Free tool
Compare large-load tariffs side by side
Pick up to three utilities. See status, the contract term, the minimum bill, collateral and exit fee each filing states, with the source. Add a size and a demand charge to see what the minimum costs in dollars.
Comparison
| Avista (Washington and Idaho), large-load service | |
|---|---|
| Status | Law or process only |
| Applies at | No tariff threshold; the first deal is 125 MW growing toward 500 MW |
| Last reviewed | 2026-10-14 |
| Contract term | Not in structured terms yet; see the source |
| Ramp | Not in structured terms yet; see the source |
| Take-or-pay (minimum bill) | Not in structured terms yet; see the source |
| Collateral | Not in structured terms yet; see the source |
| Exit fee | Not in structured terms yet; see the source |
| Notice to reduce or end | Not in structured terms yet; see the source |
| Time to power | Not in structured terms yet; see the source |
| Source | Spokesman-Review, KXLY and Inlander coverage of the Avista agreement (2026); UTC rulemaking not read. |
Shaded rows differ between the utilities. Faded values are not stated in the filings we read.
Screening information from public filings, not legal or investment advice. The utility's signed agreement controls. See all coverage · Commitment estimator · Check a site