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 and the reasons.

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 circumstances in which 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.

Carty

In 2013, PGE entered into a turnkey engineering, procurement, and construction agreement (Construction Agreement) with Abeinsa EPC LLC, Abener Construction Services, LLC, Teyma Construction USA, LLC, and Abeinsa Abener Teyma General Partnership (collectively, the “Contractor”), affiliates of Abengoa S.A. - for the construction of the Carty natural gas-fired generating plant (Carty) located in Eastern Oregon. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Zurich American Insurance Company (together, the “Sureties”) provided a performance bond of $145.6 million (Performance Bond) in connection with the Construction Agreement.

In December 2015, the Company declared the Contractor in default under the Construction Agreement and terminated the Construction Agreement. Following termination of the Construction Agreement, PGE brought on new contractors and construction resumed.

Carty was placed into service on July 29, 2016 and the Company began collecting its revenue requirement in customer prices on August 1, 2016, as authorized by the OPUC, based on the approved capital cost of $514 million. Actual costs for the construction of Carty exceeded the approved amount and, as of December 31, 2017, PGE has capitalized $637 million to Electric utility plant.

As the final construction cost exceeded the amount authorized by the OPUC, higher interest and depreciation expense than allowed in the Company’s revenue requirement has resulted. These incremental expenses are recognized in the Company’s current results of operations, as a deferral for such amounts would not be considered probable of recovery at this time, in accordance with GAAP.

As actual project costs for Carty have exceeded $514 million, the Company has incurred a higher cost of service than what is reflected in the current authorized revenue requirement amount, primarily due to higher depreciation, interest expense and legal expenses. Such incremental expenses were $14 million and $3 million for the year ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. Any amounts approved by the OPUC for recovery under the deferral filing would be recognized in earnings in the period of such approval.

Actual costs do not reflect any offsetting amounts that may be received from the Sureties, pursuant to the Performance Bond. The amounts recorded also exclude $8 million of liens and claims filed for goods and services provided under contracts with the former Contractor that remain in dispute. The Company believes these liens and claims are invalid and is contesting the liens and claims in the courts.

The incremental costs resulted from various matters relating to the resumption of construction activities following the termination of the Construction Agreement, including, among other things, completing the remaining construction work, correcting deficiencies and defects in work performed by the former Contractor, determining the remaining scope of construction, preparing work plans for contractors, identifying new contractors, negotiating contracts, and procuring additional materials.

Other items contributing to the increase include costs relating to the removal of certain liens filed on the property for goods and services provided under contracts with the former Contractor, and costs to repair equipment damage that resulted from poor storage and maintenance on the part of the former Contractor.

In July 2016, the Company requested from the OPUC a regulatory deferral for the recovery of the revenue requirement associated with the incremental capital costs for Carty starting from its in service date to the date that such amounts are approved in a subsequent regulatory proceeding. The Company has requested that the OPUC delay its review of this deferral request until all legal actions with respect to this matter, including PGE’s actions against the Sureties, have been resolved.

Any amounts approved by the OPUC for recovery under the deferral filing would be recognized in earnings in the period of such approval, however there is no assurance that such recovery would be granted by the OPUC. The Company believes that costs incurred to date and capitalized in Electric utility plant, net, in the condensed consolidated balance sheet, were prudently incurred. There have been no settlement discussions with regulators related to such costs.

The Company is involved in several litigation proceedings concerning the termination of the Construction Agreement and the payment obligations of the Sureties.

PGE is seeking recovery of incremental construction costs and other damages pursuant to breach of contract claims against the Contractor and claims against the Sureties pursuant to the Performance Bond. The Sureties have denied liability in whole under the Performance Bond.

Various actions relating to this matter have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (U.S. District Court), in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit), and in an arbitration proceeding, including the following:

•

A breach of contract claim dated March 23, 2016, Portland General Electric Company v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Zurich American Insurance Company, U.S. District Court of the District of Oregon, brought by PGE against the Sureties in U.S. District Court asserting that the Sureties are responsible for the payment of all damages sustained by PGE as a result of the Contractor’s breach of contract. The Company’s complaint disputes the Sureties’ assertion that the Company wrongfully terminated the Construction Agreement and asserts that the Sureties are responsible for the payment of all damages sustained by PGE as a result of the Sureties’ breach of contract, including damages in excess of the $145.6 million stated amount of the Performance Bond. Such damages include additional costs incurred by PGE to complete Carty.

•

A claim dated October 21, 2016, Portland General Electric Company v. Abeinsa EPC LLC, Abener Construction Services, LLC (formerly known as Abener Engineering and Construction Services, LLC), Teyma Construction USA LLC, and Abeinsa Abener Teyma General Partnership, U.S. District Court of the District of Oregon, brought by PGE in U.S. District Court against the Contractor for failure to satisfy its obligations under the Construction Agreement. PGE is seeking damages from the Contractor in excess of $200 million for: i) costs incurred to complete construction of Carty, settle claims with unpaid contractors and vendors, and remove liens; and ii) damages in excess of the construction costs, including a project management fee, liquidated damages under the Construction Agreement, legal fees and costs, damages due to delay of the project, warranty costs, and interest.

•

A claim dated December 31, 2015, In the Matter of an Arbitration Under the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce’s Court of Arbitration, International Chamber of Commerce’s Court of Arbitration, by Abengoa S.A. in the ICC arbitration proceeding alleging that the Company’s termination of the Construction Agreement was wrongful and in breach of the terms of the agreement and did not give rise to any liability of Abengoa S.A.; and


•	A claim by the Contractor against PGE in the ICC arbitration proceeding seeking damages of $117 million based on a claim that PGE wrongfully terminated the Construction Agreement and $44 million based on a claim that PGE failed to disclose certain information to the Contractor, in connection with the Contractor’s bid submitted pursuant to the Company’s request for proposals.

Following various procedural arguments in the ICC arbitration and the U.S. District Court, in July 2017, the Ninth Circuit held that the ICC arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction to determine what parties and what claims could be presented in the ICC arbitration as opposed to in court. A hearing before the ICC arbitral tribunal is expected to take place on April 9 and 10, 2018. The decision of the ICC arbitral tribunal is expected to determine the forum in which the above referenced claims will be heard.

After exhausting all remedies against the aforementioned parties, the Company intends to seek approval to recover any remaining excess amounts in customer prices in a subsequent regulatory proceeding. However, there is no assurance that such recovery would be allowed by the OPUC.

In accordance with GAAP and the Company’s accounting policies, any such excess costs may be charged to expense at the time disallowance of recovery becomes probable and a reasonable estimate of the amount of such disallowance can be made. As of the date of this report, the Company has concluded that the likelihood is less than probable that a portion of the cost of Carty will be disallowed for recovery in customer prices. Accordingly, no loss has been recorded to date related to the project.

EPA Investigation of Portland Harbor

An investigation by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that began in 1997 of a segment of the Willamette River known as Portland Harbor has revealed significant contamination of river sediments. The EPA subsequently included Portland Harbor on the National Priority List pursuant to the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act as a federal Superfund site and listed 69 Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs). PGE was included among the PRPs as it has historically owned or operated property near the river. In 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 remedial investigation had been completed pursuant to an agreement between the EPA and several PRPs known as the Lower Willamette Group (LWG), which did not include PGE. The LWG funded the remedial investigation and feasibility study and stated that it had incurred $115 million in investigation-related costs. The Company anticipates that such costs will ultimately be allocated to PRPs as a part of the allocation process for remediation costs of the EPA’s preferred remedy.

The EPA has finalized the feasibility study, along with the remedial investigation, and the results provided the framework for the EPA to determine a clean-up remedy for Portland Harbor that was documented in a Record of Decision (ROD) issued on January 6, 2017. The ROD outlines the EPA’s selected remediation plan to clean-up for Portland Harbor, which has an estimated total cost of $1.7 billion, comprised of $1.2 billion related to remediation construction costs and $0.5 billion related to long-term operation and maintenance costs, for a combined discounted present value of $1.1 billion. Remediation construction costs are estimated to be incurred over a 13-year period, with long-term operation and maintenance costs estimated to be incurred over a 30-year period from the start of construction. The EPA acknowledges the estimated costs are based on data that is now outdated and that a period of pre-remedial design sampling is necessary to gather updated baseline data to better refine the remedial design and estimated cost. In December 2017, the EPA announced that four PRPs have entered into an administrative order on consent to conduct this additional sampling, which is estimated to be completed in two years. PGE is not among the four PRPs performing this sampling.

PGE is participating in a voluntary process to determine an appropriate allocation of costs amongst the PRPs. Significant uncertainties remain surrounding facts and circumstances that are integral to the determination of such an allocation percentage, including results of the pre-remedial design sampling, a final allocation methodology and data with regard to property specific activities and history of ownership of sites within Portland Harbor. Based on the above facts and remaining uncertainties, PGE cannot reasonably estimate its potential liability or determine an allocation percentage that represents PGE’s portion of the liability to clean-up Portland Harbor.

Where injuries to natural resources have occurred as a result of releases of hazardous substances, federal and state natural resource trustees may seek to recover for damages at such sites, which are referred to as natural resource damages. As it relates to the Portland Harbor, PGE has been participating in the Portland Harbor Natural Resource Damages assessment (NRDA) process. The EPA does not manage NRDA activities, but provides claims information and coordination support to the Natural Resource Damages (NRD) trustees. Damage assessment activities are typically conducted by a Trustee Council made up of the trustee entities for the site. The Portland Harbor NRD trustees are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the State of Oregon, and certain tribal entities.

The NRD trustees may seek to negotiate legal settlements or take other legal actions against the parties responsible for the damages. Funds from such settlements must be used to restore injured resources and may also compensate the trustees for costs incurred in assessing the damages. The NRD trustees are in the process of negotiating NRDA liability with several PRPs, including PGE. The Company believes that PGE’s portion of NRDA liabilities related to Portland Harbor will not have a material impact on its results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

As discussed above, significant uncertainties still remain concerning the precise boundaries for clean-up, the assignment of responsibility for clean-up costs, the final selection of a proposed remedy by the EPA, the amount of natural resource damages, and the method of allocation of costs amongst PRPs. It is probable that PGE will share in a portion of these costs. However, the Company does not currently have sufficient information to reasonably estimate the amount, or range, of its potential costs for investigation or remediation of the Portland Harbor site, although such costs could be material. The Company plans to seek recovery of any costs resulting from the Portland Harbor proceeding through claims under insurance policies and regulatory recovery in customer prices.

In July 2016, the Company filed a deferral application with the OPUC seeking the deferral of the future environmental remediation costs, as well as, seeking authorization to establish a regulatory cost recovery mechanism for such environmental costs. The Company reached an agreement with OPUC Staff and other parties regarding the details of the recovery mechanism, which the OPUC approved in the first quarter of 2017. The mechanism will allow the Company to defer and recover incurred environmental expenditures through a combination of third-party proceeds, such as insurance recoveries, and through customer prices, as necessary. The mechanism establishes annual prudency reviews of environmental expenditures and is subject to an annual earnings test.

Trojan Investment Recovery Class Actions

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 2007, following several appeals by various parties, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued an opinion that remanded the matter to the OPUC for reconsideration.

In 2003, in two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed against PGE on behalf of two classes of electric service customers: Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland General Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court; and Morgan v. Portland General Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court. 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 August 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court (OSC) issued a ruling ordering the abatement of the class action proceedings. The OSC concluded that the OPUC had primary jurisdiction to determine what, if any, remedy could 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.

In 2008, the OPUC issued an order (2008 Order) that required PGE to provide refunds of $33 million, including interest, which were completed in 2010. Following appeals, the 2008 Order was upheld by the Oregon Court of Appeals in February 2013 and by the OSC in October 2014.

In June 2015, based on a motion filed by PGE, the Marion County Circuit Court (Circuit Court) lifted the abatement and in July 2015, the Circuit Court heard oral argument on the Company’s motion for Summary Judgment. In March 2016, the Circuit Court entered a general judgment that granted the Company’s motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed all claims by the plaintiffs. On April 14, 2016, the plaintiffs appealed the Circuit Court dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the State of Oregon. Briefing on the appeal is now complete, with a Court of Appeals decision pending.

PGE believes that the October 2, 2014 OSC decision and the recent Circuit Court decisions have reduced the risk of a loss to the Company in excess of the amounts previously recorded and discussed above. However, because the class actions remain subject to a decision in the appeal, management believes that it is reasonably possible that such a loss to the Company could result. As these matters involve unsettled legal theories and have a broad range of potential outcomes, sufficient information is currently not available to determine the amount of any such loss.

Deschutes River Alliance Clean Water Act Claims

On August 12, 2016, the Deschutes River Alliance (DRA) filed a lawsuit against the Company, Deschutes River Alliance v. Portland General Electric Company, U.S. District Court of the District of Oregon, which seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against PGE under the Clean Water Act (CWA) related to alleged past and continuing violations of the CWA. Specifically, DRA claims PGE has violated certain conditions contained in PGE’s Water Quality Certification for the Pelton/Round Butte Hydroelectric Project (Project) related to dissolved oxygen, temperature, and measures of acidity or alkalinity of the water. DRA alleges the violations are related to PGE’s operation of the Selective Water Withdrawal (SWW) facility at the Project.

The SWW, located above Round Butte Dam, is, among other things, designed to blend water from the surface of the reservoir with water near the bottom of the reservoir and was constructed and placed into service in 2010, as part of the FERC license requirements for the purpose of restoration and enhancement of native salmon and steelhead fisheries above the Project. DRA has alleged that PGE’s operation of the SWW has caused the above-referenced violations of the CWA, which in turn have degraded the Deschutes River’s fish and wildlife habitat below the Project and harmed the economic and personal interests of DRA’s members and supporters.

In September 2016, PGE filed a motion to dismiss, which asserted that the CWA does not allow citizen suits of this nature, and that the FERC has jurisdiction over all licensing issues, including the alleged CWA violations. On March 27, 2017, the court denied PGE’s motion to dismiss. On April 6, 2017, PGE filed a motion with the District Court for certification to file an interlocutory appeal with the Ninth Circuit and for a stay of the District Court proceeding. The District Court granted PGE’s request on May 19, 2017, but the Ninth Circuit denied the appeal on August 14, 2017. On April 7, 2017, the District Court granted an unopposed motion filed by the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs (the Tribes) to appear in the case as a friend of the court. The Tribes share ownership of the Project with PGE, but have not been named as a defendant.

Following conferences and negotiations involving various parties, and with the expiration of the stay, the District Court Judge, on January 17, 2018, established a briefing schedule for summary judgment motions.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter, but believes that it has strong defenses to DRA’s claims and intends to defend against them. Because i) this matter involves novel issues of law and ii) the mechanism and costs for achieving the relief sought in DRA’s claims have not yet been determined, the Company cannot, at this time, determine the likelihood of whether the outcome of this matter will result in a material loss.

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, individually and in the aggregate, 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.