Contingencies (Notes)	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
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. Contingencies are evaluated using the best information available at the time the consolidated financial statements are prepared. Legal costs incurred in connection with loss contingencies are expensed as incurred. Loss contingencies are accrued and disclosed when it is probable that an asset has been impaired, or a liability incurred, as of the financial statement date and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. If a reasonable estimate of probable loss cannot be determined, a range of loss may be established, in which case the minimum amount in the range is accrued, unless some other amount within the range appears to be a better estimate. Loss contingencies are also disclosed when it is reasonably possible that an asset has been impaired, or a liability incurred. If a probable or reasonably possible loss can be reasonably estimated, then the Company discloses an estimate of such loss or the range of such loss. If a reasonable estimate cannot be made, disclosure will include the reason for such determination. If an asset has been impaired or a liability incurred after the financial statement date, but prior to the issuance of the financial statements, the loss contingency is disclosed, if material, and the amount of any estimated loss is recorded in the appropriate reporting period. The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in such matters that could affect the amount of any accrual, as well as the likelihood of 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 in cases in which (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 cases in which it is uncertain how liability, if any, would 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 Regulatory Proceedings. 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. Numerous challenges and appeals 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. 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 the Company to recover a return on the Trojan investment and remanded the case to the OPUC for reconsideration. In 2000, PGE entered into agreements to settle the litigation related to recovery of, and return on, its investment in Trojan. The Utility Reform Project (URP) did not participate in the settlement and filed a complaint with the OPUC challenging the settlement agreements. In 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 in 2008 (2008 Order) that required PGE to provide refunds, including interest from September 30, 2000, to customers who received service from the Company during the period from October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2001. PGE recorded a charge of $33.1 million in 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 separately appealed the 2008 Order to the Oregon Court of Appeals. Oral arguments in the appeal occurred in February 2012 and a decision by the Oregon Court of Appeals remains pending. Class Actions. In two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed in Marion County Circuit Court against PGE in 2003 on behalf of two classes of electric service customers. The class action lawsuits seek damages of $260 million, plus interest, as a result of the Company’s inclusion, in prices charged to customers, of a return on its investment in Trojan. In 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 the Company 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. The Marion County Circuit Court subsequently 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 estimate a range of potential loss. However, management believes that these matters will not have a material impact on the financial condition of the Company, but may have a material impact on the results of operations and cash flows in future reporting periods. Pacific Northwest Refund Proceeding In 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 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 its 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. In October 2011, the FERC issued an Order on Remand, establishing an evidentiary hearing to determine whether any seller had engaged in unlawful market activity in the Pacific Northwest spot markets during the December 25, 2000 through June 20, 2001 period by violating specific contracts or tariffs, and, if so, whether a direct connection existed between the alleged unlawful conduct and the rate charged under the applicable contract. The FERC held that the Mobile-Sierra public interest standard governs challenges to the bilateral contracts at issue in this proceeding, and the strong presumption under Mobile-Sierra that the rates charged under each contract are just and reasonable would have to be specifically overcome before a refund could be ordered. The FERC directed the presiding judge, if necessary, to determine a refund methodology and to calculate refunds, but held that a market-wide remedy was not appropriate, given the bilateral contract nature of the Pacific Northwest spot markets. Certain parties claiming refunds filed requests for rehearing of the Order on Remand, contesting, among other things, the applicable refund period reflected in the Order, the use of the Mobile-Sierra standard, any restraints in the Order on the type of evidence that could be introduced in the hearing, and the lack of a market-wide remedy. The rehearing requests remain pending. In its October 2011 Order on Remand, the FERC held the hearing procedures in abeyance pending the results of settlement discussions, which it ordered be convened before a FERC settlement judge. Pursuant to the settlement proceedings, the Company received notice of two claims and has reached agreements to settle both of these claims for an immaterial amount. The first settlement was approved by the FERC in June 2012, while the second settlement received FERC approval in September 2012. There remains a possibility that additional claims could be asserted against the Company in the future. 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 the Company and the California parties named in the settlement (including CERS) as to transactions in the Pacific Northwest during the settlement period, January 1, 2000 through June 20, 2001, but did not settle potential claims from other market participants relating to transactions in the Pacific Northwest. Management cannot predict whether the FERC will order refunds in the Pacific Northwest Refund 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. However, management believes that the outcome will not have a material impact on the financial condition of the Company, but may have a material impact on the results of operations and cash flows in future reporting periods. EPA Investigation of Portland Harbor A 1997 investigation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (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 (CERCLA) 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. In January 2008, the EPA requested information from various parties, including PGE, concerning properties near the river. Subsequently, the EPA has listed additional PRPs, which now number over one hundred. The Portland Harbor site is currently undergoing a remedial investigation (RI) and feasibility study (FS) pursuant to an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) between the EPA and several PRPs known as the Lower Willamette Group (LWG), which does not include PGE. In March 2012, the LWG submitted a draft FS to the EPA for review and approval. The draft FS, along with the RI, provide the framework for the EPA to determine a clean-up remedy for Portland Harbor that will be documented in a Record of Decision, which the EPA is expected to issue in 2015. The draft FS evaluates several alternative clean-up approaches. These approaches would take from two to 28 years with costs ranging from $169 million to $1.8 billion, depending primarily on the selected remedial action levels. The draft FS does not address responsibility for the costs of clean-up, allocate such costs among PRPs, or define precise boundaries for the clean-up. Responsibility for funding and implementing the EPA’s selected clean-up will be determined after the issuance of the Record of Decision. Due to the uncertainties discussed above, sufficient information is currently not available to determine PGE’s liability for the cost of any required investigation or remediation of the Portland Harbor site or to estimate a range of potential loss. Management believes, however, that the outcome will not have a material impact on the financial condition of the Company, but may have a material impact on the results of operations and cash flows in future reporting periods. DEQ Investigation of Downtown Reach The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has executed a memorandum of understanding with the EPA to administer and enforce clean-up activities for portions of the Willamette River that are upriver from the Portland Harbor Superfund site (the “Downtown Reach”). In January of 2010, the DEQ issued an order requiring PGE to perform an investigation of certain portions of the Downtown Reach. PGE completed this investigation in December 2011 and entered into a consent order with the DEQ in July 2012 to conduct a feasibility study of alternatives for remedial action for the portions of the Downtown Reach that were included within the scope of PGE’s investigation. It is expected that the feasibility study will be completed within the next two years. Sufficient information is currently not available to determine PGE’s liability for the cost of any required investigation or remediation of the Downtown Reach site or to estimate a range of potential loss. However, management believes that the outcome will not have a material impact on the financial condition of the Company, but may have a material impact on the results of operations and cash flows in future reporting periods. EPA Investigation of Harbor Oil Harbor Oil, Inc. operated an oil reprocessing business on a site located in north Portland (Harbor Oil) until about 1999. Subsequently, other companies have continued to conduct operations on the site. Until 2003, PGE contracted with the operators of the site to provide used oil from the Company’s power plants and electrical distribution system to the operators for use in their reprocessing business. Other entities continue to utilize Harbor Oil for the reprocessing 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 site on the National Priority List as a federal Superfund site. PGE received a Notice from the EPA in 2005, in which the Company was named as one of fourteen PRPs with respect to Harbor Oil. Subsequently, an AOC was signed by the EPA and six other parties, including PGE, to implement an RI/FS at Harbor Oil. In 2011, the final draft of the remedial investigation report was submitted to the EPA. In March 2012, the EPA approved the remedial investigation and stated that it intends to recommend no action on the site, based on the conclusions of the risk assessment conducted under the CERCLA. Following a public notice and comment period, the EPA is expected to issue a final Record of Decision in early 2013. Based on information currently available, management cannot estimate a range of potential loss with respect to this matter. However, management believes that the outcome will not have a material impact on the financial condition of the Company, but may have a material impact on the results of operations and cash flows in future reporting periods. Alleged Violation of Environmental Regulations at Colstrip On July 30, 2012, PGE received a Notice of Intent to Sue for violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA) at Colstrip Steam Electric Station (Notice) from counsel on behalf of the Sierra Club and the Montana Environmental Information Center (MEIC). The Notice was also addressed to the other Colstrip co-owners, including PPL Montana, LLC (PPL Montana) - the operator of Colstrip. PGE has a 20% ownership interest in Units 3 and 4 of Colstrip. The Notice alleges certain violations of the CAA, including New Source Review, Title V, and opacity requirements, and states that the Sierra Club and MEIC will: i) request a United States District Court to impose injunctive relief and civil penalties; ii) require a beneficial environmental project in the areas affected by the alleged air pollution; and iii) seek reimbursement of Sierra Club’s and MEIC’s costs of litigation and attorney’s fees. Since July, the Sierra Club and MEIC have twice amended their Notice. The first amendment, contained in a letter dated August 30, 2012, asserts that the Colstrip owners violated the Title V air quality operating permit during portions of 2008 and 2009. The second amendment, contained in a letter dated September 27, 2012, asserts that the owners have violated the CAA by failing to timely submit a complete air quality operating permit application to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Due to the uncertainty concerning this matter, PGE cannot predict the outcome or determine whether it is reasonably possible that the claims, if asserted, would have a material impact on the Company. Challenge to AOC Related to Colstrip Wastewater Facilities In August 2012, PPL Montana entered into an AOC with the MDEQ, which established a comprehensive process to investigate and remediate groundwater seepage impacts related to the wastewater facilities at the Colstrip power plant. Within five years, under this AOC, PPL Montana is required to provide financial assurance to MDEQ for the costs associated with closure of the waste water treatment facilities. This will establish an obligation for asset retirement, but PPL Montana is unable at this time to estimate these costs, which will require both public and agency review. On September 4, 2012, Earthjustice filed an affidavit pursuant to Montana’s Major Facility Siting Act (MFSA) that sought review of the AOC by Montana’s Board of Environmental Review (BER), on behalf of environmental groups Sierra Club, the MEIC, and the National Wildlife Federation. On September 18, 2012, PPL Montana filed an election with the BER to have this proceeding conducted in Montana state district court as contemplated by the MFSA. On October 26, 2012, Earthjustice, on behalf of Sierra Club, the MEIC and the National Wildlife Federation, filed with the Montana state district court a petition for a writ of mandamus and a complaint for declaratory relief alleging that the AOC fails to require the necessary actions under the Major Facility Siting Act and the Montana Water Quality Act with respect to groundwater seepage from the wastewater facilities at Colstrip. PGE cannot at this time predict the outcome of this matter or determine whether it is reasonably possible that it would have a material impact on the Company. Revenue Bonds In 2008, PGE repurchased $5.8 million of Pollution Control Revenue Bonds Series 1996 (Bonds) issued through the Port of Morrow. In connection with the repurchase, PGE paid the $5.8 million repurchase price 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. In November 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 impact on the Company’s financial condition, but it may have a material impact on the results of operations and cash flows in a future interim reporting period. Oregon Tax Court Ruling On September 17, 2012, the Oregon Tax Court issued a ruling contrary to an Oregon Department of Revenue interpretation and a current Oregon administrative rule, regarding the treatment of wholesale electricity sales. The underlying issue is whether electricity should be treated as tangible or intangible property for state income tax apportionment purposes. It is uncertain whether the ruling will be appealed, or if the ruling would apply retroactively to PGE for all open tax years, which include 2006 through 2012. If the ruling is upheld, PGE estimates that its income tax liability could increase by as much as $17 million due to the impact of the increased assessment of prior years’ liability and an increase in the tax rate at which deferred tax liabilities would be recognized in future years. Due to the uncertainty concerning the resolution of this matter, PGE cannot predict the outcome. The Company may seek regulatory recovery of any incremental tax, although there can be no guarantee that such recovery would be granted. 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 judgments against the Company. Although management currently believes that resolution of such matters will not have a material 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. Contingencies are evaluated using the best information available at the time the consolidated financial statements are prepared. Legal costs incurred in connection with loss contingencies are expensed as incurred.

Loss contingencies are accrued and disclosed when it is probable that an asset has been impaired, or a liability incurred, as of the financial statement date and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. If a reasonable estimate of probable loss cannot be determined, a range of loss may be established, in which case the minimum amount in the range is accrued, unless some other amount within the range appears to be a better estimate.

Loss contingencies are also disclosed when it is reasonably possible that an asset has been impaired, or a liability incurred. If a probable or reasonably possible loss can be reasonably estimated, then the Company discloses an estimate of such loss or the range of such loss. If a reasonable estimate cannot be made, disclosure will include the reason for such determination.

If an asset has been impaired or a liability incurred after the financial statement date, but prior to the issuance of the financial statements, the loss contingency is disclosed, if material, and the amount of any estimated loss is recorded in the appropriate reporting period.

The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in such matters that could affect the amount of any accrual, as well as the likelihood of 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 in cases in which (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 cases in which it is uncertain how liability, if any, would 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

Regulatory Proceedings. 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.

Numerous challenges and appeals 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. 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 the Company to recover a return on the Trojan investment and remanded the case to the OPUC for reconsideration.

In 2000, PGE entered into agreements to settle the litigation related to recovery of, and return on, its investment in Trojan. The Utility Reform Project (URP) did not participate in the settlement and filed a complaint with the OPUC challenging the settlement agreements. In 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 in 2008 (2008 Order) that required PGE to provide refunds, including interest from September 30, 2000, to customers who received service from the Company during the period from October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2001. PGE recorded a charge of $33.1 million in 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 separately appealed the 2008 Order to the Oregon Court of Appeals. Oral arguments in the appeal occurred in February 2012 and a decision by the Oregon Court of Appeals remains pending.

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

In 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 the Company 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. The Marion County Circuit Court subsequently 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 estimate a range of potential loss. However, management believes that these matters will not have a material impact on the financial condition of the Company, but may have a material impact on the results of operations and cash flows in future reporting periods.

Pacific Northwest Refund Proceeding

In 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 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 its 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.

In October 2011, the FERC issued an Order on Remand, establishing an evidentiary hearing to determine whether any seller had engaged in unlawful market activity in the Pacific Northwest spot markets during the December 25, 2000 through June 20, 2001 period by violating specific contracts or tariffs, and, if so, whether a direct connection existed between the alleged unlawful conduct and the rate charged under the applicable contract. The FERC held that the Mobile-Sierra public interest standard governs challenges to the bilateral contracts at issue in this proceeding, and the strong presumption under Mobile-Sierra that the rates charged under each contract are just and reasonable would have to be specifically overcome before a refund could be ordered. The FERC directed the presiding judge, if necessary, to determine a refund methodology and to calculate refunds, but held that a market-wide remedy was not appropriate, given the bilateral contract nature of the Pacific Northwest spot markets. Certain parties claiming refunds filed requests for rehearing of the Order on Remand, contesting, among other things, the applicable refund period reflected in the Order, the use of the Mobile-Sierra standard, any restraints in the Order on the type of evidence that could be introduced in the hearing, and the lack of a market-wide remedy. The rehearing requests remain pending.

In its October 2011 Order on Remand, the FERC held the hearing procedures in abeyance pending the results of settlement discussions, which it ordered be convened before a FERC settlement judge. Pursuant to the settlement proceedings, the Company received notice of two claims and has reached agreements to settle both of these claims for an immaterial amount. The first settlement was approved by the FERC in June 2012, while the second settlement received FERC approval in September 2012. There remains a possibility that additional claims could be asserted against the Company in the future.

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 the Company and the California parties named in the settlement (including CERS) as to transactions in the Pacific Northwest during the settlement period, January 1, 2000 through June 20, 2001, but did not settle potential claims from other market participants relating to transactions in the Pacific Northwest.

Management cannot predict whether the FERC will order refunds in the Pacific Northwest Refund 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. However, management believes that the outcome will not have a material impact on the financial condition of the Company, but may have a material impact on the results of operations and cash flows in future reporting periods.

EPA Investigation of Portland Harbor

A 1997 investigation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (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 (CERCLA) 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. In January 2008, the EPA requested information from various parties, including PGE, concerning properties near the river. Subsequently, the EPA has listed additional PRPs, which now number over one hundred.

The Portland Harbor site is currently undergoing a remedial investigation (RI) and feasibility study (FS) pursuant to an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) between the EPA and several PRPs known as the Lower Willamette Group (LWG), which does not include PGE.

In March 2012, the LWG submitted a draft FS to the EPA for review and approval. The draft FS, along with the RI, provide the framework for the EPA to determine a clean-up remedy for Portland Harbor that will be documented in a Record of Decision, which the EPA is expected to issue in 2015.

The draft FS evaluates several alternative clean-up approaches. These approaches would take from two to 28 years with costs ranging from $169 million to $1.8 billion, depending primarily on the selected remedial action levels. The draft FS does not address responsibility for the costs of clean-up, allocate such costs among PRPs, or define precise boundaries for the clean-up. Responsibility for funding and implementing the EPA’s selected clean-up will be determined after the issuance of the Record of Decision.

Due to the uncertainties discussed above, sufficient information is currently not available to determine PGE’s liability for the cost of any required investigation or remediation of the Portland Harbor site or to estimate a range of potential loss. Management believes, however, that the outcome will not have a material impact on the financial condition of the Company, but may have a material impact on the results of operations and cash flows in future reporting periods.

DEQ Investigation of Downtown Reach

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has executed a memorandum of understanding with the EPA to administer and enforce clean-up activities for portions of the Willamette River that are upriver from the Portland Harbor Superfund site (the “Downtown Reach”). In January of 2010, the DEQ issued an order requiring PGE to perform an investigation of certain portions of the Downtown Reach. PGE completed this investigation in December 2011 and entered into a consent order with the DEQ in July 2012 to conduct a feasibility study of alternatives for remedial action for the portions of the Downtown Reach that were included within the scope of PGE’s investigation. It is expected that the feasibility study will be completed within the next two years.

Sufficient information is currently not available to determine PGE’s liability for the cost of any required investigation or remediation of the Downtown Reach site or to estimate a range of potential loss. However, management believes that the outcome will not have a material impact on the financial condition of the Company, but may have a material impact on the results of operations and cash flows in future reporting periods.

EPA Investigation of Harbor Oil

Harbor Oil, Inc. operated an oil reprocessing business on a site located in north Portland (Harbor Oil) until about 1999. Subsequently, other companies have continued to conduct operations on the site. Until 2003, PGE contracted with the operators of the site to provide used oil from the Company’s power plants and electrical distribution system to the operators for use in their reprocessing business. Other entities continue to utilize Harbor Oil for the reprocessing 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 site on the National Priority List as a federal Superfund site.

PGE received a Notice from the EPA in 2005, in which the Company was named as one of fourteen PRPs with respect to Harbor Oil. Subsequently, an AOC was signed by the EPA and six other parties, including PGE, to implement an RI/FS at Harbor Oil. In 2011, the final draft of the remedial investigation report was submitted to the EPA.

In March 2012, the EPA approved the remedial investigation and stated that it intends to recommend no action on the site, based on the conclusions of the risk assessment conducted under the CERCLA. Following a public notice and comment period, the EPA is expected to issue a final Record of Decision in early 2013.

Based on information currently available, management cannot estimate a range of potential loss with respect to this matter. However, management believes that the outcome will not have a material impact on the financial condition of the Company, but may have a material impact on the results of operations and cash flows in future reporting periods.

Alleged Violation of Environmental Regulations at Colstrip

On July 30, 2012, PGE received a Notice of Intent to Sue for violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA) at Colstrip Steam Electric Station (Notice) from counsel on behalf of the Sierra Club and the Montana Environmental Information Center (MEIC). The Notice was also addressed to the other Colstrip co-owners, including PPL Montana, LLC (PPL Montana) - the operator of Colstrip. PGE has a 20% ownership interest in Units 3 and 4 of Colstrip. The Notice alleges certain violations of the CAA, including New Source Review, Title V, and opacity requirements, and states that the Sierra Club and MEIC will: i) request a United States District Court to impose injunctive relief and civil penalties; ii) require a beneficial environmental project in the areas affected by the alleged air pollution; and iii) seek reimbursement of Sierra Club’s and MEIC’s costs of litigation and attorney’s fees. Since July, the Sierra Club and MEIC have twice amended their Notice. The first amendment, contained in a letter dated August 30, 2012, asserts that the Colstrip owners violated the Title V air quality operating permit during portions of 2008 and 2009. The second amendment, contained in a letter dated September 27, 2012, asserts that the owners have violated the CAA by failing to timely submit a complete air quality operating permit application to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Due to the uncertainty concerning this matter, PGE cannot predict the outcome or determine whether it is reasonably possible that the claims, if asserted, would have a material impact on the Company.

Challenge to AOC Related to Colstrip Wastewater Facilities

In August 2012, PPL Montana entered into an AOC with the MDEQ, which established a comprehensive process to investigate and remediate groundwater seepage impacts related to the wastewater facilities at the Colstrip power plant. Within five years, under this AOC, PPL Montana is required to provide financial assurance to MDEQ for the costs associated with closure of the waste water treatment facilities. This will establish an obligation for asset retirement, but PPL Montana is unable at this time to estimate these costs, which will require both public and agency review.

On September 4, 2012, Earthjustice filed an affidavit pursuant to Montana’s Major Facility Siting Act (MFSA) that sought review of the AOC by Montana’s Board of Environmental Review (BER), on behalf of environmental groups Sierra Club, the MEIC, and the National Wildlife Federation. On September 18, 2012, PPL Montana filed an election with the BER to have this proceeding conducted in Montana state district court as contemplated by the MFSA. On October 26, 2012, Earthjustice, on behalf of Sierra Club, the MEIC and the National Wildlife Federation, filed with the Montana state district court a petition for a writ of mandamus and a complaint for declaratory relief alleging that the AOC fails to require the necessary actions under the Major Facility Siting Act and the Montana Water Quality Act with respect to groundwater seepage from the wastewater facilities at Colstrip. PGE cannot at this time predict the outcome of this matter or determine whether it is reasonably possible that it would have a material impact on the Company.

Revenue Bonds

In 2008, PGE repurchased $5.8 million of Pollution Control Revenue Bonds Series 1996 (Bonds) issued through the Port of Morrow. In connection with the repurchase, PGE paid the $5.8 million repurchase price 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. In November 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 impact on the Company’s financial condition, but it may have a material impact on the results of operations and cash flows in a future interim reporting period.

Oregon Tax Court Ruling

On September 17, 2012, the Oregon Tax Court issued a ruling contrary to an Oregon Department of Revenue interpretation and a current Oregon administrative rule, regarding the treatment of wholesale electricity sales. The underlying issue is whether electricity should be treated as tangible or intangible property for state income tax apportionment purposes. It is uncertain whether the ruling will be appealed, or if the ruling would apply retroactively to PGE for all open tax years, which include 2006 through 2012. If the ruling is upheld, PGE estimates that its income tax liability could increase by as much as $17 million due to the impact of the increased assessment of prior years’ liability and an increase in the tax rate at which deferred tax liabilities would be recognized in future years. Due to the uncertainty concerning the resolution of this matter, PGE cannot predict the outcome. The Company may seek regulatory recovery of any incremental tax, although there can be no guarantee that such recovery would be granted.

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 judgments against the Company. Although management currently believes that resolution of such matters will not have a material 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.