Commission adopted a new
rule that requires all eligible renewable generation used for RPS compliance by investor-
owned utilities to be registered in WREGIS.3 The Wanapum Dam facility is not
registered in WREGIS.
9 In the final 2013 RPS compliance report filed on May 29, 2015, the Company included
the 21,927 MWh of eligible hydropower generation that it had acquired from Wanapum
Dam. Staff informed the Company that under the new rule, the Company would have to

3 WAC 480-109-200(3).
DOCKET UE-131056 PAGE 4 ORDER 02
petition the Commission for a waiver of WAC 480-109-200(3) to claim the Wanapum
Dam generation.
10 Given its ability to exceed its 2013 target with eligible, Company-owned resources that
are registered in WREGIS, Avista chose to remove the Wanapum Dam generation from
its final 2013 report.4
DISCUSSION
11 We agree with Staff that although the Commission accepted Avista’s initial RPS report
that included Wanapum Dam generation, the final compliance filing is subject to the rule
adopted in March 13, 2015, and the Wanapum Dam generation is therefore ineligible for
Avista’s 2013 RPS compliance. Avista correctly removed this generation from its final
report.
12 We accept the Company’s use of Method Three for calculating its incremental
hydropower generation, and remind the Company of the new requirement in WAC 480-
109-200(7)(e) to provide an analysis of Method Three’s performance in the Company’s
2019 report.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
13 (1) The Washington Utilities and Transportation 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 electrical companies.
14 (2) Avista is an electrical company and a public service company subject to
Commission jurisdiction and is an “investor-owned utility” under RCW
19.285.030(11).
15 (3) Avista serves more than 25,000 customers within the State of Washington, and it
is a “qualifying utility” within the meaning of RCW 19.285.030(19).
16 (4) Under RCW 19.285.040(2)(a)(i) and WAC 480-109-200(1)(a), Avista’s
renewable energy target for 2013 was 166,740 megawatt-hours.

4 Docket UE-131056, Substitute Request for Compliance Determination (June 2, 2015), page 3.
DOCKET UE-131056 PAGE 5 ORDER 02

17 (5) In Avista’s Final Renewable Compliance Report, filed on May 29, 2015, and
revised on June 2, 2015, the Company demonstrated that it had acquired 170,089
megawatt-hours of eligible generation.
18 (6) Avista retired a total of 170,089 certificates in WREGIS.
19 (7) Avista has complied with all reporting and filing requirements set out in Order 01.
ORDER
THE COMMISSION ORDERS:
20 (1) Avista Corporation complied with the final renewable portfolio standard reporting
requirements in WAC 480-109-210(6).
21 (2) Avista Corporation has generated 170,089 megawatt-hours of eligible renewable
energy generation for the purpose of 2013 compliance, and retired corresponding
certificates in the Western Renewable Energy Generation Information System.
22 (3) Avista Corporation has complied with its 2013 renewable energy target as
required by RCW 19.285.040(2)(a)(i).
DATED at Olympia, Washington, and effective June 25, 2015.
WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

DAVID W. DANNER, Chairman

PHILIP B. JONES, Commissioner

ANN E. RENDAHL, Commissioner

[Service date June 25, 2015]

BEFORE THE WASHINGTON
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Complainant,

Respondent.
-140189 (Consolidated)

ORDER 06
PPROVING
AVISTA’S SERVICE QUALITY
MEASURES PROGRAM
COMPLIANCE FILING

1 BACKGROUND. On November 25, 2014, the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission (Commission) entered a final order rejecting the tariff
filing of Avista Corporation d/b/a Avista Utilities (Avista or the Company), accepting
with conditions a full settlement stipulation (Settlement), authorizing tariff filing, and
requiring compliance filings in Dockets UE-140188 and UG-140189 (Order 05).
Among other things, the Settlement required Avista to meet with the Commission’s
regulatory staff (Staff) and other interested parties to develop and implement
appropriate service quality metrics, customer guarantees and reporting, with the
agreed upon tariff revisions filed on or before June 1, 2015, with a program in place
on July 1, 2015.1

2 On May 29, 2015, Avista filed its proposed Service Quality Measures (SQM)
Program (SQM Filing) language and accompanying tariffs, after discussions with
Staff, Public Counsel, and The Energy Project on six separate occasions.2 Staff and
Public Counsel filed responses to the Company’s SQM Filing on June 10, 2015.
Avista filed comments in reply on June 17, 2015 (Avista’s Reply).

1 Settlement, ¶ 16.
2 SQM Filing, Cover Letter dated May 29, 2015 at 2.
DOCKETS UE-140188 and UG-140189 (consolidated) PAGE 2 ORDER 06

3 PARTY REPRESENTATIVES. David J. Meyer, Vice President and Chief Counsel
for Regulatory and Governmental Affairs, Spokane, Washington, represents Avista.
Lisa W. Gafken, Assistant Attorney General, Seattle, Washington, represents the
Public Counsel Division of the Washington State Attorney General’s Office (Public
Counsel). Brett P. Shearer, Assistant Attorneys General, Olympia, Washington,
represents Staff.3

4 Melinda J. Davison, Davison Van Cleve, P.C., Portland, Oregon, represents the
Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities (ICNU). Chad M. Stokes and Tommy A.
Brooks, Cable Huston, Portland, Oregon, represent the Northwest Industrial Gas
Users (NWIGU). Ronald L. Roseman, attorney, Seattle, Washington, represents The
Energy Project.

MEMORANDUM

5 Avista’s SQM Filing. On May 29, 2015, Avista filed consensus SQM Program
language after discussions with Staff, Public Counsel, and The Energy Project on six
separate occasions.4 The Company stated that Staff, Public Counsel, and The Energy
Project agreed that Avista will track and report its annual performance in meeting the
benchmarks established, with five customer service measures and seven customer
service guarantees. The customer service measures include:

1. Ninety percent of customers respond “satisfied” or “very satisfied” when
surveyed about their experience calling Avista’s Customer Contact Center.
The survey must provide statistically significant results and encompass
Avista’s entire service territory. Avista will report separate data for
Washington customers, but compliance will be judged on a multistate basis.

2. Ninety percent of customers respond “satisfied” or “very satisfied” when
surveyed about their experience with Avista’s field services. The survey must
provide statistically significant results and encompass Avista’s entire service

3 In formal proceedings, such as this, the Commission’s regulatory staff participates like any other party, while the Commissioners make the decision. To assure fairness, the Commissioners, the
presiding administrative law judge, and the Commissioners’ policy and accounting advisors do
not discuss the merits of this proceeding with the regulatory staff, or any other party, without giving notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. See, RCW 34.05.455.
4 SQM Filing, Cover Letter dated May 29, 2015 at 2.
DOCKETS UE-140188 and UG-140189 (consolidated) PAGE 3 ORDER 06

territory. Avista will report separate data for Washington customers, but
compliance will be judged on a multistate basis.
3. The number of complaints filed with the Commission will not exceed the rate
of 0.4 complaints per 1,000 customers for the calendar year.

4. Eighty percent of calls are answered within 60 seconds of requesting to speak with a live representative.

5. Avista’s average response time to electric system emergencies in Washington will not exceed 80 minutes, except during major storms. Avista’s average
response time to natural gas system emergencies in Washington will not
exceed 55 minutes.5

6 The SQM Filing also proposed customer service guarantees. Under the new program,
Avista will automatically provide customers with a $50 bill credit in certain
circumstances. Beginning January 1, 2016, Avista proposes to provide a bill credit
when:

1. Avista misses an appointment. The appointment windows are generally 8 AM
to noon, and noon to 5 PM, and do not apply if the Company reschedules 24
hours in advance, or the customer cancels the appointment.

2. The Company does not restore electric service within 24 hours after an
interruption. This does not apply during major event days, e.g., storms, or if an action by someone other than a utility employee prevents it from restoring
power.
3. Avista does not turn on electric power within one business day when no
construction is required, all permits are received, no bill is outstanding, and
service was not disconnected for nonpayment or theft.

4. The Company does not provide a cost estimate for new electric or natural gas service within 10 business days upon receipt of necessary information.

5. Avista does not respond to a billing inquiry within 10 business days.
6. The Company does not report the results of a requested meter test within 20
business days.

5 SQM Filing at 2-4; Avista’s Reply at 3.
DOCKETS UE-140188 and UG-140189 (consolidated) PAGE 4 ORDER 06

7. The Company does not provide 24 hours advance notice of a scheduled electric service interruption of more than 5 minutes.6

7 Avista also included a requirement to report System Average Interruption Frequency
Index (SAIFI) and System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI).7 Avista
proposed that the Commission accept the SQM Filing, to be implemented by July 1,
2015.8

8 Staff’s Response. On June 10, 2015, Staff filed its Response to Avista’s SQM Filing
(Staff’s Response). With regard to the Company’s customer service measures, Staff
argues that the efficacy of performance incentives for Avista’s Washington service
territory must be measured using results unique to Washington, and Avista’s
performance in Idaho and Oregon is immaterial.9 Staff recommends measuring
Avista’s performance in Washington only, except for measure number four,
answering calls within 60 seconds. Staff accepts that there is no way for Avista to
know from which state a customer is calling before representatives answer the phone,
but believes that it is reasonable to separate the other measures by state.10

9 Staff also criticizes Avista’s seven customer service guarantees, objecting that the
third guarantee does not apply to natural gas service as well as electric service.11
Electric guarantee number three requires Avista to “switch on power within one
business day of the Customer or Applicant’s request for service” when no
construction is required, all permits are received, no bill is outstanding, and service
was not disconnected for nonpayment or theft.12 Staff proposes to add a similar
requirement for natural gas service:

6 Avista’s SQM Filing at 5-6.
7 Id. at 4-5. The Commission requires Avista to report these Electric System Reliability Indices
annually via reliability reports, and the proposed tariff specifies that the report include an historic
five-year rolling average of SAIFI and SAIDI. Reliability reports are required under WAC 480-100-388 to WAC 480-100-398.
8 Id. at 2.
9 Staff’s Response, ¶ 8.
10 Id., n. 11.
11 Id., ¶ 11.
12 Avista’s SQM Filing at 5.
DOCKETS UE-140188 and UG-140189 (consolidated) PAGE 5 ORDER 06

The Company will switch on natural gas within one business day of the
Customer’s request for service, and offer an appointment within one business
day or as soon after as reasonably possible but no later than seven days for
new applicants [when no construction is required, all permits are received, no bill is outstanding, and service was not disconnected for nonpayment or
theft.]13

10 Finally, Staff criticizes Avista’s filing for failing to include benchmarks to measure
and evaluate Avista’s performance. To resolve this deficiency, Staff proposes SAIFI
and SAIDI benchmarks set at Avista’s Washington service territory’s average for the
five years immediately prior to the implementation of full decoupling - plus one
standard deviation.14 Staff argues that this metric is reasonable, and that the value
should be linked to a time period before decoupling because “a fully decoupled utility
may be motivated to cut service and operating expenses in order to generate
additional revenue.”15

11 Public Counsel’s Response. Public Counsel filed its Response to the Company’s
SQM Filing on June 10, 2015 (Public Counsel’s Response). Public Counsel accepted
the use of multistate measures for the customer service measures,16 and suggested
consideration of Staff’s issue with the applicability of the third customer service
guarantee for natural gas customers in a future proceeding.17 With regard to the
report on SAIFI and SAIDI proposed by Avista, Public Counsel states that the parties
did not agree on specific metrics, and, while not requesting any modification to
Avista’s SQM Filing, suggests that this area would benefit from further analysis.18

12 Avista’s Reply to Staff’s Response. In its reply, Avista provides some clarifications
to the SQM Filing and rebuts Staff’s proposals. The Company clarifies that the cost

13 Staff’s Response, Exhibit A (part 1) at 2-3 (redline tariff sheets 185A and 185B).
14 Id. at ¶ 4. Avista’s Electric Service Reliability Report includes a “reliability target that is the
average over the previous five years plus two standard deviations.” Docket UE-150695, 2014
Electric Service Reliability Report at 6.
15 Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.
16 Public Counsel’s Response at 3.
17 Id. at 4.
18 Id. at 2.
DOCKETS UE-140188 and UG-140189 (consolidated) PAGE 6 ORDER 06

of the customer guarantee credits will be borne by the Company’s shareholders.19
Additionally, Avista commits to reporting customer service measures one and two on
a Washington-only basis, but clarifies the Washington-only results are provided for
informational purposes only; its service quality will be evaluated based on statistically
significant results reported on a multistate basis.20

13 Avista does not agree that financial penalties should be associated with the SQM
program. Avista argues that it currently has a high level of service quality and
satisfaction, decoupling does not provide an incentive to compromise customer
service, and that there is no direct correlation between the prospect of penalties and
the Company’s performance.21

14 Avista objects to Staff’s proposed electric system reliability benchmarks. The
Company asserts that customer satisfaction is based on more utility practices than are
measured by SAIFI and SAIDI, and that its system reliability is variable due to
factors outside of its control.22 Avista objects to Staff’s benchmark, characterizing it
as designed “to ensure the likelihood that Avista will not achieve it in every year.”23
Avista also observes that a meaningful improvement in “system reliability
performance would require significant capital investments over an extended period of
time.”24

15 The Company requests that the Commission not adopt Staff’s proposed customer
service guarantee regarding a timeline for turning on natural gas supply because the
process for turning on natural gas service is complex and requires the involvement of
other parties than Avista.25 Finally, Avista opposes measuring performance based on
results unique to Washington because Staff raised this objection the day prior to

19 Avista’s Reply at 3.
20 Id.
21 Id. at 3-5.
22 Id. at 6-7.
23 Id. at 7-9.
24 Id. at 9-10.
25 Id. at 10-11.
DOCKETS UE-140188 and UG-140189 (consolidated) PAGE 7 ORDER 06

Avista’s filing and there are additional costs for acquiring statistically significant
results for Washington-only data.26

16 Discussion and Decision. A compliance filing does not become effective until the
Commission acts on it.27 Pursuant to WAC 480-07-883(4), the Commission may act
by entering an order in any proceeding in which a compliance filing is authorized or
required that approves the filing or rejects the filing or any portion thereof.

17 We carefully considered all of Staff’s objections and concerns regarding Avista’s
SQM Filing. While Staff’s suggestions may have some merit, we do not have the
record before us necessary to implement them. Further, it is unrealistic to impose
Staff’s additional requirements beginning with calendar year 2015 and still expect
Avista to implement the program’s many features by July 1, 2015. Neither do we feel
compelled to consolidate these issues with Avista’s ongoing rate case.

18 The clarifications that Avista provides in its reply are significant. The cost of the
customer guarantee credits, which provide customers with a $50 bill credit in certain
circumstances, will be borne entirely by the Company’s shareholders. Additionally,
Avista will report certain data on a Washington-only basis. We are pleased that the
parties reached agreement on these clarifications.

19 We appreciate the arduous work that the parties put into Avista’s SQM Filing, and
thank the Company for its sincere efforts. As proposed, Avista’s customer service
measures, customer service guarantees and electric service reliability reporting
proposal are a good first step, and we expect the parties to continue working to refine
the program. Avista has also proposed continuing its work on the natural gas
customer service guarantee issue raised by Staff, indicating that the Company would
“do some additional research and report out to the parties (later in 2015) for a further
discussion of a potential [natural gas service quality] measure [for turning on natural
gas].”28

26 Id. at 12-14.
27 WAC 480-07-883(3)(b).
28 Avista’s Reply at 11.
DOCKETS UE-140188 and UG-140189 (consolidated) PAGE 8 ORDER 06

20 Avista’s SQM Filing and accompanying tariffs, as clarified in its reply filing, comply
with the requirements set forth in the Commission’s Order 05 to develop appropriate
service quality metrics, customer guarantees and reporting by June 1, 2015, and
implement the program by July 1, 2015, and should be approved.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

21 Having discussed above in detail the evidence received in this proceeding concerning
all material matters, and having stated findings and conclusions upon issues in dispute
among the parties and the reasons therefore, the Commission now makes and enters
the following summary of those facts, incorporating by reference pertinent portions of
the preceding detailed findings:

22 (1) The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission is an agency of the
State of Washington vested by statute with the authority to regulate the rates,
rules, regulations, practices, and accounts of public service companies,
including electrical and gas companies.

23 (2) Avista Corporation d/b/a Avista Utilities (Avista or the Company) is a “public
service company,” an “electrical company” and a “gas company,” as those
terms are defined in RCW 80.04.010 and as those terms otherwise are used in
Title 80 RCW. Avista is engaged in Washington State in the business of
supplying utility services and commodities to the public for compensation.

24 (3) On November 25, 2014, the Commission entered Order 05, accepting with
conditions a full settlement stipulation (Settlement), authorizing tariff filing,
and requiring compliance filings in Avista’s general rate case proceeding.

25 (4) Among other things, the Settlement required Avista to meet with the Staff and
other interested parties to develop and implement appropriate service quality
metrics, customer guarantees and reporting, with the tariff revisions filed on or
before June 1, 2015, with a program in place on July 1, 2015.

DOCKETS UE-140188 and UG-140189 (consolidated) PAGE 9 ORDER 06

26 (5) On May 29, 2015, Avista filed its proposed Service Quality Measures (SQM)
Program (SQM Filing) language and accompanying tariffs, after discussions
with Staff, Public Counsel, and The Energy Project on six separate occasions.

27 (6) Staff and Public Counsel filed responses to the Company’s SQM Filing on
June 10, 2015.

28 (7) Avista filed comments in reply on June 17, 2015.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

29 Having discussed above all matters material to this decision, and having stated
detailed findings, conclusions, and the reasons therefore, the Commission now makes
the following summary conclusions of law, incorporating by reference pertinent
portions of the preceding detailed conclusions:

30 (1) The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission has jurisdiction over
the subject matter of, and parties to, these proceedings.

31 (2) Pursuant to WAC 480-07-883(3)(b), a compliance filing does not
automatically become effective on its stated effective date. The Commission
must act on the compliance filing for it to become effective, and the
Commission can do so by entering an order approving the compliance filing or
taking other appropriate action.

32 (3) The Company’s SQM Filing meets the requirements of the Settlement to
discuss and implement appropriate service quality metrics, customer
guarantees and reporting, with the tariff revisions filed on or before June 1,
2015, with a program in place by July 1, 2015.

33 (4) Avista’s SQM Filing and accompanying tariffs should be approved.

DOCKETS UE-140188 and UG-140189 (consolidated) PAGE 10 ORDER 06

ORDER

THE COMMISSION ORDERS THAT:

34 (1) The Service Quality Measures Program revised tariffs, filed on May 29, 2015,
by Avista Corporation d/b/a Avista Utilities, are approved.

35 (2) The Commission retains jurisdiction over the subject matters and parties to
this proceeding to effectuate the terms of this Order.

Dated at Olympia, Washington, and effective June 25, 2015.

WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

DAVID W. DANNER, Chairman

PHILIP B. JONES, Commissioner

ANN E. RENDAHL, Commissioner

DOCKETS UE-140188 and UG-140189 (consolidated) PAGE 11 ORDER 06

NOTICE TO PARTIES: This is a Commission Final Order. In addition to
judicial review, administrative relief may be available through a petition for
reconsideration, filed within 10 days of the service of this order pursuant to
RCW 34.05.470 and WAC 480-07-850, or a petition for rehearing pursuant to
RCW 80.04.200 and WAC 480-07-870.

[Service Date June 25, 2015] BEFORE THE WASHINGTON
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Complainant,

Respondent.
-140189 (Consolidated)

ORDER 07
APPROVING
TO AVISTA’S LOW-
PROGRAM

1 BACKGROUND. On November 25, 2014, the Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission (Commission) entered a final order rejecting the tariff filing of Avista
Corporation d/b/a Avista Utilities (Avista or the Company), accepting with conditions a
full settlement stipulation (Settlement), authorizing tariff filing, and requiring compliance
filings in Dockets UE-140188 and UG-140189 (Order 05). Among other things, Order 05
required Avista to double its funding increase for the Company’s Low-Income Rate
Assistance Program (LIRAP) from the amount proposed in the Settlement. The
settlement provided that the parties would work together to develop mutually agreed
upon additions and modifications to LIRAP.1 Order 05 provided that if the Parties could
not agree upon modifications or additions to the program they would file alternative or
competing proposals with the Commission no later than June 1, 2015.

2 In December 2014, the Commission’s regulatory staff (Staff)2, Avista, the Public Counsel
Section of the Office of the Attorney General (Public Counsel), the Energy Project, the

1 WUTC v. Avista, Dockets UE-140188 and UG-140189, Order 05, ¶ 5 (Nov. 25, 2015).
2 In formal proceedings, such as this, the Commission’s regulatory staff participates like any other
party, while the Commissioners make the decision. To assure fairness, the Commissioners, the
presiding administrative law judge, and the Commissioners’ policy and accounting advisors do not discuss the merits of this proceeding with the regulatory staff, or any other party, without
giving notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. See, RCW 34.05.455.
DOCKETS UE-140188 and UG-140189 (Consolidated) PAGE 2 ORDER 07
Northwest Industrial Gas Users (NWIGU), and the Industrial Customers of Northwest
Utilities (ICNU) (collectively with Avista, Staff, Public Counsel, the Energy Project, and
NWIGU, Parties) convened a workgroup consisting of representatives from the
Company, Staff, the Energy Project, Public Counsel, NWIGU, and two Community
Action Agencies – Spokane Neighborhood Action Partners (SNAP) and Rural Resources
Community Action.3 The workgroup held six workshops and several planning conference
calls from January 30 through May 1, 2015. The Parties filed a Joint Petition for
Modifications and Additions to LIRAP (Joint Petition) on May 29, 2015, including
proposed tariff sheets.4

3 PARTY REPRESENTATIVES. David J. Meyer, Vice President and Chief Counsel for
Regulatory and Governmental Affairs, Spokane, Washington, represents Avista. Lisa W.
Gafken, Assistant Attorney General, Seattle, Washington, represents the Public Counsel
Division of the Washington State Attorney General’s Office (Public Counsel). Brett P.
Shearer, Assistant Attorneys General, Olympia, Washington, represents Staff.

4 Melinda J. Davison, Davison Van Cleve, P.C., Portland, Oregon, represents the Industrial
Customers of Northwest Utilities (ICNU). Chad M. Stokes and Tommy A. Brooks, Cable
Huston, Portland, Oregon, represent the Northwest Industrial Gas Users (NWIGU).
Ronald L. Roseman, attorney, Seattle, Washington, represents The Energy Project.

MEMORANDUM

5 In developing modifications and additions to LIRAP, the Parties identified four goals to
guide the LIRAP program design: keep customers connected to energy service, provide
assistance to more customers than are currently served by the program, lower the energy
burden of LIRAP participants, and ensure that LIRAP has the appropriate data to assess
program effectiveness. To further these goals, the Parties propose several modifications
and additions to the current program.5

6 Program Modifications. The first modification provides funding as a fixed annual
budget, rather than collecting and allocating funding to Community Action Agencies on a

3 ICNU signed the Joint Petition, but did not participate in the collaborative.
4 WUTC v. Avista, Dockets UE-140188 and UG-140189, Joint Petition (May 29, 2015).
5 Joint Petition, ¶ 7.
DOCKETS UE-140188 and UG-140189 (Consolidated) PAGE 3 ORDER 07
variable monthly basis.6 To accomplish this, Avista will make an annual true-up filing to
ensure recovery of the annual budget each year. The total LIRAP revenue requirement
will continue to be set in a GRC or other proceeding. Unspent funds will remain
available for the next program year. This change will benefit Community Action
Agencies by enabling them to know their fixed annual allocations by the end of May each
year, and to budget accordingly.

7 Second, Avista will establish an ongoing energy assistance program advisory group to
continue to monitor and explore ways to improve LIRAP.7 The group will hold at least
two meetings per year. The costs of convening the advisory group will be recovered
through general rates, not through Schedules 92 and 192, which fund the LIRAP electric
and gas programs.

8 Finally, the Parties propose various other changes.8 Notably, administrative changes will
improve communication between Avista, the Community Action Agencies, and program
participants.

9 Program Additions. As an addition to the current LIRAP program, the Parties propose a
pilot rate discount program for seniors and customers with disabilities.9 The Parties
believe the addition of this program will enable LIRAP to reach more senior customers
than the current program alone, lower these customers’ energy burden, and may be more
effective in preventing disconnections than a one-time grant.10

10 Fixed-income seniors and fixed-income customers with a disability whose household
income is between 126-200% of the federal poverty line (FPL) will be eligible for this
pilot program.11 The program will provide a rate discount with an average benefit of $300
per participant per program year.12 Up to 800 customers will be eligible to participate
from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2017.

6 Joint Petition, ¶ 7.
7 Joint Petition, ¶ 7.
8 Joint Petition, ¶ 7.
9 Joint Petition, ¶ 10.
10 Joint Petition, ¶ 9.
11 Joint Petition, ¶ 10.
12 Joint Petition, ¶ 10. The benefit is $0.03153 per kWh or $0.40663 per therm. Id. Most of
Avista’s low-income programs also offer a $300 benefit. Joint Petition, ¶ 2.
DOCKETS UE-140188 and UG-140189 (Consolidated) PAGE 4 ORDER 07

11 The program’s budget is $700,000, which includes $50,000 for a third-party evaluation.
Parties propose to increase LIRAP funding by $350,000 per year to fund this two-year
pilot. A total of $210,992 will be recovered annually through electric schedule 92, and
$113,238 through natural gas schedule 192. NWIGU, representing transportation
customers on Schedule 146, agreed to contribute $25,770 annually to LIRAP.13

12 The Parties also filed a study published by SNAP and Eastern Washington University on
the incidence of poverty in Avista’s service territory.14 This study relies on data from the
American Community Survey which provides an estimated 5-year rolling average
household income by census tract. The Parties argue that the study shows that over eight
percent of households live below 50 percent of the federal poverty line (FPL), and that
over one-third of households in Avista’s service area live below 200 percent of the FPL.

13 In light of this high level of need, and experiences from other states, the Parties plan to
continue to discuss the addition of new LIRAP programs. Specifically, the Parties will
explore the feasibility of implementing percentage of bill payment and arrearage
management plans. Percentage of bill payment plans lower the customer’s energy bill to a
set percentage of total household income. Arrearage management plans mitigate the
hardship caused by a large arrearage by establishing achievable monthly payments. The
Parties intend to investigate these program options further, and file a pilot proposal or
status update by January 15, 2017.

14 Discussion and Decision. A compliance filing does not become effective until the
Commission acts on it.15 Pursuant to WAC 480-07-883(4), the Commission may act by
entering an order in any proceeding in which a compliance filing is authorized or required
that approves the filing or rejects the filing or any portion thereof.

15 We appreciate the Parties’ work on improving this valuable assistance program. In its
November 25, 2014 order, the Commission recognized the need to increase funding for
LIRAP.16

13 Joint Petition, ¶ 14. This represents 1 percent of Schedule 146 revenues.
14 “An Estimate of the Number of Households in Poverty Served by Avista Utilities in Washington
State,” May 2015, attachment D to the Joint Petition.
15 WAC 480-07-883(3)(b).
16 WUTC v. Avista, Dockets UE-140188 and UG-140189, Order 05, ¶ 42.
DOCKETS UE-140188 and UG-140189 (Consolidated) PAGE 5 ORDER 07

16 We also found that the poverty rate in Avista’s service territory is higher than the
statewide average, and that the majority of customers eligible for LIRAP assistance are
not served by the current program.17 In this petition, the Parties have requested an
additional $700,000 in LIRAP funding to implement the low-income rate discount
program.

17 While we did not anticipate a request for additional funding, authorizing this funding
increase will allow the Company to serve more eligible low-income customers.
Additionally, we recognize industrial gas customers’ agreement to contribute funding to
the program for the first time since LIRAP’s inception in 2001.

18 As the Parties have indicated, a third-party evaluation will be completed by December
31, 2017, and the Joint Petition presents several issues the evaluation will address. The
Commission views this list of issues as the minimum examination that will take place.
Such evaluation should also include recommendations for how the Company and
Community Action Agencies can reduce administrative costs to ensure that more funding
is directed toward meeting the program’s goals.

19 We welcome the creation of an energy assistance advisory group, which will allow the
Parties to continue discussions to improve the program in the future. In addition to future
program designs, the Parties should continue to review the administrative costs of the
pilot program with an eye to reducing the operating expenses of the program so that more
funding goes directly to those in need.

20 We find that the agreed-to modifications and additions are in the public interest, and that
the Joint Petition should be granted. We approve the proposed modification and
additions to LIRAP proposed therein, and the accompanying tariff sheets, including the
senior/disabled rate discount pilot program.

FINDINGS OF FACT

21 Having discussed above in detail the evidence received in this proceeding concerning all
material matters, and having stated findings and conclusions upon issues in dispute
among the parties and the reasons therefore, the Commission now makes and enters the

17 Id. ¶ 44.
DOCKETS UE-140188 and UG-140189 (Consolidated) PAGE 6 ORDER 07
following summary of those facts, incorporating by reference pertinent portions of the
preceding detailed findings:

22 (1) The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission is an agency of the
State of Washington vested by statute with the authority to regulate the rates,
rules, regulations, practices, and accounts of public service companies, including
electrical and gas companies.

23 (2) Avista Corporation d/b/a Avista Utilities (Avista or the Company) is a “public
service company,” an “electrical company” and a “gas company,” as those terms
are defined in RCW 80.04.010 and as those terms otherwise are used in Title 80
RCW. Avista is engaged in Washington State in the business of supplying utility
services and commodities to the public for compensation.

24 (3) On November 25, 2014, the Commission entered Order 05, accepting with
conditions a full settlement stipulation (Settlement), authorizing tariff filing, and
requiring compliance filings in Avista’s general rate case proceeding.

25 (4) Among other things, the Commission required Avista to double its funding
increase for the Company’s Low-Income Rate Assistance Program (LIRAP) from
the amount proposed in the Settlement and mandated that the parties work
together, using the pilot program proposed by the Commission’s regulatory staff
(Staff) as a basis, to file mutually agreed upon additions and modifications to
LIRAP.

26 (5) On May 29, 2015, Staff, Avista, the Public Counsel Section of the Office of the
Attorney General (Public Counsel), the Energy Project, the Northwest Industrial
Gas Users (NWIGU), and the Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities (ICNU)
(collectively with Avista, Staff, Public Counsel, the Energy Project, and NWIGU,
Parties) filed a Joint Petition for Modifications and Additions to LIRAP (Joint
Petition) and accompanying tariff sheets.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

27 Having discussed above all matters material to this decision, and having stated detailed
findings, conclusions, and the reasons therefore, the Commission now makes the
DOCKETS UE-140188 and UG-140189 (Consolidated) PAGE 7 ORDER 07
following summary conclusions of law, incorporating by reference pertinent portions of
the preceding detailed conclusions:

28 (1) The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission has jurisdiction over
the subject matter of, and parties to, these proceedings.

29 (2) Pursuant to WAC 480-07-883(3)(b), a compliance filing does not automatically
become effective on its stated effective date. The Commission must act on the
compliance filing for it to become effective, and the Commission can do so by
entering an order approving the compliance filing or taking other appropriate
action.

30 (3) The modifications and additions to LIRAP contained within the Joint Petition
meet the requirements in Order 05 for the parties to work together, using the pilot
program proposed by Staff as a basis, to file mutually agreed upon additions and
modifications to LIRAP.

31 (4) The Joint Petition should be granted, the requested funding increase approved,
and the modifications and additions to LIRAP, reflected in the accompanying
tariff sheets, should be approved.

ORDER

THE COMMISSION ORDERS THAT:

32 (1) The Joint Petition for Modifications and Additions to LIRAP, filed on May 29,
2015, by Avista Corporation d/b/a Avista Utilities, the Commission’s regulatory
staff, the Public Counsel Section of the Office of the Attorney General, the
Energy Project, the Northwest Industrial Gas Users, and the Industrial Customers
of Northwest Utilities, is granted.

33 (2) The modifications and additions proposed in the Joint Petition, and reflected in
the accompanying tariff sheets, are approved.
DOCKETS UE-140188 and UG-140189 (Consolidated) PAGE 8 ORDER 07

34 (3) The Commission retains jurisdiction over the subject matters and parties to this
proceeding to effectuate the terms of this Order.

Dated at Olympia, Washington, and effective June 25, 2015.

WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

DAVID W. DANNER, Chairman

PHILIP B. JONES, Commissioner

ANN E. RENDAHL, Commissioner

NOTICE TO PARTIES: This is a Commission Final Order. In addition to judicial
review, administrative relief may be available through a petition for
reconsideration, filed within 10 days of the service of this order pursuant to RCW
34.05.470 and WAC 480-07-850, or a petition for rehearing pursuant to RCW
80.04.200 and WAC 480-07-870.

[Service Date February 20, 2015] BEFORE THE WASHINGTON
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION,

Complainant,

d/b/a
,

Respondent.
-150205 (Consolidated)
ORDER 01
COMPLAINT AND ORDER
SUSPENDING TARIFF REVISION

BACKGROUND

1 On February 9, 2015, Avista Corporation, d/b/a Avista Utilities (Avista or Company)
filed with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (Commission)
revisions to its currently effective Tariff WN U-28, Electric Service, as listed in the
appendix attached to this Order. The stated effective date is March 12, 2015. The
purpose of this filing is to increase rates and charges for electric service provided to
customers in the state of Washington.

2 In this filing, Avista requests authority to increase charges and rates for electric
service by approximately $33.2 million or 6.7 percent in billed rates. Because this
increase might injuriously affect the rights and interests of the public, and Avista has
not demonstrated that the increase would result in rates that are fair, just, reasonable
and sufficient, the Commission suspends the tariff filing and will hold public
hearings, if necessary, to determine whether the proposed increases are fair, just,
reasonable, and sufficient.

3 On February 9, 2015, Avista also filed revisions to its currently effective Tariff WN
U-29, Natural Gas, as listed in the appendix attached to this Order. The stated
effective date is March 12, 2015. The purpose of this filing is to increase rates and
charges for natural gas service provided to customers in the state of Washington.

DOCKETS UE-150204 and UG-150205 (Consolidated) PAGE 2 ORDER 01

4 In this filing, Avista seeks to increase rates for natural gas service by approximately
$12 million or 6.9 percent in billed rates. Because this increase might injuriously
affect the rights and interests of the public and Avista has not demonstrated that the
increases would result in rates that are fair, just, reasonable, and sufficient, the
Commission suspends the tariff filing and will hold public hearings, if necessary, to
determine whether the proposed increases are fair, just, reasonable and sufficient.

5 The matters in the two dockets appear to involve related facts and principles of law.
It is appropriate that they be consolidated for hearing and determination pursuant to
WAC 480-07-320.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

6 (1) The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission is an agency of the
State of Washington vested by statute with the authority to regulate rates,
regulations, practices, accounts, securities, transfers of property and affiliated
interests of public service companies, including electric and natural gas
companies. RCW 80.01.040, RCW 80.04, RCW 80.08, RCW 80.12, RCW
80.16 and RCW 80.28.

7 (2) Avista is an electric and natural gas company and a public service company
subject to Commission jurisdiction.

8 (3) The tariff revisions Avista filed on February 9, 2015, would increase charges
and rates for service provided by Avista and might injuriously affect the rights
and interest of the public.

9 (4) Avista has not yet demonstrated that the tariff revisions would result in rates
that are fair, just, reasonable, and sufficient.

10 (5) Avista’s rates and charges for electric or natural gas services shown on any
tariffs that Avista does not propose to revise may also be investigated to
determine if they are fair, just, reasonable, and sufficient.

11 (6) In order to carry out the duties imposed upon the Commission by law, and as
authorized in RCW 80.04.130, the Commission believes it is necessary to
DOCKETS UE-150204 and UG-150205 (Consolidated) PAGE 3 ORDER 01
investigate Avista’s books, accounts, practices and activities; to make a
valuation or appraisal of Avista’s property; and to investigate and appraise
various phases of Avista’s operations. The Commission finds that these
dockets meet the criteria of WAC 480-07-400(2)(b)(i) and that discovery will
be conducted pursuant to the Commissions discovery rules in WAC 480-07-
400 – 425.

12 (7) As required by RCW 80.04.130(4), Avista bears the burden of proof to show
that the proposed increases are fair, just, reasonable, and sufficient.

13 (8) Avista may be required to pay the expenses reasonably attributable and
allocable to such an investigation, consistent with RCW 80.20.

O R D E R

THE COMMISSION ORDERS:

14 (1) The tariff revisions Avista Corporation, d/b/a Avista Utilities filed on February
9, 2015, are suspended.

15 (2) Dockets UE-150204 and UG-150205 are consolidated for hearing and
determination under WAC 480-07-320.

16 (3) The Commission will hold hearings at such times and places as may be
required. Such hearings may also examine Avista’s rates and charges for
electric or natural gas service shown on any tariffs that Avista does not
propose to revise.

17 (4) Avista must not change or alter the tariffs filed in these dockets during the
suspension period, unless authorized by the Commission.

18 (5) The Commission will institute an investigation of Avista’s books, accounts,
practices, activities, property, and operations as described above.

DOCKETS UE-150204 and UG-150205 (Consolidated) PAGE 4 ORDER 01

19 (6) Discovery will be conducted pursuant to the Commission’s discovery rules in
WAC 480-07-400 – 425.

20 (7) Avista shall pay the expenses reasonably attributable and allocable to the
Commission’s investigation, consistent with RCW 80.20.

DATED at Olympia, Washington, and effective February 20, 2015.

WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

DAVID W. DANNER, Chairman

PHILIP B. JONES, Commissioner

ANN E. RENDAHL, Commissioner

DOCKETS UE-150204 and UG-150205 (Consolidated) PAGE 5 ORDER 01
Appendix

TARIFF WN U-28, ELECTRIC SERVICE

TARIFF WN U-29, NATURAL GAS SERVICE

2nd Revision Sheet B Canceling 1st Revision Sheet B
13th Revision Sheet 1 Canceling Substitute 12th Revision Sheet 1
13th Revision Sheet 11 Canceling Substitute 12th Revision Sheet 11
13th Revision Sheet 21 Canceling Substitute 12th Revision Sheet 21
13th Revision Sheet 25 Canceling Substitute 12th Revision Sheet 25
10th Revision Sheet 25A Canceling Substitute 9th Revision Sheet 25A
13th Revision Sheet 31 Canceling Substitute 12th Revision Sheet 31
12th Revision Sheet 41 Canceling Substitute 11th Revision Sheet 41
12th Revision Sheet 42 Canceling Substitute 11th Revision Sheet 42
6th Revision Sheet 42A Canceling Substitute 5th Revision Sheet 42A
12th Revision Sheet 44 Canceling Substitute 11th Revision Sheet 44
13th Revision Sheet 45 Canceling Substitute 12th Revision Sheet 45
13th Revision Sheet 46 Canceling Substitute 12th Revision Sheet 46
12th Revision Sheet 47 Canceling Substitute 11th Revision Sheet 47
13th Revision Sheet 47A Canceling Substitute 12th Revision Sheet 47A
Original Sheet 47B
14th Revision Sheet 101 Canceling 2nd Substitute 13th Revision Sheet 101
14th Revision Sheet 111 Canceling 2nd Substitute 13th Revision Sheet 111
14th Revision Sheet 112 Canceling 2nd Substitute 13th Revision Sheet 112
14th Revision Sheet 121 Canceling 2nd Substitute 13th Revision Sheet 121
5th Revision Sheet 121A Canceling Substitute 4th Revision Sheet 121A
14th Revision Sheet 122 Canceling 2nd Substitute 13th Revision Sheet 122
5th Revision Sheet 122A Canceling Substitute 4th Revision Sheet 122A
14th Revision Sheet 131 Canceling 2nd Substitute 13th Revision Sheet 131
5th Revision Sheet 131A Canceling 2nd Substitute 4th Revision Sheet 131A
14th Revision Sheet 132 Canceling 2nd Substitute 13th Revision Sheet 132
5th Revision Sheet 132A Canceling 2nd Substitute 4th Revision Sheet 132A
14th Revision Sheet 146 Canceling 2nd Substitute 13th Revision Sheet 146
[Service Date February 20, 2015] BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Complainant,

,
Respondent.
-150205 (Consolidated)
02

1 The Commission finds that a protective order to govern disclosure of confidential
information is necessary in this proceeding. The Commission finds as follows:

a. It is likely that confidential information will be required to resolve the issues in this proceeding;

b. Absent a protective order, a significant risk exists that confidential information might become available to persons who have no legitimate need for such
information and that injury to the information provider could result.

2 Accordingly, the Commission enters the following protective order pursuant to RCW
34.05.446 to govern the discovery and use of confidential documents in this proceeding:

ORDER
A. General Provisions
3 Confidential Information. All access, review, use, and disclosure of any material
designated by a party to this proceeding as confidential (referred to in this Order as "Confidential Information") is governed by this Order and by WAC 480-07-160. The
Commission expects Confidential Information to include only numbers, customer
names, and planning details. The Commission requires the parties to delete such
information from the primary exhibits and provide these “confidential deletions”
under separate cover in the manner described below. The Commission may reject a
DOCKETS UE-150204 AND UG-150205 (Consolidated) PAGE 2 ORDER 02
filing or any other submission that fails to segregate Confidential Information, or
categorizes clearly public information as confidential.
4 Parties must scrutinize potentially confidential material, and limit the amount they
designate “Confidential Information” to only information that truly might
compromise their ability to compete fairly or that otherwise might impose a business
risk if disseminated without the protections provided in this Order. The first page and individual pages of a document determined in good faith to include Confidential
Information must be marked by a stamp that reads: "Confidential Per Protective
Order in UTC Dockets UE-150204 and UG-150205.” Placing a Confidential Information stamp on the first page of an exhibit indicates only that one or more
pages contains Confidential Information and will not serve to protect the entire
contents of the multi-page document. Each page that contains Confidential
Information must be marked separately to indicate where confidential information is
redacted. Confidential Information shall be provided on colored paper with references to where each number, customer name, or planning detail is redacted in the original
document.

5 Confidential and Redacted Versions. Because the parties and the Commission are
manipulating data and handling a number of open cases, and because confidentiality
is more significant than it has been in the past, we must require complete
confidential and redacted versions of testimony, exhibits, and briefs.
6 This extends to electronic versions, as well, and requires that all diskettes and all electronic mail specify whether the file is confidential, redacted, or public.

1. If a witness has a confidential portion of her testimony, the sponsoring
party must provide a complete redacted version of the testimony and a
complete confidential version, with confidential pages on color paper.

2. It also means that you must submit (at least) two diskettes and E-mails - one with the electronic version of the confidential text and one with the
electronic version of the redacted text.

a. You MUST identify the confidential diskettes with prominent red
markings and the word “confidential” in addition to the contents and
the docket number. The others must be prominently labeled “redacted”
or “public”.
b. You MUST identify each confidential digital file with a C in the file
name and MUST have the legend “CONFIDENTIAL PER
PROTECTIVE ORDER IN UTC DOCKETS UE-150204 AND UG-
DOCKETS UE-150204 AND UG-150205 (Consolidated) PAGE 3 ORDER 02
150205” prominently displayed on the first page (i.e., the page that
appears on the computer screen when the file is opened).
7 Purpose of Access and Use; Confidentiality. No Confidential Information
distributed or obtained pursuant to this protective order may be requested, reviewed,
used or disclosed by any party or counsel having access pursuant to this order, except
for purposes of this proceeding. Persons having access to the Confidential Information pursuant to this order must request, review, use, or disclose Confidential
Information only by or to persons authorized under this Order, and only in accordance
with the terms specified in this Order.
B. Disclosure of Confidential Information
8 Persons Permitted Access. No Confidential Information will be made available to
anyone other than Commissioners, Commission Staff, the presiding officer(s), and counsel for the parties for this proceeding, including counsel for Commission Staff,
and attorneys’ administrative staff such as paralegals. However, access to any
Confidential Information may be authorized by counsel, solely for the purposes of
this proceeding, to those persons designated by the parties as their experts in this
matter. Except for the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Staff, no
such expert may be an officer, director, direct employee, major shareholder, or
principal of any party or any competitor of any party (unless this restriction is waived
by the party asserting confidentiality). Any dispute concerning persons entitled to access Confidential Information must be brought before the presiding officer for
resolution.

9 Non-disclosure Agreement. Before being allowed access to any Confidential
Information designated for this docket, each counsel or expert must agree to comply
with and be bound by this Order on the form of Exhibit A (counsel and administrative
staff) or B (expert) attached to this Order. Counsel for the party seeking access to the
Confidential Information must deliver to counsel for the party producing Confidential Information a copy of each signed agreement, which must show each signatory's full
name, permanent address, the party with whom the signatory is associated and, in the
case of experts, the employer (including the expert's position and responsibilities).
The party seeking access must also send a copy of the agreement to the Commission
and, in the case of experts, the party providing Confidential Information shall
complete its portion and file it with the Commission or waive objection as described
in Exhibit B.

10 Access to Confidential Information. Copies of documents designated confidential
under this Order will be provided in the same manner as copies of documents not
designated confidential, pursuant to WAC 480-07-423. Requests for special
DOCKETS UE-150204 AND UG-150205 (Consolidated) PAGE 4 ORDER 02
provisions for inspection, dissemination or use of confidential documents must be
submitted to the presiding officer if not agreed to by the parties. The parties must not distribute copies of Confidential Information to, and they must not discuss the
contents of confidential documents with, any person not bound by this Order.
Persons to whom copies of documents are provided pursuant to this Order warrant by
signing the confidentiality agreement that they will exercise all reasonable diligence
to maintain the documents consistent with the claim of confidentiality.
C. Use of Confidential Information in This Proceeding
11 Reference to Confidential Information. If reference is to be made to any
Confidential Information by counsel or persons afforded access to this information
during any part of this proceeding including, but not limited to, motions, briefs,
arguments, direct testimony, cross-examination, rebuttal and proposed offers of proof,
any public reference (i.e., any reference that will not be placed in a sealed portion of the record) shall be either solely by title or by exhibit reference. Any other written
reference shall be segregated and marked "Confidential Information," and access to it
shall be given solely to persons who are authorized access to the information under
this Order. References to the Confidential Information must be withheld from
inspection by any person not bound by the terms of this Order.

12 In oral testimony, cross-examination or argument, public references to Confidential
Information must be on such prior notice as is feasible to the affected party and the presiding officer. Unless alternative arrangements exist to protect the Confidential
Information as provided below, there must be minimum sufficient notice to permit the
presiding officer an opportunity to clear the hearing room of persons not bound by
this Order or take such other action as is appropriate in the circumstances.

13 Protected Use by Agreement. Any party who intends to use any Confidential
Information in the course of this proceeding, including but not limited to testimony to
be filed by the party, exhibits, direct and cross-examination of witnesses, rebuttal testimony, or a proffer of evidence, shall give reasonable notice of such intent to all
parties and to the presiding officer, and attempt in good faith to reach an agreement to
use the Confidential Information in a manner which will protect its trade secret,
proprietary, or other confidential nature. The parties shall consider such methods as
use of clearly edited versions of confidential documents, characterizations of data
rather than disclosure of substantive data, and aggregations of data. The goal is to
protect each party's rights with respect to Confidential Information while allowing all
parties the latitude to present the evidence necessary to their respective cases.
14 If the parties cannot reach agreement about the use of Confidential Information, they
must notify the presiding officer, who will determine the arrangements to protect the
DOCKETS UE-150204 AND UG-150205 (Consolidated) PAGE 5 ORDER 02
Confidential Information to ensure that all parties are afforded their full due process
rights, including the right to cross-examine witnesses.
15 Right to Challenge Admissibility. Nothing in this Order may be construed to
restrict any party's right to challenge the admissibility or use of any Confidential
Information on any ground other than confidentiality, including but not limited to
competence, relevance, or privilege.
16 Right to Challenge Confidentiality. Any party may challenge another party’s
assertion of confidentiality with respect to any information asserted to be entitled to protection under this Order. The Presiding officer will conduct an in camera hearing
to determine the confidentiality of information. The burden of proof to show that
such information is properly classified as confidential is on the party asserting
confidentiality. Pending determination, the assertedly Confidential Information shall
be treated in all respects as protected under the terms of this Order. If the presiding officer determines the challenged information is not entitled to protection under this
Order, the information continues to be protected under this Order for ten days
thereafter to enable the producing party to seek Commission or judicial review of the
determination, including a stay of the decision’s effect pending further review.

17 Admission of Confidential Information Under Seal. The portions of the record of
this proceeding containing Confidential Information will be sealed for all purposes,
including administrative and judicial review, unless such Confidential Information is released from the restrictions of this Order, either through the agreement of the parties
or pursuant to a lawful order of the Commission or of a court having jurisdiction to do
so.

18 Return of Confidential Information. At the conclusion of this proceeding every
person who possesses any Confidential Information (including personal notes that
make substantive reference to Confidential Information), must return all Confidential
Information to the party that produced it, or must certify in writing that all copies and substantive references to Confidential Information in notes have been destroyed,
within thirty days following the conclusion of this proceeding, including any
administrative or judicial review. These provisions apply to all copies of exhibits
which contain Confidential Information and for that reason were admitted under seal.
The only exceptions are that exhibits may be preserved by counsel as counsel records,
and a complete record, including Confidential Information, will be preserved by the
Executive Secretary of the Commission as part of the Agency's official records.

19 Freedom of Information Laws. Until the Commission or any court having
jurisdiction finds that any particular Confidential Information is not of a trade secret,
proprietary, or confidential nature, any federal agency that has access to and/or
DOCKETS UE-150204 AND UG-150205 (Consolidated) PAGE 6 ORDER 02
receives copies of the Confidential Information must treat the Confidential
Information as within the exemption from disclosure provided in the Freedom of Information Act at 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(4); and any Washington state agency that has
access to and/or receives copies of the Confidential Information must treat the
Confidential Information as being within the exemption from disclosure provided in
RCW 42.56.210.

20 Notice of Compelled Production in Other Jurisdictions. If a signatory to this
protective order is compelled to produce confidential documents in any regulatory or
judicial proceeding by the body conducting the proceeding, the signatory must provide notice to the party that provided the confidential information. Such
confidential information must not be produced for at least five days following notice,
to permit the party that provided such information an opportunity to defend the
confidential nature of the material before the regulatory or judicial body that would
compel production. Disclosure after that date, in compliance with an order compelling production, is not a violation of this Order.

21 Modification. The Commission may modify this Order on motion of a party or on its
own motion upon reasonable prior notice to the parties and an opportunity for
hearing.

22 Violation of this Order. Violation of this Order by any party to this proceeding or
by any other person bound by this Order by unauthorized use or unauthorized divulgence of Confidential Information may subject such party or person to liability
for damages and shall subject such party to penalties as generally provided by law.

DATED at Olympia, Washington, and effective February 20, 2015.

WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

MARGUERITE E. FRIEDLANDER
Administrative Law Judge

DOCKETS UE-150204 AND UG-150205 (Consolidated) PAGE 7 ORDER 02

EXHIBIT A (ATTORNEY AGREEMENT)
AGREEMENT CONCERNING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
IN DOCKETS UE-150204 and UG-150205
BEFORE THE
WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

I, ____________________________________________, as attorney in
this proceeding for ________________________________________________ (party
to this proceeding) agree to comply with and be bound by the Protective Order
entered by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission in Dockets UE-
150204 and UG-150205, and acknowledge that I have reviewed the Protective Order and fully understand its terms and conditions.

_______________________________________ ___________________________
Signature Date

_______________________________________ Address

DOCKETS UE-150204 AND UG-150205 (Consolidated) PAGE 8 ORDER 02

EXHIBIT B (EXPERT AGREEMENT)

AGREEMENT CONCERNING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IN DOCKETS UE-150204 and UG-150205
BEFORE THE
WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

I, _______________________________________________, as expert
witness in this proceeding for ____________________________________ (a party to
this proceeding) hereby agree to comply with and be bound by the Protective Order
entered by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission in Dockets UE-150204 and UG-150205 and acknowledge that I have reviewed the Protective Order
and fully understand its terms and conditions.
____________________________________ ___________________________
Signature Date

____________________________________
Employer
____________________________________ ___________________________
Address Position and Responsibilities
* * *
The following portion is to be completed by the responding party and filed with the
Commission within 10 days of receipt; failure to do so will constitute a waiver and
the above-named person will be deemed an expert having access to Confidential Information under the terms and conditions of the protective order.

_______ No objection.
_______ Objection. The responding party objects to the above-named expert
having access to Confidential Information. The objecting party shall file a motion
setting forth the basis for objection and asking exclusion of the expert from access to
Confidential Information.
_____________________________________ ___________________________
Signature Date

[Service date March 16, 2015]

BEFORE THE WASHINGTON
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Complainant,

DBA

Respondent.
-150205 (Consolidated)
3
;
(Set for October 5-8, 2015)

1 NATURE OF PROCEEDING. On February 9, 2015, Avista Corporation, dba
Avista Utilities (Avista or Company) filed with the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission (Commission) revisions to its currently effective Tariff
WN U-28, Electric Service. The Company requests authority to increase charges and
rates for electric service by approximately $33.2 million or 6.7 percent in billed rates.
This matter has been designated by the Commission as Docket UE-150204.

2 Also on February 9, 2015, Avista filed revisions to its currently effective Tariff WN
U-29, Natural Gas Service. In this filing, Avista seeks to increase rates for natural gas
service by approximately $12 million or 6.9 percent in billed rates. This matter has
been designated as Docket UG-150205. In Order 01, Complaint and Order
Suspending Tariff Revisions and Order of Consolidation, the Commission suspended
these tariff revisions and consolidated Dockets UE-150204 and UG-150205 for
hearing.

3 CONFERENCE. The Commission convened a prehearing conference in these
dockets at Olympia, Washington, on March 12, 2015, before Administrative Law
Judge Marguerite E. Friedlander.

DOCKETS UE-150204 and UG-150205 (Consolidated) PAGE 2 ORDER 03

4 PARTY REPRESENTATIVES. David J. Meyer, Vice President and Chief Counsel
for Regulatory and Governmental Affairs, Spokane, Washington, represents Avista.
Lisa W. Gafken, Assistant Attorney General, Seattle, Washington, represents the
Public Counsel Division of the Washington State Attorney General’s Office (Public
Counsel). Patrick J. Oshie, Jennifer Cameron-Rulkowski, and Brett P. Shearer,
Assistant Attorneys General, Olympia, Washington, represent the Commission’s
regulatory staff (Staff).1

5 Melinda J. Davison and Jesse E. Cowell, Davison Van Cleve, P.C., Portland, Oregon,
represent the Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities (ICNU). Chad M. Stokes
and Tommy A. Brooks, Cable Huston, Portland, Oregon, represent the Northwest
Industrial Gas Users (NWIGU). Ronald L. Roseman, attorney, Seattle, Washington,
represents The Energy Project. Contact information provided at the conference for
the parties’ representatives is attached as Appendix A to this order.

6 PETITIONS FOR INTERVENTION. The following organizations filed petitions
to intervene:

7 Parties did not voice objection to the petitions to intervene. The Commission finds
that the petitioners each demonstrated their substantial interest in this proceeding and
that their participation will be in the public interest. The petitions to intervene are
granted.

8 CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC SERVICE. All of the parties have consented to
electronic service of process from the other parties.

9 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Avista requested that the Commission enter a protective
order in this docket under RCW 34.05.446, RCW 80.04.095, WAC 480-07-420 and

1 In formal proceedings, such as this, the Commission’s regulatory staff participates like any other
party, while the Commissioners make the decision. To assure fairness, the Commissioners, the
presiding administrative law judge, and the Commissioners’ policy and accounting advisors do not discuss the merits of this proceeding with the regulatory staff, or any other party, without
giving notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. See, RCW 34.05.455.
DOCKETS UE-150204 and UG-150205 (Consolidated) PAGE 3 ORDER 03

WAC 480-07-423 to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information. The
request was granted and a protective order, Order 02, entered in this docket.

10 DISCOVERY. Discovery will continue pursuant to the Commission’s discovery
rules, WAC 480-07-400 – 425. The Commission urges the parties to work
cooperatively together to avoid having to bring discovery matters forward for formal
resolution.

11 PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE. The parties agreed on a procedural schedule at the
prehearing conference. The Commission adopts this procedural schedule, which is
attached to this Order as Appendix B.

12 The parties agreed to a shortened response time for data requests received on or after
July 27, 2015. Responses to these data requests will be due within seven business
days. From September 4, 2015, through the close of discovery, the response time for
data requests is five business days.

13 EXHIBITS FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. Parties are required to file with the
Commission and submit electronically all proposed cross-examination exhibits on
September 30, 2015. The Commission requires six copies of the fully unredacted
version of exhibits. The Commission also requires 1 copy of a redacted set of any
confidential or highly confidential exhibits so that these can be made available by the
Commission in response to a public records request or posted to the Commission’s
web pages.

14 NOTICE OF HEARING. The Commission will hold an evidentiary hearing in
these dockets beginning October 5, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., in the Commission’s Hearing
Room, Second Floor, Richard Hemstad Building, 1300 S. Evergreen Park Drive S.W.,
Olympia, Washington. The hearing will continue until from day to day thereafter, or
as otherwise scheduled, until completed. The Commission may alter this schedule by
subsequent notice.

15 DOCUMENT PREPARATION AND FILING REQUIREMENTS. Parties must
file an original plus 6 copies of all pleadings, motions, briefs, and other prefiled
materials. These materials must conform to the format and publication guidelines in
WAC 480-07-395 and WAC 480-07-460. The Commission prefers that materials be
DOCKETS UE-150204 and UG-150205 (Consolidated) PAGE 4 ORDER 03

three-hole punched with oversized holes to allow easy handling. The Commission
may require a party to refile any document that fails to conform to these standards.

16 All filings must be mailed or delivered to the Executive Director and Secretary,
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, P.O. Box 47250, 1300 S.
Evergreen Park Drive, S.W. Olympia, Washington 98504-7250. Both the post office
box and street address are required to expedite deliveries by the U.S. Postal Service.

17 An electronic copy of all filings must be provided through the Commission’s Web
Portal (www.utc.wa.gov/e-filing) or by e-mail delivery to <[e-mail]>.
Alternatively, parties may furnish an electronic copy by delivering with each filing a
3.5-inch IBM-formatted high-density diskette, CD, or flash drive including the filed
document(s). Parties must furnish electronic copies in MS Word 6.0 (or later)
supplemented by a separate file in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format. Parties must follow
WAC 480-07-140(5) in organizing and identifying electronic files.

18 ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS. Parties may submit
documents electronically to the Commission by 3:00 p.m. on the filing deadline to
expedite the filing process, but must file an original, plus 6 paper copies, of the
documents with the Commission by 12:00 noon on the first business day following
the filing deadline established in the procedural schedule. WAC 480-07-145(6).
Parties may submit documents electronically through the Commission’s Web Portal
(www.utc.wa.gov/efiling) or by e-mail to [e-mail]. Finally, to perfect
filing, parties must simultaneously provide e-mail courtesy copies of filings to the
presiding administrative law judge as well as to the parties to the proceeding.

19 ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION. The Commission supports the informal
settlement of matters before it. Parties are encouraged to consider means of resolving
disputes informally. The Commission does have limited ability to provide dispute
resolution services; if you wish to explore those services, please call the Director,
Administrative Law Division, at 360-664-1355.
DOCKETS UE-150204 and UG-150205 (Consolidated) PAGE 5 ORDER 03

20 NOTICE TO PARTIES: A party who objects to any portion of this Order must
file a written objection within ten (10) calendar days after the service date of this
Order, pursuant to WAC 480-07-430 and WAC 480-07-810. The service date
appears on the first page of the order in the upper right-hand corner. Absent
such objection, this Order will control further proceedings in this matter, subject
to Commission review.

Dated at Olympia, Washington, and effective March 16, 2015.

WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

MARGUERITE E. FRIEDLANDER
Administrative Law Judge

DOCKETS UE-150204 and UG-150205 (Consolidated) PAGE 6 ORDER 03

APPENDIX A
PARTIES’ REPRESENTATIVES
DOCKETS UE-150204 & UG-150205
PARTY REPRESENTATIVE PHONE E-MAIL
Avista
, MSC

[e-mail]

, MSC

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Commission Staff
-0128
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
sistant Director, Energy [e-mail]

DOCKETS UE-150204 and UG-150205 (Consolidated) PAGE 7 ORDER 03

PARTY REPRESENTATIVE PHONE E-MAIL
Public Counsel
enue, Suite 2000 -14
-3188
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Industrial
Customers of
Northwest
Utilities (ICNU)
rd Avenue #266

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Northwest
Industrial Gas
Users (NW
Ed Finklea
Executive Director
4
[e-mail]
ble Huston
-1136
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
DOCKETS UE-150204 and UG-150205 (Consolidated) PAGE 8 ORDER 03

The Energy
Project Charles Eberdt The Energy Project
[e-mail]
th Avenue East [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

DOCKETS UE-150204 and UG-150205 (Consolidated) PAGE 9 ORDER 03

APPENDIX B
PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE
DOCKETS UE-150204 and UG-150205

EVENT DATE
2
s-3
– Last day to issue Data
Requests4

2 Response time to data requests relating to this testimony will be 7 business days.
3 Response time to data requests relating to this testimony will be 5 business days.
4 Response time to data requests will be 5 business days.

BEFORE THE WASHINGTON
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

In the Matter of

AVISTA CORPORATION
,
2014
. . . . . . . . . . . . .

AUTHORIZING

4
BACKGROUND
1 The Utilities and Transportation Commission (Commission) in its Fifth Supplemental
Order in Docket UE-011595 (June 18, 2002), authorized Avista Corporation dba Avista
Utilities (Avista or Company) to implement an Energy Recovery Mechanism (ERM)
allowing for positive or negative adjustments to its rates to account for fluctuations in
power costs outside of an authorized band for power-cost recovery in base rates. Under the
Settlement Stipulation approved by the Commission in the same order, Avista is required
to make a filing by April 1 of each year regarding the power costs it deferred the prior
calendar year under the ERM.1
2 The Company’s April 1 filings are intended to be sufficient to provide the Commission and
interested parties an opportunity to audit and review the prudence of the ERM deferrals for
the year in question. A 90-day review period is contemplated, though that period can be
extended by agreement of the parties.2 On June 30, 2015 the Commission received a letter
from Avista agreeing to extend the review period to July 31, 2015.
3 The first ERM annual review covered the period July 1, 2002, through December 31, 2002,
and resulted in a Commission Order approving a settlement of the issues presented.3
Among other things, the Settlement Stipulation in Docket UE-030751 identified specific
documentation the Company would file in future ERM annual review proceedings.4

1Settlement Stipulation in Docket UE-011595 at 6-7, 4.b.
2 Id. 3 WUTC v. Avista Corp., Docket UE-030751, Order 05, Order Approving and Adopting Settlement
Stipulation (Feb. 3, 2004). 4 See Settlement Stipulation in Docket UE-030751 at 6-7, ¶ III.C.
DOCKET UE-150520 PAGE 2 ORDER 01

4 Pursuant to the terms of the ERM, the first $4 million of amounts of net power supply
costs above the authorized level is absorbed by the Company; the next $6 million 50
percent is absorbed by the Company and 50 percent is deferred for surcharge to rate
payers; and 90 percent of any remaining amount over $10 million is deferred as a potential
surcharge to rate payers.
5 On March 30, 2015, Avista filed testimony, exhibits, and supporting documentation
relating to power costs deferred under the ERM for calendar year 2013. The 90-day
review period was March 30, 2015, to June 30, 2015.
6 In 2014, Avista’s actual net power expense allocated to Washington was lower than the
authorized baseline expense by $9,526,640. Washington’s retail sales were 129,672
megawatts greater than the baseline resulting in retail revenue credit rebate adjustment of
$4,168,955 included in the Washington allocated net power expense above. Since actual
costs are lower than authorized costs the calculation is as follows:
a. The first $4 million is retained by the Company;
b. Twenty five percent of the next $5,526,640 is retained by the Company or
$1,381,660 million (25 percent of $5,526,640) and $4,144,980 (75 percent of
$5,526,640) is deferred as a rebate to rate payers.
7 Additionally, there is a rebate of $79,031 related to interest
8 For the year 2014, the total calculated rate payer deferral taking into consideration the
additional interest is $4,224,011. At the end of 2014, the total balance in the ERM deferral
accounts, including the 2014 rebate recorded, was $14,186,102 in the rebate direction.
9 The baseline for this ERM calculation results from the power supply revenues and
expenses approved by the Commission in Dockets UE-140188 and UG-140189
(consolidated).
10 Staff has conducted a review of the Company’s ERM annual review filing in this docket,
and is satisfied the Company provided adequate documentation of its ERM power cost
revenue and expenses.
11 Staff has not identified any related issues nor has any other person or party filed comments
with the Commission within the review period.

DOCKET UE-150520 PAGE 3 ORDER 01
DISCUSSION
12 Avista’s March 30, 2015, filing provides sufficient information to allow the Commission
and interested parties to audit and review the prudence of the ERM deferrals for 2014.
We agree with Staff that the Company’s documentation of its ERM power cost deferrals
for calendar year 2014 adequately supports the rate payer deferral or rebate amount of
$4,224,011 reflected in the filing.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
13 (1) The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission is an agency of the State
of Washington vested by statute with the authority to regulate rates, rules,
regulations, practices, and accounts of public service companies, including electric
companies.
14 (2) Avista is a public service Company subject to Commission jurisdiction. Avista is
engaged in the business of providing electric and natural gas service within the
state of Washington.
15 (3) This matter was brought before the Commission at its regularly scheduled meeting
on July 30, 2015. The Commission received no written or oral comments from any
person or party other than Commission Staff.
16 (4) The Company has provided adequate documentation of its ERM power cost
deferrals for calendar year 2014 to support the rate payer deferral or surcharge
amount of $4,224,011.
ORDER

THE COMMISSION ORDERS:
17 (1) Avista Corporation dba Avista Utilities’ filing meets the requirements in Dockets
UE-011595 and UE-030751 and Avista Corporation dba Avista Utilities has
properly calculated the 2014 Energy Recovery Mechanism amount.
18 (2) Pursuant to the terms of the Energy Recovery Mechanism, Avista Corporation dba
Avista Utilities is authorized to record a 2014 rate payer deferral or rebate amount
of $4,224,011.
19 (3) This Order shall in no way affect the Commission’s authority over rates, services,
accounts, valuations, estimations, or determination of costs, or any matters
DOCKET UE-150520 PAGE 4 ORDER 01
whatsoever 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.
20 (4) The Commission retains jurisdiction to effectuate the terms of this Order.
The Commissioners, having determined this Order to be consistent with the public interest,
directed the Secretary to enter this Order.
DATED at Olympia, Washington, and effective July 30, 2015.

WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

STEVEN V. KING, Executive Director and Secretary
BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION In the Matter of the Petition of

AVISTA CORPORATION,
Petitioner,

01

BACKGROUND
1 On May 1, 2015, Avista Corporation (Avista or Company) filed a petition for an order
approving a Lease Agreement between the Company and Mobius Science Center
(Mobius), a non-profit science center that opened in Spokane in 2012. The Lease
Agreement will allow Avista to form an educational partnership with Mobius and fulfill
its hydro-dam relicensing requirements to provide educational displays on the operations
and environmental aspects of hydro power. The Lease Agreement grants Mobius
occupancy of the ground floor of the Post Street Annex, which is a three-story facility.
Avista will continue to use the other two floors of the Annex as a supporting facility for
the Post Street substation next door.

2 Avista will incur approximately $550,000 in make-ready costs to accommodate building
use by a third party. Those costs will cover basic mechanical and structural building
improvements such as: reinforcing the roof, removing lead-based paint on an interior
brick wall of the ground floor, and improving electrical safety to protect against electrical
surges from the adjacent Post Street substation.

3 The Lease Agreement is for an annual rent payment of one dollar. Plus Mobius will be
responsible for interior operations and maintenance costs for its occupation of the ground
floor space, and it will make all improvements and renovations required for the permitted
uses specified in the lease at its own expense with prior approval from Avista. The Lease
Agreement also requires Mobius to develop, construct, and display at least three different
educational programs per year in collaboration with Avista. Avista will have input into all
exhibits and educational programs, and will have a permanent seat on the Mobius Board
of Directors for the duration of the lease to ensure that Avista’s interests are represented.

DOCKET UE-150715 PAGE 2 ORDER 01

4 Commission Staff reviewed the Lease Agreement and performed an onsite visit to the
Post Street Annex. Staff finds that the Lease Agreement is reasonable, and recommends
the Commission grant the Company’s petition to approve it. The Lease Agreement will
allow Avista to form an educational partnership with Mobius and fulfill its hydro-dam
relicensing requirements. In addition, the Post Street Annex is adjacent to the Monroe
Street Hydroelectric Project, the Post Street Substation, Riverfront Park, Huntington
Park, City of Spokane’s City Hall, and River Park Square. The location of the Post Street
Annex will provide Mobius with a well-established and convenient venue where Avista’s
educational materials will be available to a larger segment of both the Spokane
community and the general public.

DISCUSSION

5 We agree with Staff that Avista’s partnership with Mobius will benefit both parties, as
well as the general public. Avista will fulfill its hydro-dam relicensing requirements, and
Mobius will have a central location in downtown Spokane for its exhibits and educational
programs. Though Mobius will pay a nominal rent of $1 per year, Avista will benefit
from having the dedicated exhibition space, as well as the technical and professional
expertise in designing and displaying the energy-related educational materials that
Mobius will provide. Accordingly, we grant Avista’s petition and approve the Lease
Agreement between Avista and Mobius.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

6 (1) The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission is an agency of the
State of Washington vested by statute with the authority to regulate rates,
regulations, practices, accounts, securities, transfers of property, and affiliated
interests of public service companies, including electric companies.

7 (2) Avista is a watern electric company and a public service company subject to
Commission jurisdiction.

8 (3) This matter came before the Commission at its regularly scheduled meeting on
July 30, 2015.

DOCKET UE-150715 PAGE 3 ORDER 01

9 (4) On May 1, 2015, Avista filed a petition for an order approving the Lease
Agreement between Avista and Mobius Science Center.

10 (5) Staff reviewed the Lease Agreement and found that its terms will benefit Avista,
Mobius, and the general public. The agreement will allow Avista to fulfill its
hydro-dam relicensing requirements to provide educational displays on the
operations and environmental aspects of hydro power, and will provide Mobius
with a central location in downtown Spokane for its exhibits and educational
programs.

11 (6) After reviewing Avista’s petition and giving due consideration to all relevant
matters and for good cause shown, the Commission finds it is consistent with the
public interest to grant Avista’s petition and approve the Lease Agreement
between Avista and Mobius.

O R D E R

THE COMMISSION ORDERS:

12 (1) Avista Corporation’s petition for approval of the lease agreement between Avista
Corporation and Mobius Science Center is granted.

13 (2) The Commission retains jurisdiction over the subject matter and Avista
Corporation to effectuate the terms of this Order.

DOCKET UE-150715 PAGE 4 ORDER 01

DATED at Olympia, Washington, and effective July 30, 2015.

WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

DAVID W. DANNER, Chairman

PHILIP B. JONES, Commissioner

ANN RENDAHL, Commissioner

BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

AVISTA CORPORATION’S
-109-210

BACKGROUND
1 The Energy Independence Act (EIA or Act)1 requires qualifying electric utilities to obtain
certain percentages of their electricity from eligible renewable resources. The
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (Commission) enforces compliance
with the EIA by investor-owned utilities.2 Ultimately, the Commission must determine
“whether the utility has generated, acquired or arranged to acquire enough renewable
energy credits or qualifying generation to comply with its renewable resource target.”3
2 The Commission has implemented these requirements by establishing a two-step
compliance process.4 Because a utility may comply with its renewable portfolio standards
(RPS) obligation by using RECs acquired in the year after the target year, ultimate
compliance for 2015, for example, may be demonstrated as late as June 1, 2017.
Accordingly, there will be two Commission decisions for each year’s compliance: (1) a
determination that the Company has enough resources to meet the 3 percent target; and
(2) the retrospective compliance decision. Before the Commission is the initial resource-
adequacy filing made by Avista Corporation (Avista or Company) for its 2015 obligation.
The Commission will consider Avista’s compliance with its 2015 target when Avista
requests such a finding, which the Company must do through a filing in this docket no
later than June 1, 2017.

1 RCW Chapter 19.285.
2 RCW 19.285.060(6).
3 WAC 480-109-210(3)(b).
4 WAC 480-109-210(1) and (6).
DOCKET UE-151145 PAGE 2 ORDER 01

3 On March 13, 2015, the Commission adopted a new rule for implementation and
enforcement of the EIA, which is codified at WAC 480-109. The new rule adopts RPS
enforcement practices developed by the Commission since the Act was implemented in
2012 − including the two-step compliance process explained above − and created new
reporting requirements. The rule made the following key changes to the RPS reporting
process:
x Requires registration of all resources used for RPS compliance in WREGIS
(WAC 480-109-200(3)).
x Formally incorporates the three methodologies that the Commission has accepted
for calculating which portion of the output of upgraded hydropower facilities is
eligible, incremental hydropower for RPS compliance (WAC 480-109-200(7)).
x Requires calculation of the incremental cost of RPS compliance according to the
Commission’s approved methodology (WAC 480-109-210(2)(a)).
x Requires utilities that operate in more than one state to explain and document how
they determined Washington’s allocation of renewable energy credits (RECs)
(WAC 480-109-210(2)(e)).
x Requires utilities that sell RECs to report the amount and proceeds of those sales
(WAC 480-109-210(2)(f)).

4 On May 29, 2015, Avista filed with the Commission a compliance report under RCW
19.285.070 and WAC 480-109-210 (RPS Report). After Commission staff (Staff)
identified deficiencies in the Company’s initial report, Avista filed a revised RPS Report
on July 8, 2015, at Staff’s request. Based on the information that the Company provided
in its revised report, Staff believes that Avista correctly calculated its 2015 RPS target,
and that it has acquired sufficient resources to meet that target. Table 1, below,
summarizes Avista’s 2015 target and the total amount of resources that the Company had
acquired by January 1, 2015:
Table 1: Avista’s 2015 Renewable Resource Target and Compliance Plan5

170,472 170,089 25,934 469,671 N/A 665,694

5 Table 1 includes the Company’s excess RECs from 2014, which could be applied to its 2015
target, and the Company’s projected 2015 generation from its hydro and wind facilities. While
Avista sold its excess 2014 RECs, Table 1 illustrates the Company’s overall compliance before
any sales were made.
DOCKET UE-151145 PAGE 3 ORDER 01

5 Avista seeks an order from the Commission confirming that the Company has complied
with the Commission’s EIA reporting requirements and accepting the Company’s
calculations and eligibility of the renewable resources identified in the RPS Report for
2015.
6 On June 4, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice inviting interested persons to file
written comments on Avista’s RPS Report. During the comment period, the Commission
received written comments from Staff and joint written comments from Renewable
Northwest and NW Energy Coalition (RNW/NWEC). RNW/NWEC expressed concern
about the confusing presentation of Avista’s initial report, but praised the Company for
meeting its target without relying on alternative compliance mechanisms, and doing so at
a negative incremental cost. RNW/NWEC recommend that the Commission approve the
RPS Report, but clarify that the initial report due each June 1 should report the
Company’s target and compliance plan for that year.
7 Staff believes that Avista correctly calculated its 2015 RPS target, and that the Company
has acquired sufficient resources to meet that target.
8 Staff recommends that the Commission issue an order in this docket determining: (1) The
2015 renewable energy target for Avista is 170,472 megawatt-hours; (2) Avista has
complied with the June 1, 2015, reporting requirements; (3) Avista has demonstrated that,
by January 1, 2015, the Company acquired at least 170,472 megawatt-hours of eligible
renewable resources for its use in 2015; and (4) Avista must file a second report in this
docket no later than June 1, 2017, that lists the certificate numbers in WREGIS for every
megawatt-hour and renewable energy credit that Avista retired to meet the January 1,
2015, target.
DISCUSSION
9 The Commission accepts Avista’s calculation of 170,472 megawatt-hours as the
Company’s renewable energy target for 2015 and determines that Avista has identified
sufficient resources to be able to meet that target. The Commission will make its final
determination on whether Avista has met its 2015 target when the Company requests
such a finding, which Avista must make in this docket no later than June 1, 2017.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
10 (1) The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission is an agency of the
state of Washington vested by statute with the authority to regulate the rates,
DOCKET UE-151145 PAGE 4 ORDER 01

regulations, practices, and accounts of public service companies, including
electric companies.
11 (2) Avista is an electrical company and a public service company subject to
Commission jurisdiction.
12 (3) Avista serves more than 25,000 customers within the State of Washington and is a
“qualifying utility” within the meaning of RCW 19.285.030(18).
13 (4) Avista has properly calculated its renewable energy target for 2015 to be 170,472
megawatt-hours.
14 (5) By January 1, 2015, Avista had acquired sufficient eligible renewable resources to
supply at least 3 percent of its load for the remainder of 2015.
15 (6) Avista has met the reporting requirements of RCW 19.285.070 and WAC
480-109-210. These reporting requirements include Avista’s plan for meeting its
RPS obligation for the remainder of 2015.
16 (7) Pursuant to WAC 480-109-210(4), Avista must provide a summary of its RPS
Report to its customers, by bill insert or other suitable method, within ninety days
of the date of this Order.
17 (8) Pursuant to WAC 480-109-210(6), Avista must file a report no later than June 1,
2017, that lists the certificate numbers in WREGIS for every megawatt-hour and
renewable energy credit that Avista retired to meet the January 1, 2015, target.
ORDER
THE COMMISSION ORDERS:
18 (1) The Commission accepts the calculation of 170,472 megawatt-hours as the 2015
renewable energy target for Avista Corporation.
19 (2) Avista Corporation has identified eligible renewable resources sufficient to supply
at least 3 percent of its load for 2015.
20 (3) Avista Corporation has complied with the June 1, 2015, reporting requirements
pursuant to WAC 480-109-210.
DOCKET UE-151145 PAGE 5 ORDER 01

21 (4) Avista Corporation must file a second report no later than June 1, 2017, that
provides the information necessary to determine whether Avista Corporation met
the 2015 renewable energy target of 170,472 megawatt-hours.
22 (5) The Commission Secretary is authorized to accept or approve a filing that
complies with the requirements of this Order.
DATED at Olympia, Washington, and effective July 30, 2015.
WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

DAVID W. DANNER, Chairman

PHILIP B. JONES, Commissioner

ANN E. RENDAHL, Commissioner
BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION,
Complainant,
v.

Respondent.

1

BACKGROUND

1 On May 29, 2015, Avista Corporation d/b/a Avista Utilities (Avista or Company) filed
revisions to its electric demand side management (DSM) tariff, Schedule 91. The tariff
revision updates rates for the recovery of conservation program expenditures, reflecting
Avista’s prospective budget as documented in the supporting work papers for this filing
and the company’s 2015 DSM Business Plan.1 The rate revisions also reflect a true up of
the previous year’s expenditures and collections.

2 The Company proposes to reduce Schedule 91 rates by $3.1 million. A residential
customer using 966 kWh will see an average monthly bill decrease of of $0.51, or 0.62
percent. The Company did not file a revision to its natural gas demand side management
tariff, Schedule 191, because it determined that the current funding level is sufficient to
support ongoing efforts. On July 28, 2015, the Company filed replacement tariff pages to
address some of the issues identified by Commission staff (Staff), as described below.

3 Commission Staff Audit. On June 7, 2015, Staff performed an on-site audit of Avista’s
conservation incentive and non-incentive expenditures. Prior to the on-site audit, Staff
reviewed over 1000 expenditures, and selected 34 electric and natural gas line items for
comprehensive on-site review, including:

x Invoice dollar match to line-item expenditures;
x Existence of proper supporting documentation for expenditures;
x Appropriate Washington allocation of expenditures;
x Overall appropriateness of expenditure; and

1 Avista Corp., Docket UE-132045
DOCKET UE-151148 PAGE 2 ORDER 01
x Presence of proper internal control mechanisms.
4 All line item expenditures were supported by invoices, and supporting documentation
was provided upon request. All reviewed expenditures were found to be appropriately
allocated to Washington. However, Staff discovered three issues that warrant further
investigation and discussion.

5 First, Avista spent $2,500 to sponsor a Northwest Energy Coalition (NWEC) evening
event entitled ‘Four under Forty,’ which honored four clean energy leaders under the age
of 40 from the Pacific Northwest. In general, Staff supports including the costs for
sponsorship events that specifically promote utility conservation programs and
enhancement of trade ally networks. The Company has agreed to remove this expenditure
and adjust the rider balance.

6 Second, Staff discovered a natural gas reimbursement of more than $300,000 that was
misallocated to the Company’s electric program. The error occured when the
conservation team worked with the utility accounting office to allocate an incoming
invoice from a collaborative project with Washingto State University. The Company has
provided documentation that demonstrates that the money has been applied to the natural
gas program, however it still needs to refile Schedule 91 to account for the change in
rates.

7 Opower Home Energy Reports. The third and most significant issue discovered by
Staff is that Avista ceased issuing Opower Home Energy Reports in January 2015 due to
technical difficulties related to its new billing system. The Company does not expect to
resume issuing reports until at least the end of August 2015, resulting in a minimum
service disruption of eight months. Staff is concerned about Avista continuing to pay
Opower − and collecting more than $295,000 from its customers during the program
outage − for a program it did not implement. Accordingly, Staff finds that the program
was not used and useful.

8 Staff is also concerned about the long-term impact of program savings. Opower is
designed as a three year program, with regularly-issued Home Energy Reports. The eight-
month program disruption could have a negative impact on the program’s overall efficacy
and savings potential. Avista failed to inform its Advisory Group about the lapse in
service until May 1; yet, this is precisely the type of issue the Company should have
brought to its Advisory Group for discussion. For each of these reasons, Staff finds that
the Opower program disruption warrants further investigation.
DOCKET UE-151148 PAGE 3 ORDER 01

9 Rates – Schedule 191 (Natural Gas). The Company proposes to leave current schedule
191 rates unchanged because they continue to support the ongoing natural gas portfolio.
Based on the information provided at the time, Staff agreed that it was not necessary to
modify rates if the rate change would be less than 0.1 percent of retail revenues, as shown
in the draft work papers. The Company’s informal workpapers from June 2015 projected
that the gas portfolio would be underfunded by $500,000 at the end of July.2 However,
the Company’s July 2015 stakeholder newsletter indicates that the natural gas rider
balance is underfunded by $1.2 million, a substantial one month increase.3 Staff is
concerned that the natural gas portfolio could be underfunded, and that the tariff may
need an adjustment.

10 Recommendation. For the reasons set forth above, Staff recommends the Commission
issue a complaint and order suspending the tariff revisions. Because the revised rates will
decrease monthly bills for customers, Staff also recommends allowing the rates to go into
effect on a temporary basis, subject to revision.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

11 The Commission agrees that the issues raised by Staff warrant further attention and
analysis. We also concur that allowing the decreased rates to go into effect on a
temporary basis will benefit customers. Accordingly, we approve the proposed rates on a
temporary basis, subject to revision, and suspend the tariff filing pending Staff’s
investigation.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

12 (1) The Washington Utilities and Transportation 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.

13 (2) Avista is an electric company and a public service company subject to
Commission jurisdiction.

2 Informal company work papers, provided via email, $516,042. 3 Avista Energy Efficiency Stakeholder Newsletter, July 2015, at page 3.
DOCKET UE-151148 PAGE 4 ORDER 01
14 (3) This matter came before the Commission at its regularly scheduled meeting on
July 30, 2015.

15 (4) The tariff revision Avista filed on May 29, 2015, as revised July 28, 2015, would
decrease charges and rates for service provided by Avista. Such decreases,
pending Commission Staff review, are in the public interest.

16 (5) Although Avista has not yet demonstrated that the tariff revisions would
ultimately result in rates that are fair, just, reasonable, and sufficient, the
Commission finds it reasonable to allow the rates to become effective, on a
temporary basis, subject to revision.

17 (6) As authorized in RCW 80.04.130 and RCW 80.04.220, an investigation into this
tariff filing is warranted, including an examination of Avista’s books, accounts,
practices, and activities.
18 (6) Under RCW 80.04.130(4), Avista would bear the burden of proof to show that the
proposed decreases are fair, just, reasonable, and sufficient in the event this matter
were set for hearing. Nothing in this Order is intended to limit the issues as to the
fairness, justness, reasonableness, and sufficiency of the proposed decreases.

ORDER

THE COMMISSION ORDERS:

19 (1) The tariff revision Avista Corporation filed in this docket on May 29, 2015, as
revised July 28, 2015, is suspended.

20 (2) The rate decrease sought by Avista Corporation will become effective on August
1, 2015, on a temporary basis, subject to revision.

21 (3) The Commission may hold hearings at such times and places as may be required.

22 (4) Avista Corporation must not change or alter the tariffs filed in this docket during
the suspension period, unless authorized by the Commission.

23 (5) The Commission will institute an investigation of Error! Reference source not
found.’s books, accounts, practices, activities, and operations, as described in this
Order.
DOCKET UE-151148 PAGE 5 ORDER 01

DATED at Olympia, Washington, and effective July 30, 2015.

WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

DAVID W. DANNER, Chairman

PHILIP B. JONES, Commissioner

ANN E. RENDAHL, Commissioner

BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

In the Matter of the Petition of
AVISTA CORPORATION D/B/A
AVISTA UTILITIES,
01
ATUTORY NOTICE

BACKGROUND

1 On December 22, 2015, Avista Corporation d/b/a Avista Utilities, (Avista or Company)
filed with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (Commission) a
revision to its currently effective Tariff WN U-28, designated as 11th Revision of Sheet
93, Power Cost Surcharge – Washington. The purpose of the filing is to align the
expiration of the current Energy Recovery Mechanism (ERM) rebate with the effective
date of the base rates to be established through Docket UE-150204.

2 RCW 80.28.060 and WAC 480-80-121 require thirty days’ notice to customers prior to
the effective date of the tariff. Consistent with this requirement, the tariff sheet bears an
effective date of January 22, 2016, but the Company requests that the revision become
effective at the same time as the Commission’s determination of new base rates in Docket
UE-150204, on less than statutory notice. This is anticipated to be January 11, 2016.
Avista requests less than statutory notice to prevent two separate rate changes in a two
week period.

3 The currently effective 10th revision of Sheet 93 states that “(t)he energy charges will be
reduced for a twelve month period, from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015.”
However, on December 21, 2015, Judge Friedlander advised the parties in Avista’s
general rate case, Docket Nos. UE-150204 and UG-150205, that new base rates will not
be implemented by January 1, 2016. Absent Commission action, the expiration of the
ERM credit, and thus a rate increase, will occur less than two weeks prior to the statutory
deadline of January 11, 2016, for the Commission to enter an order establishing new base
rates.

DOCKET UE-152406 PAGE 2 ORDER 01

DISCUSSION

4 The Commission agrees that the proposed tariff revision should become effective on less
than statutory notice. The extension of the ERM rebate by, at most, 11 days properly
aligns the rate change related to the expiration of the ERM rebate with the rate change
related to the forthcoming Commission Order in Dockets UE-150204 and UG-150205
establishing new base rates. This alignment avoids Avista ratepayers having to
experience two separate rate changes in a two-week period.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

5 (1) The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission is an agency of the
State of Washington vested by statute with the authority to regulate the rates,
regulations, and practices of public service companies, including electric
companies.

6 (2) Avista is an electric company and a public service company subject to
Commission jurisdiction.

7 (3) Electric companies must provide 30 days’ notice of any changes to their rates,
charges, or services. For good cause shown, however, the Commission may allow
changes without requiring thirty days’ notice by order specifying the changes to
be made and the time when the Order shall take effect.

8 (4) Avista reasonably requests less than statutory notice for its proposed extension of
the expiration of its ERM rebate.

9 (5) This matter came before the Commission at its regularly scheduled meeting on
December 30, 2015.

10 (6) After reviewing Avista’s proposed tariff revision filed on December 22, 2015, and
giving due consideration to all relevant matters and for good cause shown, the
Commission finds the proposed tariff revision should be allowed to become
effective January 1, 2016.

DOCKET UE-152406 PAGE 3 ORDER 01

O R D E R

THE COMMISSION ORDERS:

11 (1) Avista Corporation d/b/a Avista Utilities’ request for less than statutory notice is
granted.

12 (2) The tariff revision Avista Corporation d/b/a Avista Utilities filed on December 22,
2015, will be effective on January 1, 2016.

The Commissioners, having determined this Order to be consistent with the public
interest, directed the Secretary to enter this Order.

DATED at Olympia, Washington, and effective December 30, 2015.

WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

STEVEN V. KING, Executive Director and Secretary

BEFORE THE WASHINGTON
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

’s

ORDER 01

ORDER APPROVING AVISTA
CORPORATION’S PIPE

BACKGROUND
1 On December 31, 2012, the Utilities and Transportation Commission (Commission)
issued its Policy on Accelerated Replacement of Pipeline Facilities with Elevated Risk
(Policy Statement).1 As required by the Policy Statement, each investor-owned gas
pipeline utility company filed a Master Plan for replacing pipe that represents an elevated
risk of failure in 2013.
2 The Policy Statement also requires each investor-owned gas pipeline utility company to
file a pipeline replacement plan (PRP) every two years for replacing pipe that represents
an elevated risk of failure, beginning June 1, 2013.2 Each company’s plan must include:3
1) a Master Plan for replacing all facilities with an elevated risk of failure;
2) a Two-Year Plan that specifically identifies the pipe replacement program goals
for the upcoming two year period; and, if applicable,
3) a Pipe Location Plan for identifying the location of pipe or facilities that present
an elevated risk of failure.
Each Plan must also: (1) target pipe or facilities that pose an elevated risk of failure;
(2) be a measured and reasonable response in relation to the elevated risk without unduly

1 Docket UG-120715 (December 31, 2012).
2 Id. ¶ 43. Subsequent PRP filings should be filed by June 1 every two years thereafter (i.e., June 1, 2015, 2017, 2019, etc.).
3 Id. ¶ 42.
DOCKET PG-160292 PAGE 2 ORDER 01
burdening ratepayers, and (3) be in the public interest.4 Finally, each Plan should contain
a section analyzing its impact on rates.5
3 Companies seeking to recover costs must simultaneously file a proposed CRM with their
Plan. The CRM must document costs invested to replace elevated-risk pipe, use a
normalized accounting treatment, and include an operations and maintenance offset.6
4 On May 29, 2015, Avista Corporation (Avista or Company) filed with the Commission
its “Two-Year Plan for Managing Select Pipe Replacement in Avista Utilities’ Natural
Gas System” (2015 Two-Year Plan). The Company seeks an order from the Commission
approving its 2015 Two-Year Plan. The expected level of capital investment each year
was used to derive a corresponding revenue requirement, which was allocated by rate
class to determine the level of rate impact for the customers in each class. Those years
where costs are already included in rates will have no new incremental rate impact.
5 Avista identified three types of facilities located in Washington posing an elevated risk of
failure: vintage Aldyl-A polyethylene mains,7 PE service piping where it transitions to
rigid steel service tees, and isolated steel, which historically may mor may not have had
adequate cathodic protection.
6 Avista’s 2015-2017 Two Year Plan is materially unchanged from its 2013-2015 Two
Year Plan, so the Company was not required to file an updated Master Plan. Avista’s
Plan also indicates that a Pipe Location Plan is not warranted because the Company
knows where its elevated risk pipe is located. Because Avista classifies this pipe as
higher risk pipe, this pipe is on a priority replacement schedule.
7 Commission Staff (Staff) reviewed the Company’s filing and concluded that Avista’s
2015 Two-Year Plan includes all items required by the Commission’s Policy Statement.
Staff agrees that the Company has such a very small amount of unknown pipe in its
system that a Pipe Location Plan is not required. Avista is on schedule to remediate
identified elevated risk pipeline facilities according to their Plan filed on May 31, 2013.
Overall, Staff finds that the Company’s 2015-2017 Two Year Plan is substantially

4 Id. ¶¶ 44-56.
5 Id. ¶ 55.
6 Id. ¶¶ 63-76.
7 Pre-1984 manufacture and pre-1987 installation mains, which are susceptible to slow crack
growth.
DOCKET PG-160292 PAGE 3 ORDER 01
unchanged from its initial 2013-2015 Two Year Plan, is consistent with the
Commission’s Policy Statement, and adequately addresses all known elevated risk
pipeline facilities in Washington. Accordingly, Staff recommends the Commission
approve Avista’s 2015 Two-Year Plan.

DISCUSSION
8 The Commission approves Avista’s 2015 Two-Year Plan. We agree with Staff that the
Company’s 2015 Two-Year Plan is consistent with our Policy Statement. The
Commission commends Avista for continuing its proactive approach to identifying
elevated risk facilities and implementing a cost-efficient replacement program.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
9 (1) The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission is an agency of the
state of Washington vested by statute with the authority to regulate the rates,
rules, regulations, and practices of public service companies, including natural gas
companies.
10 (2) Avista Corporation is a natural gas company and a public service company
subject to Commission jurisdiction.
11 (3) Avista Corporation filed its 2015 Pipeline Replacement Plan with the
Commission on May 29, 2015.
12 (4) Avista’s 2015 Two-Year Plan is reasonable and measured approaches to replace
pipeline facilities with an elevated risk of failure.
ORDER
THE COMMISSION ORDERS:
13 (1) Avista Corporation’s 2015 Two-Year Plan is approved.
14 (2) Avista Corporation should file an updated Pipeline Replacement Plan for 2017-19
no later than June 1, 2017.
DOCKET PG-160292 PAGE 4 ORDER 01
DATED at Olympia, Washington, and effective April 7, 2016.
WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

DAVID W. DANNER, Chairman

PHILIP B. JONES, Commissioner

ANN E. RENDAHL, Commissioner

Pipeline Safety Fees
Air Liquide Large Industries U.S. LP 2.43 0.01% $45.91 178.50 1.00% $5,268.02 $5,313.93
Akzo Nobel Pulp and Performance Chemicals, Inc. 0.50 0.00% $9.45 35.00 0.20% $1,032.95 $1,042.39AltaGas Facilities (US) Inc. (Ferndale Storage Terminal)0.04 0.00% $0.76 72.50 0.41% $2,139.67 $2,140.43
Ferndale Pipeline System 36.20 0.14% $683.95 164.00 0.92% $4,840.09 $5,524.04
Avista Utilities Corporation 3431.42 13.74% $64,832.23 1169.20 6.54% $34,506.29 $99,338.51BP Pipelines North America (BP Cherry Point Refinery)10.00 0.04% $188.94 294.50 1.65% $8,691.50 $8,880.44
Cardinal FG 3.25 0.01% $61.40 99.50 0.56% $2,936.52 $2,997.92
Cascade Natural Gas Corporation 4802.21 19.23% $90,731.66 2862.40 16.00% $84,477.25 $175,208.90Ellensburg, City of 125.58 0.50% $2,372.58 191.50 1.07% $5,651.69 $8,024.27
Enumclaw, City of 94.68 0.38% $1,788.86 395.60 2.21% $11,675.24 $13,464.10
Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation 1.20 0.00% $22.67 55.50 0.31% $1,637.96 $1,660.63Gas Transmission Northwest LLC (TransCanada)308.67 1.24% $5,831.98 392.00 2.19% $11,568.99 $17,400.98
Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products (Camas) LLC 1.04 0.00% $19.65 159.50 0.89% $4,707.28 $4,726.93Inland Empire Paper Co. 3.00 0.01% $56.68 48.50 0.27% $1,431.37 $1,488.05
J.R. Simplot Company 1.00 0.00%$18.89 42.00 0.23% $1,239.53 $1,258.43
KB Pipeline Company 18.00 0.07%$340.09 216.00 1.21% $6,374.75 $6,714.84Lamb Weston/BSW 4.00 0.02% $75.57 66.50 0.37% $1,962.60 $2,038.17
McChord Pipeline Company 14.25 0.06% $269.24 369.00 2.06% $10,890.20 $11,159.43
Northwest Natural Gas Co. 1744.70 6.99% $32,963.89 793.50 4.44% $23,418.35 $56,382.24Northwest Pipeline LLC - (Williams)1307.64 5.24% $24,706.14 1225.70 6.85% $36,173.76 $60,879.90
Olympic Pipe Line Company - intrastate laterals and interstate 393.00 1.57% $7,425.24 1681.40 9.40% $49,622.71 $57,047.94
Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC (Yellowstone Pipeline - Spokane+Moses Lake) 129.00 0.52% $2,437.29 473.00 2.64% $13,959.52 $16,396.81Puget Sound Energy 12258.27 49.09%$231,604.34 3420.40 19.12% $100,945.35 $332,549.70
Puget Sound Energy - Jackson Prarie 15.40 0.06% $290.96 138.50 0.77% $4,087.51 $4,378.48
Puget Sound Energy - Sumas Gas Pipeline 3.64 0.01% $68.77 187.50 1.05% $5,533.64 $5,602.41Solvay Chemical, Inc. 1.00 0.00%$18.89 234.50 1.31% $6,920.74 $6,939.63
Swissport Fueling, Inc. 0.09 0.00% $1.61 87.50 0.49% $2,582.36 $2,583.97Targa Sound Terminal LLC 2.70 0.01%$51.01 416.50 2.33% $12,292.05 $12,343.07
Tesoro Logistics Northwest Pipeline LLC 176.70 0.71% $3,338.52 1109.00 6.20% $32,729.62 $36,068.14
Tidewater, Inc. 6.98 0.03% $131.95 377.70 2.11% $11,146.96 $11,278.91Trans Mountain Pipeline (Puget Sound) LLC (Kinder Morgan Canada)63.80 0.26% $1,205.42 331.00 1.85% $9,768.71 $10,974.13
Weyerhaeuser Company 9.00 0.04%$170.04 91.50 0.51% $2,700.42 $2,870.46
Williams Partners Operating LLC 0.00 0.00% $0.00 507.30 2.84% $14,971.81 $14,971.81
100.00%$471,764.60 17,886.70 100.00%$527,885.40 $999,650.00
Total Program Cost 2,358,823.00
Less Federal Reimbursement Credit 1,352,173.00
Less Damage Prevention Penalty Collection (CY2013 & 2014) 7,000.00
Net Program 999,650.00
Overhead Cost distributed based on miles $471,764.60
Program Cost distributed based on hours $527,885.40
LDC Transfer $663,479.36
Fees to be billed $336,170.64
Total fees for 2015/2016 $999,650.00
Company MILES HOURS
BEFORE THE WASHINGTON STATE
UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

FOR
16

BACKGROUND

1 The Commission imposes an annual pipeline safety fee pursuant to RCW 80.24.060 and
RCW 81.24.090 to meet the costs of its pipeline safety program. RCW 80.24.060(1)
requires that every gas company and every interstate gas pipeline company subject to
inspection or enforcement by the Commission must pay an annual pipeline safety fee to the
Commission. RCW 81.24.090(1) requires that every hazardous liquid pipeline company as
defined in RCW 81.88.010 must pay an annual pipeline safety fee to the Commission. The
fee is determined by the fee methodology established in WAC 480-93-240 (gas) and WAC
480-75-240 (hazardous liquid).

2 The fees set by the Commission are paid quarterly, beginning September 1 of each year. In
accordance with WAC 480-93-240 (4) and WAC 480-75-240 (4), the Commission mailed
invoices to each company on August 1, 2015 showing the total amount of the pipeline fee
for fiscal year 2016, and the first quarterly payment amount due September 1, 2015.

FINDINGS OF FACT

3 (1) The Commission has determined each company’s fiscal 2016 fee pursuant to RCW
80.24.060 and WAC 480-93-240 (gas pipeline companies and interstate gas
pipeline companies), and RCW 81.24.090 and WAC 480-75-240 (hazardous liquid
pipeline companies).

4 (2) The Commission deducts from the total program cost ($2,358,823) the federal
funding amount ($1,352,173) the Commission received from the Federal
DOCKET P-150462 PAGE 2 ORDER 01 Department of Transportation Natural Gas Pipeline and Hazardous Liquid Pipeline
Safety Program base grants, and the damage prevention penalty collection amount
($7,000) the Commission received during calendar year 2013 and 2014.

5 (3) Third, the Commission allocates overhead cost ($471,764.60) to the pipeline
program based on each company’s percentage of the total pipeline miles within
Washington State.

6 (4) Fourth, the Commission allocates the total remaining program cost ($527,885.40) to
each company based on the proportion of a company’s share of the program staff
hours that are directly attributable to each pipeline company. The Commission
determines each company’s hours by dividing the total hours directly attributable to
the company during the two preceding calendar years by the total of directly
attributable hours for all companies over the same period.

7 (5) The total fiscal year 2016 fee for each company is the sum of each company’s
directly assigned overhead cost, plus the cost based on the percentage of company’s
hours. The Commission divides the fee by four to determine each company’s
quarterly payment that is due and payable beginning September 1, 2015.

8 (6) The Commission has considered all monies on hand, the fees currently to be paid,
and other anticipated revenues and credits, and enters this Order to establish the
fiscal year 2016 pipeline safety fee. One quarter of each company’s pipeline safety
fee will be due and payable no later than September 1, 2015. The remaining
quarterly amounts will be due and payable on or before December 1, 2015, March
1, 2016, and June 1, 2016.

9 (7) The Commission attaches to this Order as Exhibit A, the master sheet showing the
calculation of the fiscal year 2016 pipeline safety fee. The calculations shown on
Exhibit A are appropriate. The Commission includes with each order served on a
company subject to the payment of fees a statement of the payment due September
1, 2015.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

10 (1) The Commission has jurisdiction under RCW 80.24.060 and RCW 81.24.090 to
establish pipeline safety fees.
DOCKET P-150462 PAGE 3 ORDER 01
11 (2) The pipeline safety fees calculated as described in this Order and shown on Exhibit
A are in compliance with RCW 80.24.060 and RCW 81.24.090, and correctly apply
the methodology set forth in WAC 480-93-240 and WAC 480-75-240.

O R D E R

THE COMMISSION ORDERS:

12 (1) The pipeline safety fees to be paid to the Commission for fiscal year 2016 (the
period July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016) under the provisions of RCW
80.24.060 and RCW 81.24.090, and the fee methodology in WAC 480-93-240 and
WAC 480-75-240, are established as set out in Exhibit A, attached to this Order.

13 (2) The fees are payable in quarterly installments according to WAC 480-93-240 and
WAC 480-75-240, due and payable on or before September 1, 2015; December 1,
2015; March 1, 2016; and June 1, 2016.

14 (3) Pursuant to RCW 80.24.060(7) and RCW 81.24.090(7), any entity seeking to
contest the imposition of the fees established by this Order must pay the fee and
request a refund within six months of the due date of the fee. The procedures are
described in WAC 480-93-240(6) and WAC 480-75-240(6).

The Commissioners, having determined the fee for 2016, directed the Executive Director
and Secretary to issue this Order.

DATED at Olympia, Washington, and effective August 27, 2015.

WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

STEVEN V. KING, Executive Director and Secretary