Contingencies (Notes)	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
Contingencies [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 condensed 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 determined, then PGE: 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. PGE 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) significant facts are in dispute; vi) a large number of parties are represented (including circumstances in which it is uncertain how liability, if any, will be shared among multiple defendants); or vii) a wide range of potential outcomes exist. 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. PGE, the Contractor, Abengoa S.A., and the Sureties are hereinafter collectively referred to as the Parties. 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 completed construction. 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 June 30, 2018, PGE has capitalized $640 million to Electric utility plant. The excess 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 Contractor, determining the remaining scope of construction, preparing work plans for contractors, identifying new contractors, negotiating contracts, resolving claims and removing certain liens filed on the property for goods and services provided under contracts with the Contractor, and procuring additional materials. The Company sought recovery of excess 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 denied liability in whole under the Performance Bond, and the Contractor filed claims against the Company alleging wrongful termination of contract and related damages. Various actions relating to this matter were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and in the International Chamber of Commerce’s Court of Arbitration. As a result of the foregoing events, PGE has incurred a higher cost of service than what is reflected in the current authorized revenue requirement amount, primarily due to higher depreciation, interest, and legal expenses. 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. Such incremental expenses were $4 million and $7 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2018, respectively, and $3 million and $7 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2017, respectively. The excess costs recorded to date exclude liens and claims filed for goods and services provided under contracts with the Contractor that remain in dispute of up to $5 million. The Company believes these claims by subcontractors are not owed by the Company and is contesting the liens and claims in the courts. Subsequent to June 30, 2018, on July 16, 2018, the Parties reached a settlement to resolve all claims relating to Carty construction between the Company and each of the Contractor, Abengoa S.A., and the Sureties. Under the terms of the settlement, i) the Sureties will pay $130 million to PGE, and ii) the Contractor, Abengoa S.A., and the Sureties will release all claims against the Company arising out of the Carty construction, and in return, PGE will release all such claims against the Contractor, Abengoa S.A., and the Sureties. The settlement will be treated as a subsequent event that will be recorded in PGE’s financial statements for the third quarter ending September 30, 2018. PGE is in the process of assessing the impact of the settlement to its financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. The Company anticipates that the proceeds will fully offset the incremental construction costs, thus eliminating ongoing excess depreciation and amortization, interest expense, and partially offsetting the Company’s other accumulated damages. In July 2016, PGE requested from the OPUC a regulatory deferral for the recovery of the revenue requirement associated with the excess 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 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. As a result of the settlement described above, the Company plans to withdraw the deferral application. EPA Investigation of Portland Harbor An investigation by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of a segment of the Willamette River known as Portland Harbor that began in 1997 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 original PRPs as it 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. The EPA then 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 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 outlined the EPA’s selected remediation plan for clean-up of the Portland Harbor site, which had 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 were 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 acknowledged the estimated costs were based on data that was outdated and that pre-remedial design sampling was 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 was estimated to be completed in two years. PGE is not among the four PRPs performing this sampling. PGE continues to participate 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. In cases in which injuries to natural resources have occurred as a result of releases of hazardous substances, federal and state trustees may seek to recover for such damages, which are referred to as Natural Resource Damages (NRD). As it relates to Portland Harbor, PGE continues to participate in the NRD assessment process. The EPA does not manage NRD assessment activities but provides claims information and coordination support to the NRD trustees. NRD assessment activities are typically conducted by a Council made up of the trustee entities for the site. The Portland Harbor NRD trustees consist of 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 NRD liability with several PRPs, including PGE. The Company believes that PGE’s portion of NRD liabilities related to Portland Harbor will not have a material impact on its results of operations, financial position, or cash flows. Significant uncertainties 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 NRD, 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 Portland Harbor, 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 2016, the Company filed an application with the OPUC seeking the deferral of future environmental remediation costs as well as seeking authorization to establish a regulatory cost recovery mechanism for such environmental costs. In the first quarter of 2017, the OPUC approved the deferral request and a mechanism that will allow the Company to defer and recover incurred environmental expenditures through a combination of third-party proceeds, such as insurance recoveries, and 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: i) Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland General Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court; and ii) 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 refunds were completed in 2010. Following appeals, the 2008 Order was upheld by the Oregon Court of Appeals in 2013 and by the OSC in 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, 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. In April 2016, the plaintiffs appealed the Circuit Court dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the State of Oregon. A Court of Appeals decision remains pending. PGE believes that the 2014 OSC decision and the Circuit Court decisions that followed have reduced the risk of any loss to the Company beyond 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) that 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 on the Deschutes River in central Oregon, 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 7, 2017, the U.S. District Court granted an unopposed motion filed by the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs (CTWS) to appear in the case as a friend of the court. The CTWS shares ownership of the Project with PGE, but was not initially named as a defendant. Following conferences and negotiations involving various parties, the District Court Judge (Judge), on January 17, 2018, established a briefing schedule for summary judgment motions and scheduled a bench trial to start December 3, 2018. In March and April 2018, DRA and PGE filed cross-motions for summary judgment and PGE and the CTWS filed separate motions to dismiss. At a hearing on May 9, 2018, the Judge requested that PGE file an alternative motion to dismiss, which the Company and the CTWS filed on May 16, 2018. On June 11, 2018, the court denied the motions to dismiss filed in March 2018 and held that the CTWS was a necessary party to the lawsuit. DRA thereafter joined the CTWS as a defendant. At a hearing on July 17, 2018, the Judge heard and took under advisement the cross-motions for summary judgment and the motions to dismiss filed by PGE and the CTWS on May 16, 2018. The Judge also struck all future calendar dates, including the trial date. 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 that 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.

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 condensed 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 determined, then PGE: 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.

PGE 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) significant facts are in dispute; vi) a large number of parties are represented (including circumstances in which it is uncertain how liability, if any, will be shared among multiple defendants); or vii) a wide range of potential outcomes exist. 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. PGE, the Contractor, Abengoa S.A., and the Sureties are hereinafter collectively referred to as the Parties.

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 completed construction.

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 June 30, 2018, PGE has capitalized $640 million to Electric utility plant.

The excess 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 Contractor, determining the remaining scope of construction, preparing work plans for contractors, identifying new contractors, negotiating contracts, resolving claims and removing certain liens filed on the property for goods and services provided under contracts with the Contractor, and procuring additional materials.

The Company sought recovery of excess 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 denied liability in whole under the Performance Bond, and the Contractor filed claims against the Company alleging wrongful termination of contract and related damages.

Various actions relating to this matter were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and in the International Chamber of Commerce’s Court of Arbitration.

As a result of the foregoing events, PGE has incurred a higher cost of service than what is reflected in the current authorized revenue requirement amount, primarily due to higher depreciation, interest, and legal expenses. 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. Such incremental expenses were $4 million and $7 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2018, respectively, and $3 million and $7 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2017, respectively.

The excess costs recorded to date exclude liens and claims filed for goods and services provided under contracts with the Contractor that remain in dispute of up to $5 million. The Company believes these claims by subcontractors are not owed by the Company and is contesting the liens and claims in the courts.

Subsequent to June 30, 2018, on July 16, 2018, the Parties reached a settlement to resolve all claims relating to Carty construction between the Company and each of the Contractor, Abengoa S.A., and the Sureties. Under the terms of the settlement, i) the Sureties will pay $130 million to PGE, and ii) the Contractor, Abengoa S.A., and the Sureties will release all claims against the Company arising out of the Carty construction, and in return, PGE will release all such claims against the Contractor, Abengoa S.A., and the Sureties.

The settlement will be treated as a subsequent event that will be recorded in PGE’s financial statements for the third quarter ending September 30, 2018. PGE is in the process of assessing the impact of the settlement to its financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. The Company anticipates that the proceeds will fully offset the incremental construction costs, thus eliminating ongoing excess depreciation and amortization, interest expense, and partially offsetting the Company’s other accumulated damages.

In July 2016, PGE requested from the OPUC a regulatory deferral for the recovery of the revenue requirement associated with the excess 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 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. As a result of the settlement described above, the Company plans to withdraw the deferral application.

EPA Investigation of Portland Harbor

An investigation by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of a segment of the Willamette River known as Portland Harbor that began in 1997 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 original PRPs as it 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. The EPA then 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 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 outlined the EPA’s selected remediation plan for clean-up of the Portland Harbor site, which had 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 were 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 acknowledged the estimated costs were based on data that was outdated and that pre-remedial design sampling was 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 was estimated to be completed in two years. PGE is not among the four PRPs performing this sampling.

PGE continues to participate 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.

In cases in which injuries to natural resources have occurred as a result of releases of hazardous substances, federal and state trustees may seek to recover for such damages, which are referred to as Natural Resource Damages (NRD). As it relates to Portland Harbor, PGE continues to participate in the NRD assessment process. The EPA does not manage NRD assessment activities but provides claims information and coordination support to the NRD trustees. NRD assessment activities are typically conducted by a Council made up of the trustee entities for the site. The Portland Harbor NRD trustees consist of 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 NRD liability with several PRPs, including PGE. The Company believes that PGE’s portion of NRD liabilities related to Portland Harbor will not have a material impact on its results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

Significant uncertainties 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 NRD, 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 Portland Harbor, 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 2016, the Company filed an application with the OPUC seeking the deferral of future environmental remediation costs as well as seeking authorization to establish a regulatory cost recovery mechanism for such environmental costs. In the first quarter of 2017, the OPUC approved the deferral request and a mechanism that will allow the Company to defer and recover incurred environmental expenditures through a combination of third-party proceeds, such as insurance recoveries, and 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: i) Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland General Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court; and ii) 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 refunds were completed in 2010. Following appeals, the 2008 Order was upheld by the Oregon Court of Appeals in 2013 and by the OSC in 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, 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. In April 2016, the plaintiffs appealed the Circuit Court dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the State of Oregon. A Court of Appeals decision remains pending.

PGE believes that the 2014 OSC decision and the Circuit Court decisions that followed have reduced the risk of any loss to the Company beyond 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) that 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 on the Deschutes River in central Oregon, 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 7, 2017, the U.S. District Court granted an unopposed motion filed by the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs (CTWS) to appear in the case as a friend of the court. The CTWS shares ownership of the Project with PGE, but was not initially named as a defendant.

Following conferences and negotiations involving various parties, the District Court Judge (Judge), on January 17, 2018, established a briefing schedule for summary judgment motions and scheduled a bench trial to start December 3, 2018. In March and April 2018, DRA and PGE filed cross-motions for summary judgment and PGE and the CTWS filed separate motions to dismiss. At a hearing on May 9, 2018, the Judge requested that PGE file an alternative motion to dismiss, which the Company and the CTWS filed on May 16, 2018. On June 11, 2018, the court denied the motions to dismiss filed in March 2018 and held that the CTWS was a necessary party to the lawsuit. DRA thereafter joined the CTWS as a defendant. At a hearing on July 17, 2018, the Judge heard and took under advisement the cross-motions for summary judgment and the motions to dismiss filed by PGE and the CTWS on May 16, 2018. The Judge also struck all future calendar dates, including the trial date.

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 that 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.