Contingencies (Notes)	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Contingencies Note [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES PGE is subject to legal, regulatory, and environmental proceedings, investigations, and claims that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of its business. The Company records accruals for such matters when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. When a loss contingency is not both probable and estimable, the Company does not record an accrual. However, if the loss (or an additional loss in excess of an accrual) is at least reasonably possible and material, then the Company (i) discloses an estimate of such loss or the range of such loss, if the Company is able to determine such an estimate, or (ii) discloses that an estimate cannot be made. The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in such matters that could affect the amount of any accrual, as well as developments that would make a loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable. The assessment as to whether a loss is probable or reasonably possible, and as to whether such loss or a range of such loss is estimable, often involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Management is often unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss, or a range of loss, particularly where (i) the damages sought are indeterminate or the basis for the damages claimed is not clear, (ii) the proceedings are in the early stages, (iii) discovery is not complete, (iv) the matters involve novel or unsettled legal theories, (v) there are significant facts in dispute, (vi) there are a large number of parties (including where it is uncertain how liability, if any, will be shared among multiple defendants) or (vii) there is a wide range of potential outcomes. In such cases, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the timing or ultimate resolution, including any possible loss, fine, penalty, or business impact. Trojan Investment Recovery In 1993, PGE closed the Trojan Nuclear Plant (Trojan) and sought full recovery of, and a rate of return on, its Trojan costs in a general rate case filing with the OPUC. The OPUC issued a general rate order that granted the Company recovery of, and a rate of return on, 87% of its remaining investment in Trojan. Court Proceedings on OPUC Authority to Grant Recovery of Return on Trojan Investment. Numerous challenges, appeals, and reviews were subsequently filed in various state courts on the issue of the OPUC’s authority under Oregon law to grant recovery of, and a return on, the Trojan investment. The primary plaintiffs in the litigation were the Citizens’ Utility Board (CUB) and the Utility Reform Project (URP). In 1998, the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the OPUC’s order authorizing PGE’s recovery of the Trojan investment, but held that the OPUC did not have the authority to allow PGE to recover a return on the Trojan investment and remanded the case to the OPUC for reconsideration. In 2000, PGE, CUB, and the staff of the OPUC entered into agreements to settle the litigation related to PGE’s recovery of, and return on, its investment in Trojan. The URP did not participate in the settlement and filed a complaint with the OPUC challenging the settlement agreements. In March 2002, the OPUC issued an order (2002 Order) denying all of the URP’s challenges. In 2007, following several appeals by various parties, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued an opinion that remanded the 2002 Order to the OPUC for reconsideration. The OPUC then issued an order on September 30, 2008 that required PGE to refund $15.4 million, plus interest at 9.6% from September 30, 2000, to customers who received service from PGE during the period October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2001. The Company recorded a charge of $33.1 million as of September 30, 2008 related to the refund and accrued additional interest expense on the liability until refunds to customers were completed in the first quarter of 2010. The URP and the plaintiffs in the class actions described below have separately appealed the September 30, 2008 order to the Oregon Court of Appeals. These appeals remain pending. Class Actions. In a separate legal proceeding, two class action lawsuits were filed in Marion County Circuit Court against PGE in 2003 on behalf of two classes of electric service customers (the Class Action Plaintiffs). The lawsuits seek damages of $260 million, plus interest, as a result of PGE’s inclusion, in prices charged to customers, of a return on its investment in Trojan. In August 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a ruling ordering the abatement of the class action proceedings until the OPUC responded to the 2002 Order (described above). The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the OPUC has primary jurisdiction to determine what, if any, remedy it can offer to PGE customers, through price reductions or refunds, for any amount of return on the Trojan investment PGE collected in prices for the period from April 1, 1995 through October 1, 2000. The Oregon Supreme Court further stated that if the OPUC determined that it can provide a remedy to PGE’s customers, then the class action proceedings may become moot in whole or in part. The Oregon Supreme Court added that, if the OPUC determined that it cannot provide a remedy, the court system may have a role to play. The Oregon Supreme Court also ruled that the plaintiffs retain the right to return to the Marion County Circuit Court for disposition of whatever issues remain unresolved from the remanded OPUC proceedings. In October 2006, the Marion County Circuit Court abated the class actions in response to the ruling of the Oregon Supreme Court. Because the above matters involve unsettled legal theories and have a broad range of potential outcomes, management cannot predict the ultimate outcome or estimate a range of potential loss. Management believes, however, that these matters will not have a material adverse impact on the financial condition of the Company, but may have a material adverse impact on the results of operations and cash flows in future reporting periods. Complaint and Application for Deferral - Income Taxes On October 5, 2005, the URP and another party (together, the Complainants) filed a Complaint and an Application for Deferred Accounting with the OPUC alleging that, since the September 2, 2005 effective date of Oregon Senate Bill 408 (SB 408), PGE’s rates were not just and reasonable and were in violation of SB 408 because they contained approximately $92.6 million in annual charges for state and federal income taxes that are not being paid to any governmental entity. The Complaint and Application for Deferred Accounting requested that the OPUC order the creation of a deferred account for all amounts charged to customers since September 2, 2005 for state and federal income taxes, less amounts actually paid for income taxes by or on behalf of PGE to the federal and state governments. In August 2007, the OPUC issued an order granting the Application for Deferred Accounting for the period from October 5, 2005 through December 31, 2005 (Deferral Period). The OPUC’s order also dismissed the Complaint, on grounds that it was superfluous to the Complainants’ application for deferred accounting. The order required that PGE calculate the amounts applicable to the Deferral Period, earnings, and the effect of the deferral on the Company’s return on equity. In December 2007, PGE filed its report as required by the OPUC. In August 2009, the OPUC issued an order that indicated the deferral amount would be $26.5 million, but denied amortization of any deferral in this matter, based on a review of PGE’s earnings over the twelve month period ended September 30, 2006. In October 2009, Complainants filed an appeal of the August 2009 order with the Oregon Court of Appeals, which remains pending. Management cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. Management believes, however, that this matter will not have a material adverse effect on PGE’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Lawsuit filed by Sierra Club and Other Environmental Groups On September 30, 2008, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups filed suit against PGE in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Court) for alleged violations at PGE’s Boardman Coal Plant of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), Oregon’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP), the plant’s CAA Title V permit, and additional alleged violations of various environmental related regulations. The plaintiffs’ complaint sought injunctive relief, including permanently enjoining PGE from operating Boardman except in accordance with the CAA, Oregon’s SIP, and the plant’s Title V Permit. In addition, the complaint sought civil penalties against PGE including $27,500 per day per alleged violation for violations occurring before March 15, 2004 and $32,500 per day per alleged violation occurring thereafter. In July 2011, the parties reached a preliminary settlement and filed a consent decree with the Court that resolves all of the plaintiffs’ claims. The consent decree would require the Company to meet certain sulfur dioxide emission limits in operating Boardman and would allow for continued operation of Boardman through the end of 2020. In addition, the Company and the other Boardman co-owners will provide $2.5 million to the Oregon Community Foundation for environmental projects in the Columbia River Gorge and northeastern Oregon and pay $1 million to reimburse plaintiffs for legal expenses. The consent decree is subject to approval of the Court following a 45-day review period by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Justice. Management believes that the settlement will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows in future periods. During the second quarter of 2011, the Company accrued an expense of approximately $2 million as its share of the settlement. Payment of the settlement amounts is expected to occur following Court approval of the consent decree. EPA Notice of Violation In September 2010, PGE received a Notice of Violation (NOV) from the EPA. The NOV states that the EPA has determined that PGE is violating the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) under the CAA, and Operating Permit requirements under Title V of the CAA, at the Boardman plant. In the NOV, the EPA asserts that certain projects at the Boardman plant in 1998 and in 2004 triggered the NSPS, that PGE did not meet the emissions standards required by the regulations, and that, therefore, PGE has operated the boiler at the Boardman plant in violation of the CAA. The NOV states the maximum civil penalties the EPA is authorized to impose under the CAA for violations of the NSPS (which range from $25,000 to $37,500 per day), but does not impose any penalties, or specify the amount of any proposed penalties with respect to the alleged violations. Accordingly, management cannot estimate the range of potential liability for the violations asserted in the NOV. However, based solely on the maximum penalties authorized under the CAA, management believes that the maximum penalty that could be imposed for the alleged violations is approximately $60 million. The projects alleged to have triggered the NSPS in the NOV are also included in the Sierra Club’s NSPS claim in the litigation described above. PGE believes that it has strong defenses to these claims. During the first quarter of 2011, PGE met with the EPA to confer about the violations cited and to present information on the specific findings of the EPA. PGE and the EPA agreed to continue the discussions. The EPA will also have the opportunity to submit comments to the Court on the Sierra Club settlement discussed above. Management cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. Management believes, however, that this matter will not have a material adverse impact on the financial condition of the Company, but may have a material adverse impact on the results of operations and cash flows in future reporting periods. Pacific Northwest Refund Proceeding In July 2001, the FERC called for a hearing to explore whether there may have been unjust and unreasonable charges for spot market sales of electricity in the Pacific Northwest from December 25, 2000 through June 20, 2001 (Pacific Northwest Refund proceeding). During that period, PGE both sold and purchased electricity in the Pacific Northwest. In June 2003, the FERC issued an order terminating the proceeding and denying the claims for refunds. Parties appealed various aspects of the FERC order to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit). In August 2007, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision, concluding that the FERC failed to adequately explain how it considered or examined new evidence showing intentional market manipulation in California and any potential ties to the Pacific Northwest and that the FERC should not have excluded from the Pacific Northwest Refund proceeding purchases of energy made by the California Energy Resources Scheduling (CERS) division in the Pacific Northwest spot market. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the FERC to: (i) address the new market manipulation evidence in detail and account for the evidence in any future orders regarding the award or denial of refunds in the proceedings; (ii) include sales to CERS in its analysis; and (iii) further consider its refund decision in light of related, intervening opinions of the court. The Ninth Circuit offered no opinion on the FERC’s findings based on the record established by the administrative law judge and did not rule on the FERC’s ultimate decision to deny refunds. After denying requests for rehearing, the Ninth Circuit in April 2009 issued a mandate giving immediate effect to its August 2007 order remanding the case to the FERC. Since issuance of the mandate, certain parties proposing refunds have filed pleadings with the FERC suggesting procedures on remand, attempting unsuccessfully to initiate new proceedings, and containing additional evidence that they assert shows market-wide manipulation that justifies refunds from early in 2000. Parties opposing refunds, including PGE, have filed various pleadings that contest allegations of market-wide manipulation and urge the FERC to reaffirm, with a more detailed explanation of its consideration of market manipulation claims, its previous decision not to initiate proceedings to order refunds. The settlement between PGE and certain other parties in the California refund case in Docket No. EL00-95, et seq., approved by the FERC in May 2007, resolved all claims between PGE and the California parties named in the settlement as to transactions in the Pacific Northwest during the settlement period, January 1, 2000 through June 21, 2001, but did not settle potential claims from other market participants relating to transactions in the Pacific Northwest. Management cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the Pacific Northwest Refund proceeding, whether the FERC will order refunds in this proceeding, which contracts would be subject to refunds, or how such refunds, if any, would be calculated. Accordingly, management cannot estimate a range of potential loss. Management believes, however, that the outcome will not have a material adverse impact on the financial condition of the Company, but may have a material adverse impact on PGE’s results of operations and cash flows in future reporting periods. EPA Investigation of Portland Harbor A 1997 investigation by the EPA of a segment of the Willamette River known as Portland Harbor revealed significant contamination of river sediments. The EPA subsequently included Portland Harbor on the National Priority List pursuant to the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act as a federal Superfund site and listed 69 Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs). PGE was included among the PRPs as it has historically owned or operated property near the river. The Portland Harbor site is currently undergoing a remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) pursuant to an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) between the EPA and several PRPs, not including PGE. In the AOC, the EPA determined that the RI/FS would focus on a segment of the river approximately 5.7 miles in length. In January 2008, the EPA requested information from various parties, including PGE, concerning properties in or near the 5.7 mile segment of the river being examined in the RI/FS, as well as several miles beyond. Subsequently, the EPA has listed additional PRPs, which now number over one hundred. The EPA will determine the boundaries of the site at the conclusion of the RI/FS in a Record of Decision in which it will document its findings and select a preferred cleanup alternative. The EPA expects to issue the Record of Decision in 2012. Sufficient information is currently not available to determine the total cost of any required investigation or remediation of the Portland Harbor site or the liability of PRPs, including PGE. Management cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter or estimate a range of potential loss. Management believes, however, that the outcome will not have a material adverse impact on the financial condition of the Company, but may have a material adverse impact on PGE’s results of operations and cash flows in future reporting periods. EPA Investigation of Harbor Oil Harbor Oil, Inc. (Harbor Oil), located in north Portland, was utilized by PGE to process used oil from the Company’s power plants and electrical distribution system from at least 1990 until 2003. Harbor Oil continues to be utilized by other entities for the processing of used oil and other lubricants. In 1974 and 1979, major oil spills occurred at the Harbor Oil site. Elevated levels of contaminants, including metals, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls, have been detected at the site. In September 2003, the EPA included the Harbor Oil facility on the National Priority List as a federal Superfund site. PGE received a Special Notice Letter for RI/FS from the EPA, dated June 27, 2005, in which the Company was named as one of fourteen PRPs with respect to the Harbor Oil site. In May 2007, an AOC was signed by the EPA and six other parties, including PGE, to implement an RI/FS at the Harbor Oil site. The draft remedial investigation was completed with the resulting report submitted to the EPA. Sufficient information is currently not available to determine the total cost of investigation and remediation of the Harbor Oil site or the liability of the PRPs, including PGE. Management cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter or estimate a range of potential loss. Management believes, however, that the outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse impact on the financial condition of the Company, but may have a material adverse impact on PGE’s results of operations and cash flows in future reporting periods. Revenue Bonds In 2008, PGE repurchased $5.8 million of Pollution Control Revenue Bonds Series 1996 (Bonds) issued through the Port of Morrow, which was paid to Lehman Brothers Inc. (Lehman) as remarketing agent for the Bonds, who in turn paid off the beneficial owner of the Bonds. As a result of the payment, PGE became the beneficial owner of the Bonds and requested that Lehman safe-keep the Bonds in Lehman’s Depository Trust Company participant account until such time as the Bonds could be remarketed. After repurchase of the Bonds, PGE removed the liability for the Bonds from its financial statements. In September 2008, Lehman filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. PGE subsequently filed a claim for return of the Bonds from Lehman. On November 9, 2009, the trustee appointed to liquidate the assets of Lehman (Trustee) allowed PGE’s claim as a net equity claim for securities. At the time, PGE believed it would receive back the entire amount of the Bonds at some point during the bankruptcy proceedings. It is not certain that the Company will receive the full amount of the Bonds but could, along with other claimants, potentially receive a pro-rata share of certain assets. The timing and extent of distributions on claims are subject to the ultimate disposition of numerous claims in the proceedings and certain major contingencies which the Trustee must resolve. PGE cannot currently estimate how much of the value of the Bonds will ultimately be returned to the Company or the timing of the distribution from Lehman. Management does not expect the outcome of this matter to have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition, but it may have a material adverse impact on PGE’s results of operations and cash flows for a future reporting period. Other Matters PGE is subject to other regulatory, environmental, and legal proceedings, investigations, and claims that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of its business, which may result in adverse judgments against the Company. Although management currently believes that resolution of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and management’s view of these matters may change in the future.

CONTINGENCIES

PGE is subject to legal, regulatory, and environmental proceedings, investigations, and claims that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of its business. The Company records accruals for such matters when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated.

When a loss contingency is not both probable and estimable, the Company does not record an accrual. However, if the loss (or an additional loss in excess of an accrual) is at least reasonably possible and material, then the Company (i) discloses an estimate of such loss or the range of such loss, if the Company is able to determine such an estimate, or (ii) discloses that an estimate cannot be made.

The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in such matters that could affect the amount of any accrual, as well as developments that would make a loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable. The assessment as to whether a loss is probable or reasonably possible, and as to whether such loss or a range of such loss is estimable, often involves a series of complex judgments about future events. Management is often unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss, or a range of loss, particularly where (i) the damages sought are indeterminate or the basis for the damages claimed is not clear, (ii) the proceedings are in the early stages, (iii) discovery is not complete, (iv) the matters involve novel or unsettled legal theories, (v) there are significant facts in dispute, (vi) there are a large number of parties (including where it is uncertain how liability, if any, will be shared among multiple defendants) or (vii) there is a wide range of potential outcomes. In such cases, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the timing or ultimate resolution, including any possible loss, fine, penalty, or business impact.

Trojan Investment Recovery

In 1993, PGE closed the Trojan Nuclear Plant (Trojan) and sought full recovery of, and a rate of return on, its Trojan costs in a general rate case filing with the OPUC. The OPUC issued a general rate order that granted the Company recovery of, and a rate of return on, 87% of its remaining investment in Trojan.

Court Proceedings on OPUC Authority to Grant Recovery of Return on Trojan Investment. Numerous challenges, appeals, and reviews were subsequently filed in various state courts on the issue of the OPUC’s authority under Oregon law to grant recovery of, and a return on, the Trojan investment. The primary plaintiffs in the litigation were the Citizens’ Utility Board (CUB) and the Utility Reform Project (URP). In 1998, the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the OPUC’s order authorizing PGE’s recovery of the Trojan investment, but held that the OPUC did not have the authority to allow PGE to recover a return on the Trojan investment and remanded the case to the OPUC for reconsideration.

In 2000, PGE, CUB, and the staff of the OPUC entered into agreements to settle the litigation related to PGE’s recovery of, and return on, its investment in Trojan. The URP did not participate in the settlement and filed a complaint with the OPUC challenging the settlement agreements.

In March 2002, the OPUC issued an order (2002 Order) denying all of the URP’s challenges. In 2007, following several appeals by various parties, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued an opinion that remanded the 2002 Order to the OPUC for reconsideration.

The OPUC then issued an order on September 30, 2008 that required PGE to refund $15.4 million, plus interest at 9.6% from September 30, 2000, to customers who received service from PGE during the period October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2001. The Company recorded a charge of $33.1 million as of September 30, 2008 related to the refund and accrued additional interest expense on the liability until refunds to customers were completed in the first quarter of 2010. The URP and the plaintiffs in the class actions described below have separately appealed the September 30, 2008 order to the Oregon Court of Appeals. These appeals remain pending.

Class Actions. In a separate legal proceeding, two class action lawsuits were filed in Marion County Circuit Court against PGE in 2003 on behalf of two classes of electric service customers (the Class Action Plaintiffs). The lawsuits seek damages of $260 million, plus interest, as a result of PGE’s inclusion, in prices charged to customers, of a return on its investment in Trojan.

In August 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a ruling ordering the abatement of the class action proceedings until the OPUC responded to the 2002 Order (described above). The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the OPUC has primary jurisdiction to determine what, if any, remedy it can offer to PGE customers, through price reductions or refunds, for any amount of return on the Trojan investment PGE collected in prices for the period from April 1, 1995 through October 1, 2000.

The Oregon Supreme Court further stated that if the OPUC determined that it can provide a remedy to PGE’s customers, then the class action proceedings may become moot in whole or in part. The Oregon Supreme Court added that, if the OPUC determined that it cannot provide a remedy, the court system may have a role to play. The Oregon Supreme Court also ruled that the plaintiffs retain the right to return to the Marion County Circuit Court for disposition of whatever issues remain unresolved from the remanded OPUC proceedings.

In October 2006, the Marion County Circuit Court abated the class actions in response to the ruling of the Oregon Supreme Court.

Because the above matters involve unsettled legal theories and have a broad range of potential outcomes, management cannot predict the ultimate outcome or estimate a range of potential loss. Management believes, however, that these matters will not have a material adverse impact on the financial condition of the Company, but may have a material adverse impact on the results of operations and cash flows in future reporting periods.

Complaint and Application for Deferral - Income Taxes

On October 5, 2005, the URP and another party (together, the Complainants) filed a Complaint and an Application for Deferred Accounting with the OPUC alleging that, since the September 2, 2005 effective date of Oregon Senate Bill 408 (SB 408), PGE’s rates were not just and reasonable and were in violation of SB 408 because they contained approximately $92.6 million in annual charges for state and federal income taxes that are not being paid to any governmental entity. The Complaint and Application for Deferred Accounting requested that the OPUC order the creation of a deferred account for all amounts charged to customers since September 2, 2005 for state and federal income taxes, less amounts actually paid for income taxes by or on behalf of PGE to the federal and state governments.

In August 2007, the OPUC issued an order granting the Application for Deferred Accounting for the period from October 5, 2005 through December 31, 2005 (Deferral Period). The OPUC’s order also dismissed the Complaint, on grounds that it was superfluous to the Complainants’ application for deferred accounting. The order required that PGE calculate the amounts applicable to the Deferral Period, earnings, and the effect of the deferral on the Company’s return on equity.

In December 2007, PGE filed its report as required by the OPUC. In August 2009, the OPUC issued an order that indicated the deferral amount would be $26.5 million, but denied amortization of any deferral in this matter, based on a review of PGE’s earnings over the twelve month period ended September 30, 2006.

In October 2009, Complainants filed an appeal of the August 2009 order with the Oregon Court of Appeals, which remains pending.

Management cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. Management believes, however, that this matter will not have a material adverse effect on PGE’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Lawsuit filed by Sierra Club and Other Environmental Groups

On September 30, 2008, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups filed suit against PGE in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Court) for alleged violations at PGE’s Boardman Coal Plant of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), Oregon’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP), the plant’s CAA Title V permit, and additional alleged violations of various environmental related regulations.

The plaintiffs’ complaint sought injunctive relief, including permanently enjoining PGE from operating Boardman except in accordance with the CAA, Oregon’s SIP, and the plant’s Title V Permit. In addition, the complaint sought civil penalties against PGE including $27,500 per day per alleged violation for violations occurring before March 15, 2004 and $32,500 per day per alleged violation occurring thereafter.

In July 2011, the parties reached a preliminary settlement and filed a consent decree with the Court that resolves all of the plaintiffs’ claims. The consent decree would require the Company to meet certain sulfur dioxide emission limits in operating Boardman and would allow for continued operation of Boardman through the end of 2020. In addition, the Company and the other Boardman co-owners will provide $2.5 million to the Oregon Community Foundation for environmental projects in the Columbia River Gorge and northeastern Oregon and pay $1 million to reimburse plaintiffs for legal expenses. The consent decree is subject to approval of the Court following a 45-day review period by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Justice. Management believes that the settlement will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows in future periods. During the second quarter of 2011, the Company accrued an expense of approximately $2 million as its share of the settlement. Payment of the settlement amounts is expected to occur following Court approval of the consent decree.

EPA Notice of Violation

In September 2010, PGE received a Notice of Violation (NOV) from the EPA. The NOV states that the EPA has determined that PGE is violating the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) under the CAA, and Operating Permit requirements under Title V of the CAA, at the Boardman plant. In the NOV, the EPA asserts that certain projects at the Boardman plant in 1998 and in 2004 triggered the NSPS, that PGE did not meet the emissions standards required by the regulations, and that, therefore, PGE has operated the boiler at the Boardman plant in violation of the CAA. The NOV states the maximum civil penalties the EPA is authorized to impose under the CAA for violations of the NSPS (which range from $25,000 to $37,500 per day), but does not impose any penalties, or specify the amount of any proposed penalties with respect to the alleged violations.

Accordingly, management cannot estimate the range of potential liability for the violations asserted in the NOV. However, based solely on the maximum penalties authorized under the CAA, management believes that the maximum penalty that could be imposed for the alleged violations is approximately $60 million. The projects alleged to have triggered the NSPS in the NOV are also included in the Sierra Club’s NSPS claim in the litigation described above. PGE believes that it has strong defenses to these claims. During the first quarter of 2011, PGE met with the EPA to confer about the violations cited and to present information on the specific findings of the EPA. PGE and the EPA agreed to continue the discussions. The EPA will also have the opportunity to submit comments to the Court on the Sierra Club settlement discussed above.

Management cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. Management believes, however, that this matter will not have a material adverse impact on the financial condition of the Company, but may have a material adverse impact on the results of operations and cash flows in future reporting periods.

Pacific Northwest Refund Proceeding

In July 2001, the FERC called for a hearing to explore whether there may have been unjust and unreasonable charges for spot market sales of electricity in the Pacific Northwest from December 25, 2000 through June 20, 2001 (Pacific Northwest Refund proceeding). During that period, PGE both sold and purchased electricity in the Pacific Northwest. In June 2003, the FERC issued an order terminating the proceeding and denying the claims for refunds. Parties appealed various aspects of the FERC order to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit).

In August 2007, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision, concluding that the FERC failed to adequately explain how it considered or examined new evidence showing intentional market manipulation in California and any potential ties to the Pacific Northwest and that the FERC should not have excluded from the Pacific Northwest Refund proceeding purchases of energy made by the California Energy Resources Scheduling (CERS) division in the Pacific Northwest spot market. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the FERC to: (i) address the new market manipulation evidence in detail and account for the evidence in any future orders regarding the award or denial of refunds in the proceedings; (ii) include sales to CERS in its analysis; and (iii) further consider its refund decision in light of related, intervening opinions of the court. The Ninth Circuit offered no opinion on the FERC’s findings based on the record established by the administrative law judge and did not rule on the FERC’s ultimate decision to deny refunds. After denying requests for rehearing, the Ninth Circuit in April 2009 issued a mandate giving immediate effect to its August 2007 order remanding the case to the FERC.

Since issuance of the mandate, certain parties proposing refunds have filed pleadings with the FERC suggesting procedures on remand, attempting unsuccessfully to initiate new proceedings, and containing additional evidence that they assert shows market-wide manipulation that justifies refunds from early in 2000. Parties opposing refunds, including PGE, have filed various pleadings that contest allegations of market-wide manipulation and urge the FERC to reaffirm, with a more detailed explanation of its consideration of market manipulation claims, its previous decision not to initiate proceedings to order refunds.

The settlement between PGE and certain other parties in the California refund case in Docket No. EL00-95, et seq., approved by the FERC in May 2007, resolved all claims between PGE and the California parties named in the settlement as to transactions in the Pacific Northwest during the settlement period, January 1, 2000 through June 21, 2001, but did not settle potential claims from other market participants relating to transactions in the Pacific Northwest.

Management cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the Pacific Northwest Refund proceeding, whether the FERC will order refunds in this proceeding, which contracts would be subject to refunds, or how such refunds, if any, would be calculated. Accordingly, management cannot estimate a range of potential loss. Management believes, however, that the outcome will not have a material adverse impact on the financial condition of the Company, but may have a material adverse impact on PGE’s results of operations and cash flows in future reporting periods.

EPA Investigation of Portland Harbor

A 1997 investigation by the EPA of a segment of the Willamette River known as Portland Harbor revealed significant contamination of river sediments. The EPA subsequently included Portland Harbor on the National Priority List pursuant to the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act as a federal Superfund site and listed 69 Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs). PGE was included among the PRPs as it has historically owned or operated property near the river.

The Portland Harbor site is currently undergoing a remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) pursuant to an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) between the EPA and several PRPs, not including PGE. In the AOC, the EPA determined that the RI/FS would focus on a segment of the river approximately 5.7 miles in length.

In January 2008, the EPA requested information from various parties, including PGE, concerning properties in or near the 5.7 mile segment of the river being examined in the RI/FS, as well as several miles beyond. Subsequently, the EPA has listed additional PRPs, which now number over one hundred.

The EPA will determine the boundaries of the site at the conclusion of the RI/FS in a Record of Decision in which it will document its findings and select a preferred cleanup alternative. The EPA expects to issue the Record of Decision in 2012.

Sufficient information is currently not available to determine the total cost of any required investigation or remediation of the Portland Harbor site or the liability of PRPs, including PGE. Management cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter or estimate a range of potential loss. Management believes, however, that the outcome will not have a material adverse impact on the financial condition of the Company, but may have a material adverse impact on PGE’s results of operations and cash flows in future reporting periods.

EPA Investigation of Harbor Oil

Harbor Oil, Inc. (Harbor Oil), located in north Portland, was utilized by PGE to process used oil from the Company’s power plants and electrical distribution system from at least 1990 until 2003. Harbor Oil continues to be utilized by other entities for the processing of used oil and other lubricants.

In 1974 and 1979, major oil spills occurred at the Harbor Oil site. Elevated levels of contaminants, including metals, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls, have been detected at the site. In September 2003, the EPA included the Harbor Oil facility on the National Priority List as a federal Superfund site.

PGE received a Special Notice Letter for RI/FS from the EPA, dated June 27, 2005, in which the Company was named as one of fourteen PRPs with respect to the Harbor Oil site. In May 2007, an AOC was signed by the EPA and six other parties, including PGE, to implement an RI/FS at the Harbor Oil site. The draft remedial investigation was completed with the resulting report submitted to the EPA.

Sufficient information is currently not available to determine the total cost of investigation and remediation of the Harbor Oil site or the liability of the PRPs, including PGE. Management cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter or estimate a range of potential loss. Management believes, however, that the outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse impact on the financial condition of the Company, but may have a material adverse impact on PGE’s results of operations and cash flows in future reporting periods.

Revenue Bonds

In 2008, PGE repurchased $5.8 million of Pollution Control Revenue Bonds Series 1996 (Bonds) issued through the Port of Morrow, which was paid to Lehman Brothers Inc. (Lehman) as remarketing agent for the Bonds, who in turn paid off the beneficial owner of the Bonds. As a result of the payment, PGE became the beneficial owner of the Bonds and requested that Lehman safe-keep the Bonds in Lehman’s Depository Trust Company participant account until such time as the Bonds could be remarketed. After repurchase of the Bonds, PGE removed the liability for the Bonds from its financial statements.

In September 2008, Lehman filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. PGE subsequently filed a claim for return of the Bonds from Lehman. On November 9, 2009, the trustee appointed to liquidate the assets of Lehman (Trustee) allowed PGE’s claim as a net equity claim for securities. At the time, PGE believed it would receive back the entire amount of the Bonds at some point during the bankruptcy proceedings.

It is not certain that the Company will receive the full amount of the Bonds but could, along with other claimants, potentially receive a pro-rata share of certain assets. The timing and extent of distributions on claims are subject to the ultimate disposition of numerous claims in the proceedings and certain major contingencies which the Trustee must resolve. PGE cannot currently estimate how much of the value of the Bonds will ultimately be returned to the Company or the timing of the distribution from Lehman. Management does not expect the outcome of this matter to have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition, but it may have a material adverse impact on PGE’s results of operations and cash flows for a future reporting period.

Other Matters

PGE is subject to other regulatory, environmental, and legal proceedings, investigations, and claims that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of its business, which may result in adverse judgments against the Company. Although management currently believes that resolution of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and management’s view of these matters may change in the future.