Contingencies (Notes)	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
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. The Company may seek regulatory recovery of certain costs that are incurred in connection with such matters, although there can be no assurance that such recovery would be granted. Loss contingencies are accrued, and disclosed if material, 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. A loss contingency will also be disclosed when it is reasonably possible that an asset has been impaired or a liability incurred if the estimate or range of potential loss is material. If a probable or reasonably possible loss cannot be reasonably estimated, 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. 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 subsequent 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 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 Regulatory Proceedings. In 1993, PGE closed the Trojan nuclear power 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. In 1995, 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 settlement, which was approved by the OPUC, allowed PGE to remove from its balance sheet the remaining investment in Trojan as of September 30, 2000, along with several largely offsetting regulatory liabilities. After offsetting the investment in Trojan with these liabilities, the remaining Trojan regulatory asset balance of approximately $5 million (after tax) was expensed. As a result of the settlement, PGE’s investment in Trojan was no longer included in prices charged to customers, either through a return of or a return on that investment. 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. The Company 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. On February 6, 2013, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued an opinion that upheld the 2008 Order. On May 31, 2013, the Court of Appeals denied the appellants’ request for reconsideration of the decision. On July 25, 2013, the appellants filed petitions with the Oregon Supreme Court seeking review of the February 6, 2013 Oregon Court of Appeals decision. 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 totaling $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 can be offered to PGE customers, through price reductions or refunds, for any amount of return on the Trojan investment that the Company collected in prices. 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. As noted above, on February 6, 2013, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued an opinion that upheld the 2008 Order. Because the opinion remains subject to a possible appeal by the plaintiffs and the class actions described above remain pending, management believes that it is reasonably possible that the regulatory proceedings and class actions could result in a loss to the Company in excess of the amounts previously recorded and discussed above. Because these matters involve unsettled legal theories and have a broad range of potential outcomes, sufficient information is currently not available to determine PGE’s potential liability, if any, or to estimate a range of potential loss. 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. In December 2012, the FERC issued an order granting an interlocutory appeal of the trial judge’s ruling on the scope of the remand proceeding. In this order, the FERC held that its Order on Remand was not intended to alter the general state of the law regarding the Mobile-Sierra presumption. The FERC clarified that the Mobile-Sierra presumption could be overcome either by: i) a showing that a respondent had violated a contract or tariff and that the violation had a direct connection to the rate charged under the applicable contract; or ii) a showing that the contract rate at issue imposed an excessive burden or seriously harmed the public interest. On April 5, 2013, and subject to its December 2012 clarification in the interlocutory appeal, the FERC denied rehearing requests from refund proponents that had contested the FERC’s use of the Mobile-Sierra standard in the remand proceeding, its denial of a market-wide remedy, and the restraints in the Order on Remand that limited the types of evidence that could be introduced in the hearing. However, the FERC granted rehearing on the issue of the appropriate refund period, holding that parties could pursue refunds for transactions between January 1, 2000 and December 24, 2000 under Section 309 of the Federal Power Act by showing violations of a filed tariff or rate schedule or of a statutory requirement. Refund claimants have filed petitions for appeal of the Order on Remand and the Order on Rehearing with the Ninth Circuit. In its October 2011 Order on Remand, the FERC ordered settlement discussions to 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 claims for an immaterial amount. The FERC approved both settlements during 2012. Additionally, 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 (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. The above-referenced settlements resulted in a release for the Company as a named respondent in the ongoing remand proceedings, which are limited to initial and direct claims for refunds, but there remains a possibility that additional claims related to this matter could be asserted against the Company in future proceedings if refunds are ordered against current respondents. Management believes that this matter could result in a loss to the Company in future proceedings. However, management cannot predict whether the FERC will order refunds, which contracts would be subject to refunds, the basis on which refunds would be ordered, or how such refunds, if any, would be calculated. Due to these uncertainties, sufficient information is currently not available to determine PGE’s liability, if any, or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss. EPA Investigation of Portland Harbor A 1997 investigation by the United States 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 additional properties in or near the original segment of the river under investigation as well as several miles beyond. 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 or 2016. 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 on the selected remedial action levels and the choice of remedy. 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. Management believes that it is reasonably possible that this matter could result in a loss to the Company. However, 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. 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 a draft feasibility study report, which would provide a range of potential cost estimates, will be available by the end of 2013 or early 2014. Management believes that it is reasonably possible that this matter could result in a loss to the Company. However, because the feasibility study continues, 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. 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 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 RI report was submitted to the EPA. In 2012, the EPA approved the RI and stated that it intended 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, on June 28, 2013, issued a final Record of Decision requiring no further action. Alleged Violation of Environmental Regulations at Colstrip On July 30, 2012, PGE received a Notice of Intent to Sue (Notice) for violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA) at Colstrip Steam Electric Station (Colstrip) 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 - 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 2012, the Sierra Club and MEIC have amended their Notice three times. 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). The third amendment, received in December 2012, does not materially alter the prior assertions. On March 6, 2013, the Sierra Club and MEIC sued the Colstrip co-owners, including PGE, for these and additional alleged violations of various environmental related regulations. The plaintiffs are seeking relief that includes an injunction preventing the co-owners from operating Colstrip except in accordance with the CAA, the Montana State Implementation Plan, and the plant’s federally enforceable air quality permits. In addition, plaintiffs are seeking civil penalties against the co-owners including $32,500 per day for each violation occurring through January 12, 2009, and $37,500 per day for each violation occurring thereafter. On May 3, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss 36 of the 39 claims in the suit. This matter is scheduled for trial in October 2014. Management believes that it is reasonably possible that this matter could result in a loss to the Company. However, due to the uncertainties concerning this matter, PGE cannot predict the outcome or determine whether it would have a material impact on the Company. Challenge to AOC Related to Colstrip Wastewater Facilities In August 2012, the operator of Colstrip 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 Colstrip. Within five years, under this AOC, the operator of Colstrip 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 the operator of Colstrip is unable at this time to estimate these costs, which will require both public and agency review. In September 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. In September 2012, the operator of Colstrip filed an election with the BER to have this proceeding conducted in Montana state district court as contemplated by the MFSA. In October 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 MFSA and the Montana Water Quality Act with respect to groundwater seepage from the wastewater facilities at Colstrip. On May 31, 2013, the district court judge granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the petition for the writ of mandamus. Management believes that it is reasonably possible that this matter could result in a loss to the Company. However, due to the uncertainties concerning this matter, PGE cannot predict the outcome or determine whether 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, Oregon. 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 and on June 14, 2013, PGE received the Bonds in full. 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. The Oregon Department of Revenue has appealed the ruling of the Oregon Tax Court to the Oregon Supreme Court. It is uncertain whether the ruling will be upheld. If the ruling is upheld, PGE estimates that its income tax liability could increase by as much as $7 million due to 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. Complaint Against U.S. Department of Energy In 2004, the co-owners of Trojan (PGE, Eugene Water & Electric Board, and PacifiCorp, collectively referred to as Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) for failure to accept spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998. PGE had contracted with the USDOE for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel in order to allow the final decommissioning of Trojan. The Plaintiffs paid for permanent disposal services during the period of plant operation and have met all other conditions precedent. The Plaintiffs were seeking approximately $112 million in damages incurred through 2009. A trial before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims commenced in the fourth quarter of 2011 and concluded in early 2012. On November 30, 2012, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment awarding certain damages to the Plaintiffs. The judgment did not state the precise amount of the damages award, but directed the parties to consult and propose a final amount for the Plaintiffs’ recovery that was based on certain adjustments specified in the court’s ruling. In July 2013, the parties reached a settlement wherein the Trojan co-owners will receive $70 million for the period through 2009, with PGE’s share being approximately $44 million. Proceeds are expected to be received by late August. The settlement agreement also provides for a process to submit claims for allowable costs for the period 2010 through 2013. Recovery of any costs for periods after 2013 will be covered in subsequent agreements. Any proceeds received related to this legal matter would flow to the benefit of customers to offset amounts previously collected from customers in relation to Trojan decommissioning activities. 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 business, which may result in judgments against the Company. Although management currently believes that resolution of such matters will not have a material impact 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. The Company may seek regulatory recovery of certain costs that are incurred in connection with such matters, although there can be no assurance that such recovery would be granted.

Loss contingencies are accrued, and disclosed if material, 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.

A loss contingency will also be disclosed when it is reasonably possible that an asset has been impaired or a liability incurred if the estimate or range of potential loss is material. If a probable or reasonably possible loss cannot be reasonably estimated, 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.

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 subsequent 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 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

Regulatory Proceedings. In 1993, PGE closed the Trojan nuclear power 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. In 1995, 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 settlement, which was approved by the OPUC, allowed PGE to remove from its balance sheet the remaining investment in Trojan as of September 30, 2000, along with several largely offsetting regulatory liabilities. After offsetting the investment in Trojan with these liabilities, the remaining Trojan regulatory asset balance of approximately $5 million (after tax) was expensed. As a result of the settlement, PGE’s investment in Trojan was no longer included in prices charged to customers, either through a return of or a return on that investment. 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. The Company 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. On February 6, 2013, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued an opinion that upheld the 2008 Order. On May 31, 2013, the Court of Appeals denied the appellants’ request for reconsideration of the decision. On July 25, 2013, the appellants filed petitions with the Oregon Supreme Court seeking review of the February 6, 2013 Oregon Court of Appeals decision.

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 totaling $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 can be offered to PGE customers, through price reductions or refunds, for any amount of return on the Trojan investment that the Company collected in prices.

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.

As noted above, on February 6, 2013, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued an opinion that upheld the 2008 Order. Because the opinion remains subject to a possible appeal by the plaintiffs and the class actions described above remain pending, management believes that it is reasonably possible that the regulatory proceedings and class actions could result in a loss to the Company in excess of the amounts previously recorded and discussed above. Because these matters involve unsettled legal theories and have a broad range of potential outcomes, sufficient information is currently not available to determine PGE’s potential liability, if any, or to estimate a range of potential loss.

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.

In December 2012, the FERC issued an order granting an interlocutory appeal of the trial judge’s ruling on the scope of the remand proceeding. In this order, the FERC held that its Order on Remand was not intended to alter the general state of the law regarding the Mobile-Sierra presumption. The FERC clarified that the Mobile-Sierra presumption could be overcome either by: i) a showing that a respondent had violated a contract or tariff and that the violation had a direct connection to the rate charged under the applicable contract; or ii) a showing that the contract rate at issue imposed an excessive burden or seriously harmed the public interest.

On April 5, 2013, and subject to its December 2012 clarification in the interlocutory appeal, the FERC denied rehearing requests from refund proponents that had contested the FERC’s use of the Mobile-Sierra standard in the remand proceeding, its denial of a market-wide remedy, and the restraints in the Order on Remand that limited the types of evidence that could be introduced in the hearing. However, the FERC granted rehearing on the issue of the appropriate refund period, holding that parties could pursue refunds for transactions between January 1, 2000 and December 24, 2000 under Section 309 of the Federal Power Act by showing violations of a filed tariff or rate schedule or of a statutory requirement. Refund claimants have filed petitions for appeal of the Order on Remand and the Order on Rehearing with the Ninth Circuit.

In its October 2011 Order on Remand, the FERC ordered settlement discussions to 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 claims for an immaterial amount. The FERC approved both settlements during 2012.

Additionally, 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 (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.

The above-referenced settlements resulted in a release for the Company as a named respondent in the ongoing remand proceedings, which are limited to initial and direct claims for refunds, but there remains a possibility that additional claims related to this matter could be asserted against the Company in future proceedings if refunds are ordered against current respondents.

Management believes that this matter could result in a loss to the Company in future proceedings. However, management cannot predict whether the FERC will order refunds, which contracts would be subject to refunds, the basis on which refunds would be ordered, or how such refunds, if any, would be calculated. Due to these uncertainties, sufficient information is currently not available to determine PGE’s liability, if any, or to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.

EPA Investigation of Portland Harbor

A 1997 investigation by the United States 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 additional properties in or near the original segment of the river under investigation as well as several miles beyond. 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 or 2016.

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 on the selected remedial action levels and the choice of remedy. 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.

Management believes that it is reasonably possible that this matter could result in a loss to the Company. However, 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.

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 a draft feasibility study report, which would provide a range of potential cost estimates, will be available by the end of 2013 or early 2014.

Management believes that it is reasonably possible that this matter could result in a loss to the Company. However, because the feasibility study continues, 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.

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 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 RI report was submitted to the EPA.

In 2012, the EPA approved the RI and stated that it intended 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, on June 28, 2013, issued a final Record of Decision requiring no further action.

Alleged Violation of Environmental Regulations at Colstrip

On July 30, 2012, PGE received a Notice of Intent to Sue (Notice) for violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA) at Colstrip Steam Electric Station (Colstrip) 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 - 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 2012, the Sierra Club and MEIC have amended their Notice three times. 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). The third amendment, received in December 2012, does not materially alter the prior assertions.

On March 6, 2013, the Sierra Club and MEIC sued the Colstrip co-owners, including PGE, for these and additional alleged violations of various environmental related regulations. The plaintiffs are seeking relief that includes an injunction preventing the co-owners from operating Colstrip except in accordance with the CAA, the Montana State Implementation Plan, and the plant’s federally enforceable air quality permits. In addition, plaintiffs are seeking civil penalties against the co-owners including $32,500 per day for each violation occurring through January 12, 2009, and $37,500 per day for each violation occurring thereafter. On May 3, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss 36 of the 39 claims in the suit. This matter is scheduled for trial in October 2014.

Management believes that it is reasonably possible that this matter could result in a loss to the Company. However, due to the uncertainties concerning this matter, PGE cannot predict the outcome or determine whether it would have a material impact on the Company.

Challenge to AOC Related to Colstrip Wastewater Facilities

In August 2012, the operator of Colstrip 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 Colstrip. Within five years, under this AOC, the operator of Colstrip 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 the operator of Colstrip is unable at this time to estimate these costs, which will require both public and agency review.

In September 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. In September 2012, the operator of Colstrip filed an election with the BER to have this proceeding conducted in Montana state district court as contemplated by the MFSA. In October 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 MFSA and the Montana Water Quality Act with respect to groundwater seepage from the wastewater facilities at Colstrip. On May 31, 2013, the district court judge granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the petition for the writ of mandamus.

Revenue Bonds

In 2008, PGE repurchased $5.8 million of Pollution Control Revenue Bonds Series 1996 (Bonds) issued through the Port of Morrow, Oregon. 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 and on June 14, 2013, PGE received the Bonds in full.

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. The Oregon Department of Revenue has appealed the ruling of the Oregon Tax Court to the Oregon Supreme Court. It is uncertain whether the ruling will be upheld.

If the ruling is upheld, PGE estimates that its income tax liability could increase by as much as $7 million due to 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.

Complaint Against U.S. Department of Energy

In 2004, the co-owners of Trojan (PGE, Eugene Water & Electric Board, and PacifiCorp, collectively referred to as Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) for failure to accept spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998. PGE had contracted with the USDOE for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel in order to allow the final decommissioning of Trojan. The Plaintiffs paid for permanent disposal services during the period of plant operation and have met all other conditions precedent. The Plaintiffs were seeking approximately $112 million in damages incurred through 2009.

A trial before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims commenced in the fourth quarter of 2011 and concluded in early 2012. On November 30, 2012, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a judgment awarding certain damages to the Plaintiffs. The judgment did not state the precise amount of the damages award, but directed the parties to consult and propose a final amount for the Plaintiffs’ recovery that was based on certain adjustments specified in the court’s ruling. In July 2013, the parties reached a settlement wherein the Trojan co-owners will receive $70 million for the period through 2009, with PGE’s share being approximately $44 million. Proceeds are expected to be received by late August. The settlement agreement also provides for a process to submit claims for allowable costs for the period 2010 through 2013. Recovery of any costs for periods after 2013 will be covered in subsequent agreements. Any proceeds received related to this legal matter would flow to the benefit of customers to offset amounts previously collected from customers in relation to Trojan decommissioning activities.

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 business, which may result in judgments against the Company. Although management currently believes that resolution of such matters will not have a material impact 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.