Contingencies (Notes)	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2020
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. 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 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 why the 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 either the current or the subsequent reporting period, depending on the nature of the underlying event. 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, would be shared among multiple defendants); or vii) a wide range of potential outcomes exist. In such cases, there may be considerable uncertainty regarding the timing or ultimate resolution, including any possible loss, fine, penalty, or business impact. 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. PGE has been included among more than one hundred Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) as it historically owned or operated property near the river. A Portland Harbor site remedial investigation was 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 in 2017. The ROD outlined the EPA’s selected remediation plan for clean-up of Portland Harbor, which has an undiscounted 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. 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. A small group of PRPs performed pre-remedial design sampling to update baseline data and submitted the data in an updated evaluation report to the EPA for review. The evaluation report concluded that the conditions of Portland Harbor have improved substantially over the past ten years. In response, the EPA indicated that while it would use the data to inform implementation of the ROD, the EPA’s conclusions remained materially unchanged. With the completion of pre-remedial design sampling, Portland Harbor is now in the remedial design phase, which consists of additional technical information and data collection to be used to design the expected remedial actions. Certain PRPs have entered into consent agreements, or are in good-faith discussion with the EPA, to perform remedial design, and if the EPA deems necessary, it has communicated it would issue Special Notice Letters to enforce action of remedial design. 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, including the remedial design process, data with regard to property specific activities, and history of ownership of sites within Portland Harbor that will inform the precise boundaries for clean-up, assignment of responsibility for clean-up costs, and whether the ROD will be implemented as issued. It is probable that PGE will share in a portion of the costs related to Portland Harbor. However, based on the above facts and remaining uncertainties, PGE does not currently have sufficient information to reasonably estimate the amount, or range, of its potential liability or determine an allocation percentage that would represent PGE’s portion of the liability to clean-up Portland Harbor, although such costs could be material to PGE’s financial position. In cases in which 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 (NRD). The EPA does not manage NRD assessment activities but does provide 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, the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, and the Nez Perce Tribe. 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 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. The impact of costs related to EPA and NRD liabilities on the Company’s results of operations is mitigated by the Portland Harbor Environmental Remediation Account mechanism (PHERA). As approved by the OPUC in 2017, the PHERA allows the Company to defer and recover incurred environmental expenditures related to Portland Harbor through a combination of third-party proceeds, such as insurance recoveries, and if necessary, through customer prices. The mechanism established annual prudency reviews of environmental expenditures and third-party proceeds. Annual expenditures in excess of $6 million, excluding expenses related to contingent liabilities, are subject to an annual earnings test and would be ineligible for recovery to the extent PGE’s actual regulated return on equity exceeds its return on equity as authorized by the OPUC in PGE’s most recent general rate case. PGE’s results of operations may be impacted to the extent such expenditures are deemed imprudent by the OPUC or ineligible per the prescribed earnings test. The Company plans to seek recovery of any costs resulting from EPA’s determination of liability for Portland Harbor through application of the PHERA. At this time, PGE is not recovering any Portland Harbor cost from the PHERA through customer prices. Trojan Investment Recovery Class Actions In 2003, in two separate proceedings, lawsuits were filed against PGE on behalf of two classes of electric service customers as a result of OPUC actions arising from PGE’s closure of the Trojan nuclear power plant in 1993: i) Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland General Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court (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 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court (OSC) issued a ruling ordering 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, including interest, which 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 2015, based on a motion filed by PGE, the Circuit Court lifted the abatement on the class action proceedings and heard oral argument on the Company’s motion for Summary Judgment. In 2016, the Circuit Court entered a general judgment that granted the Company’s motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed all claims by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the Circuit Court dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the state of Oregon. In November 2019, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion that affirmed the Circuit Court dismissal. In December 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied on February 4, 2020. On April 7, 2020 the Plaintiffs filed a petition with the OSC requesting review and reversal of the Court of Appeals opinion. On July 16, 2020, the OSC issued an order that denied the petition for review. Deschutes River Alliance Clean Water Act Claims In 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 sought injunctive and declaratory relief against PGE under the Clean Water Act (CWA) related to alleged past and continuing violations of the CWA. Specifically, DRA claimed PGE had 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 alleged the violations were 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 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 alleged that PGE’s operation of the SWW had caused the above-referenced violations of the CWA, which in turn had degraded the fish and wildlife habitat of the Deschutes River below the Project and harmed the economic and personal interests of DRA’s members and supporters. In March and April 2018, DRA and PGE filed cross-motions for summary judgment and PGE and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs (CTWS), which co-own the Project, filed separate motions to dismiss. CTWS initially appeared as a friend of the court, but subsequently was found to be a necessary party to the lawsuit and joined as a defendant. In August 2018, the U.S. District Court of the District of Oregon (District Court) denied DRA’s motions for partial summary judgment and granted PGE’s and CTWS’s cross-motions for summary judgment, ruling in favor of PGE and CTWS. The District Court found that DRA had not shown a genuine dispute of material fact sufficient to support its contention that PGE and CTWS were operating the Project in violation of the CWA, and accordingly dismissed the case. In October 2018, DRA filed an appeal, and PGE and the CTWS filed cross-appeals, to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In December 2019, the Court of Appeals closed the case and vacated the briefing schedule, pending ongoing discussions among the parties. On March 10, 2020, the Court of Appeals reopened the case and reset the briefing schedule, which now extends into November 2020. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter or determine the likelihood of whether the outcome 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.

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. 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 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 why the 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 either the current or the subsequent reporting period, depending on the nature of the underlying event.

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, would be shared among multiple defendants); or vii) a wide range of potential outcomes exist. In such cases, there may be considerable uncertainty regarding the timing or ultimate resolution, including any possible loss, fine, penalty, or business impact.

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. PGE has been included among more than one hundred Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) as it historically owned or operated property near the river.

A Portland Harbor site remedial investigation was 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 in 2017. The ROD outlined the EPA’s selected remediation plan for clean-up of Portland Harbor, which has an undiscounted 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. 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.

A small group of PRPs performed pre-remedial design sampling to update baseline data and submitted the data in an updated evaluation report to the EPA for review. The evaluation report concluded that the conditions of Portland Harbor have improved substantially over the past ten years. In response, the EPA indicated that while it would use the data to inform implementation of the ROD, the EPA’s conclusions remained materially unchanged. With the completion of pre-remedial design sampling, Portland Harbor is now in the remedial design phase, which consists of additional technical information and data collection to be used to design the expected remedial actions. Certain PRPs have entered into consent agreements, or are in good-faith discussion with the EPA, to perform remedial design, and if the EPA deems necessary, it has communicated it would issue Special Notice Letters to enforce action of remedial design.

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, including the remedial design process, data with regard to property specific activities, and history of ownership of sites within Portland Harbor that will inform the precise boundaries for clean-up, assignment of responsibility for clean-up costs, and whether the ROD will be implemented as issued. It is probable that PGE will share in a portion of the costs related to Portland Harbor. However, based on the above facts and remaining uncertainties, PGE does not currently have sufficient information to reasonably estimate the amount, or range, of its potential liability or determine an allocation percentage that would represent PGE’s portion of the liability to clean-up Portland Harbor, although such costs could be material to PGE’s financial position.

In cases in which 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 (NRD). The EPA does not manage NRD assessment activities but does provide 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, the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, and the Nez Perce Tribe.

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 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.

the PHERA allows the Company to defer and recover incurred environmental expenditures related to Portland Harbor through a combination of third-party proceeds, such as insurance recoveries, and if necessary, through customer prices. The mechanism established annual prudency reviews of environmental expenditures and third-party proceeds. Annual expenditures in excess of $6 million, excluding expenses related to contingent liabilities, are subject to an annual earnings test and would be ineligible for recovery to the extent PGE’s actual regulated return on equity exceeds its return on equity as authorized by the OPUC in PGE’s most recent general rate case. PGE’s results of operations may be impacted to the extent such expenditures are deemed imprudent by the OPUC or ineligible per the prescribed earnings test. The Company plans to seek recovery of any costs resulting from EPA’s determination of liability for Portland Harbor through application of the PHERA. At this time, PGE is not recovering any Portland Harbor cost from the PHERA through customer prices.

In 2003, in two separate proceedings, lawsuits were filed against PGE on behalf of two classes of electric service customers as a result of OPUC actions arising from PGE’s closure of the Trojan nuclear power plant in 1993: i) Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland General Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court (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 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court (OSC) issued a ruling ordering 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, including interest, which 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 2015, based on a motion filed by PGE, the Circuit Court lifted the abatement on the class action proceedings and heard oral argument on the Company’s motion for Summary Judgment. In 2016, the Circuit Court entered a general judgment that granted the Company’s motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed all claims by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the Circuit Court dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the state of Oregon.

In 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 sought injunctive and declaratory relief against PGE under the Clean Water Act (CWA) related to alleged past and continuing violations of the CWA. Specifically, DRA claimed PGE had 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 alleged the violations were 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 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 alleged that PGE’s operation of the SWW had caused the above-referenced violations of the CWA, which in turn had degraded the fish and wildlife habitat of the Deschutes River below the Project and harmed the economic and personal interests of DRA’s members and supporters.

In March and April 2018, DRA and PGE filed cross-motions for summary judgment and PGE and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs (CTWS), which co-own the Project, filed separate motions to dismiss. CTWS initially appeared as a friend of the court, but subsequently was found to be a necessary party to the lawsuit and joined as a defendant.

In August 2018, the U.S. District Court of the District of Oregon (District Court) denied DRA’s motions for partial summary judgment and granted PGE’s and CTWS’s cross-motions for summary judgment, ruling in favor of PGE and CTWS. The District Court found that DRA had not shown a genuine dispute of material fact sufficient to support its contention that PGE and CTWS were operating the Project in violation of the CWA, and accordingly dismissed the case.

In October 2018, DRA filed an appeal, and PGE and the CTWS filed cross-appeals, to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In December 2019, the Court of Appeals closed the case and vacated the briefing schedule, pending ongoing discussions among the parties. On March 10, 2020, the Court of Appeals reopened the case and reset the briefing schedule, which now extends into November 2020.

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.