Contingencies (Notes)	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2022
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 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. Stakeholders have raised concerns that EPA’s cost estimates are understated, and PGE estimates undiscounted total remediation costs for Portland Harbor per the ROD could range from $1.9 billion to $3.5 billion. 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 had improved substantially with the passage of time. 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, not including PGE, have entered into consent agreements to perform remedial design and the EPA has indicated it will take the initial lead to perform remedial design on the remaining areas. The Company anticipates that remedial design 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 announced on February 12, 2021 that the entirety of Portland Harbor is under an active engineering design phase. 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 conclusion of remedial design, a final allocation methodology, and 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. It is probable that PGE will share in a portion of the costs related to Portland Harbor. Based on the above facts and remaining uncertainties in the voluntary allocation process, 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. However, the Company may obtain sufficient information, prior to the final determination of allocation percentages among PRPs, to develop a reasonable estimate, or range, of its potential liability that would require recording of the estimate, or low end of the range. The Company’s liability related to the cost of remediating Portland Harbor 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 (CTWS), 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 (PHERA) mechanism. As approved by the OPUC in 2017, the PHERA allows the Company to defer and recover incurred estimated liabilities and environmental expenditures related to Portland Harbor through a combination of third-party proceeds, including but not limited to 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 collecting any Portland Harbor cost from the PHERA through customer prices. Securities Case During September and October, 2020, three putative class action complaints were filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against PGE and certain of its officers, captioned Hessel v. Portland General Electric Co., No. 20-cv-01523 (“Hessel”), Cannataro v. Portland General Electric Co., No. 3:20-cv-01583 (“Cannataro”), and Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi v. Portland General Electric Co., No. 20-cv-01786 (“PERS of Mississippi”). Two of these actions were filed on behalf of purported purchasers of PGE stock between April 24, 2020, and August 24, 2020; a third action was filed on behalf of purported purchasers of PGE stock between February 13, 2020, and August 24, 2020. During the fourth quarter of 2020, the plaintiff in Hessel voluntarily dismissed his case and the Court consolidated Cannataro and PERS of Mississippi into a single case captioned In re Portland General Electric Company Securities Litigation (the “Securities Action”) and appointed Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi lead plaintiff (“Lead Plaintiff”). On January 11, 2021, Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting causes of action arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for alleged misstatements and omissions regarding, among other things, PGE’s alleged lack of sufficient internal controls and risks associated with PGE's trading activity in wholesale electric markets, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of PGE stock between February 13, 2020, and August 24, 2020 (“the Amended Complaint”). The Amended Complaint demands a jury trial and seeks compensatory damages of an unspecified amount and reimbursement of plaintiffs’ costs, and attorneys’ and expert fees. On March 12, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On July 11, 2021, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Agreement") to fully resolve the Securities Action. The Agreement, which is subject to Court approval, provides for a settlement payment of $6.75 million in exchange for the complete dismissal with prejudice and a release of all claims against the defendants in connection with the Securities Action, without any admission of fault or wrongdoing by the defendants. On July 16, 2021, the Lead Plaintiff filed an application for Court approval of the settlement. In an order dated August 10, 2021, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, stayed all proceedings in the action except with respect to settlement, and scheduled a final settlement approval hearing for March 11, 2022. The settlement payment was paid by the Company’s insurance provider under its insurance policy. In light of the Agreement, the Court removed the hearing on the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss from the calendar. At the hearing on March 11, 2022, the Court approved the settlement, with an opinion to follow; on March 22, 2022, the Court entered an Opinion and Order Approving Settlement, Attorney’s Fees, and Expenses; and on March 28, 2022, the Court entered a final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice. Putative Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits On January 26, 2021, a putative shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court, Oregon, captioned Shimberg v. Pope, No. 21- cv-02957, (the “Shimberg Action”) against one current and one former PGE executive and certain members and former members of the Company's Board of Directors and naming the Company as a nominal defendant only. The plaintiff asserts a claim for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, purportedly on behalf of PGE, arising from the energy trading losses the Company previously announced in August 2020. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made material misstatements and omissions and allowed the Company to operate with inadequate internal controls. The complaint demands a jury trial and seeks damages to be awarded to the Company of not less than $10 million, equitable relief to remedy the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, and an award of plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs. On June 1, 2021, the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to consolidate this lawsuit with the Ashabraner Action (described below), which the Court granted in an order dated July 27, 2021. On March 17, 2021, a putative shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, captioned JS Halberstam Irrevocable Grantor Trust v. Davis, No. 3:21-cv-00413-SI, (the “JS Halberstam Action”) against one current and one former PGE executive and certain current and former members of the Company's Board of Directors. The plaintiff asserts claims for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, contribution and indemnification, aiding and abetting, and gross mismanagement, purportedly on behalf of PGE, arising from the energy trading losses the Company previously announced in August 2020. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made material misstatements and omissions and allowed the Company to operate with inadequate internal controls. The complaint demands a jury trial and seeks equitable relief to remedy and prevent future alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, and an award of plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 7, 2021, a putative shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court, Oregon, captioned, Ashabraner v. Pope, 21-cv-13698 (the “Ashabraner Action”), against one current and one former PGE executive and certain and former members of the Company's Board of Directors. The plaintiff asserts a claim for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, purportedly on behalf of PGE, arising from the energy trading losses the Company previously announced in August 2020. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made material misstatements and omissions and allowed the Company to operate with inadequate internal controls. The complaint demands a jury trial and seeks damages to be awarded to the Company, equitable relief, and an award of plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs. On July 27, 2021, the Court issued an order consolidating the Ashabraner Action with the Shimberg Action. On May 21, 2021, a putative shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division captioned Berning v. Pope, No. 3:21-cv-00783-SI, (the “Berning Action”; collectively with the Shimberg, JS Halberstam, and Ashabraner Actions, the “Derivative Actions”), against one current and one former PGE executive and certain current and former members of the Company's Board of Directors and naming the Company as a nominal defendant only. The plaintiff asserts claims for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, purportedly on behalf of PGE, arising from the energy trading losses the Company previously announced in August 2020. The plaintiff also asserts a claim against the two executives for contribution and indemnity based on alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. The complaint demands a jury trial and seeks multiple forms of relief, including, among other things: a declaration that defendants breached and/or aided and abetted the breach of their fiduciary duties to PGE; an order directing PGE to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures; restitution; and an award of attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs. On December 17, 2021, the parties to the Derivative Actions entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle the Derivative Actions subject to court approval and other terms (the "MOU"). After the parties entered into the MOU, the Court in the Shimberg and Ashabraner Actions granted an order to abate the proceedings until June 21, 2022. On December 17, 2021, the parties in the JS Halberstam Action filed a motion to stay the proceedings pending submission and court review of the settlement contemplated in the MOU. On February 11, 2022, the parties to the Derivative Actions entered into a Stipulation of Settlement memorializing the terms of the non-monetary settlement, subject to Court approval, as set forth in the MOU. Under the Stipulation of Settlement, the parties to the JS Halberstam Action agree to stay the proceedings in the Derivative Actions pending Court approval of the settlement. In addition, the Stipulation of Settlement provides that defendants will not oppose or object to a request by plaintiffs’ counsel for fees and expenses up to $750,000, which is subject to Court approval. Upon final approval of the Court, PGE expects such fees and expenses to be paid by the Company’s insurance provider under its insurance policy. On February 15, 2022, the plaintiff in the JS Halberstam Action filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On March 28, 2022, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and the form and content of the notice to shareholders and setting a final hearing for May 9, 2022, in the JS Halberstam Action. On April 18, 2022, the plaintiff in the JS Halberstam Action filed a motion for final approval of the settlement and fee and expense award. Under the current schedule, that motion will be fully briefed on May 2, 2022. The settlement remains subject to final Court approval. Governmental Investigations In March, April and May 2021, the Division of Enforcement of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the "CFTC"), the Division of Enforcement of the SEC, and the Division of Enforcement of the FERC, respectively, informed the Company they are conducting investigations arising out of the energy trading losses the Company previously announced in August 2020. The Company is cooperating with the CFTC, SEC, and FERC. Management cannot at this time predict the eventual scope or outcome of these matters. Colstrip Litigation The Company has a 20% ownership interest in the Colstrip Units 3 and 4 coal-fired generating plant (Colstrip), which is operated by one of the co-owners, Talen Montana, LLC (Talen). Various business disagreements have arisen amongst the co-owners regarding interpretation of the Ownership and Operation (O&O) Agreement and other matters. In addition, other parties have brought claims against the co-owners, which, along with the co-owner disagreements, are described below. Petition to compel arbitration—On April 12, 2021, Avista Corporation, Puget Sound Energy Inc., PacifiCorp, and Portland General Electric Company (the Petitioners) petitioned in Spokane County Superior Court, Washington, Case No. 21201000-32, against NorthWestern Corporation (Northwestern) and Talen to compel the arbitration initiated by NorthWestern to determine whether owners representing 55% or more of the ownership shares can vote to close one or both units of Colstrip, or whether unanimous consent is required. The O&O Agreement among the parties states that any dispute shall be submitted for resolution to a single arbitrator with appropriate expertise. On April 14, 2021, the Petitioners filed a petition to compel arbitration. On May 14, 2021, Talen removed the case to Federal Court (Eastern District of Washington Case No. 2:21-cv-00163-RMP). Petitioners filed a motion to remand on June 4, 2021, which was denied. Talen filed a motion, which, following a hearing in July 2021, was granted, to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. Challenge to constitutionality of Montana Senate Bills 265 and 266 (SB 265 and SB 266)—On May 4, 2021, the Petitioners filed a claim against NorthWestern and Talen in U.S. District Court - Montana, Billings Division, Case No. 1:21-cv-00047-SPW-KLD, based on the passage of SB 265 in Montana, which attempts to void contractual provisions within the co-owner agreement for Colstrip if they do not provide for three arbitrators or provide for venue outside of the county where the plant is located. The passage of SB 265 was supported by Defendants and purports to void the O&O Agreement between all parties, which provides for one arbitrator and venue in Spokane, Washington. The petitioners allege that SB 265 violates the contracts clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Montana Constitution, and is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The Petitioners seek declaratory relief that SB 265 is unconstitutional as applied to the O&O Agreement and the FAA preempts the enforcement of SB 265. Petitioners filed a First Amended Complaint on May 19, 2021, adding the Attorney General of Montana (Montana AG) as defendant and challenging the constitutionality of Montana Senate Bill 266 (SB 266), which purportedly gives the Montana AG authority to penalize and restrain any co-owner of Colstrip who takes steps to shut-down the plant without unanimous consent, or otherwise fails to pay the costs to maintain the plant. Defendant Northwestern filed an answer on June 2, 2021 and asked that the case Talen filed, as described in the “Complaint to implement SB 265 and SB 266” below, and this case be consolidated. On May 27, 2021, Petitioners filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, to enjoin the Montana AG from enforcing SB 266 against them. On June 17, 2021, defendants NorthWestern and Talen filed their Oppositions to Motion for Preliminary Injunction (PI) and the Montana AG filed a response taking no position on the PI, stating the State of Montana does not envision enforcing SB 266 any time soon. The Court held a hearing on the Petitioners’ Motion for PI August 6, 2021. On October 13, 2021, the Court issued an order that granted the Petitioners’ Motion for PI, enjoining the Montana AG from enforcing SB 266 against them and on December 17. 2021, the Court further clarified its PI order. On August 17, 2021, the Petitioners filed for partial summary judgment on their claim to declare unconstitutional or unenforceable SB 265, which purports to invalidate the arbitration provision of the parties’ contract. Talen opposes the motion and Northwestern does not oppose the motion, but requests the Court compel arbitration. On October 29, 2021, the Petitioners filed a motion for summary judgment on their claim to declare unconstitutional and unenforceable SB 266. In November 2021, parties filed responses, opposition, and a motion to stay action on the summary judgment. On December 3, 2021, NorthWestern moved to compel arbitration and to appoint a magistrate to oversee the arbitrator selection process. On December 23, 2021, Petitioners and Talen filed their responses. The Court has scheduled a hearing for April 26, 2022. Complaint to implement SB 265 and SB 266—On May 4, 2021, Talen filed a complaint against the Petitioners and NorthWestern, in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court in the State of Montana, as an attempt to implement Montana laws when determining the language of the O&O agreement based on the recent enactment of SB 265, which purports to invalidate provisions of the co-owner operating agreement regarding arbitration, and SB 266, which purports to give the Montana AG authority to prosecute and levy a $100,000 a day fine against any co-owner who takes steps to close Colstrip without unanimous consent of all co-owners. The case was subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court - Montana, Billings Division, Case No. 1:21-cv-00058-SPW-TJC. Talen filed a motion to remand the case to the State of Montana District Court. Petitioners and NorthWestern have filed a motion to consolidate this case with the Challenge to constitutionality of Montana Senate Bills 265 and 266, described above. On October 21, 2022, the Court stayed the motion to consolidate pending the outcome of Talen’s petition to remand. On December 1, 2021, the U.S. Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations to remand the case back to state Court. On December 15, 2021, the Petitioners filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. Richard Burnett; Colstrip Properties Inc., et al v. Talen Montana, LLC; PGE, et al. On December 14, 2020, the original claim was filed in the Montana Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Rosebud County, Cause No. CV-20-58. The plaintiffs allege they have suffered adverse effects from the defendants coal dust. On August 26, 2021, the claim was amended to add PGE as a defendant. On November 1, 2021, the defendants filed an answer to the complaint. Plaintiffs are seeking economic damages, costs and disbursements, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and an injunction prohibiting defendants from allowing coal dust to blow onto plaintiffs’ properties, as determined by the Court. The Court set a trial to begin September 26, 2023. Since these lawsuits are in early stages, the Company is unable to predict outcomes or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses. 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 known 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. 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 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. Stakeholders have raised concerns that EPA’s cost estimates are understated, and PGE estimates undiscounted total remediation costs for Portland Harbor per the ROD could range from $1.9 billion to $3.5 billion. 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 had improved substantially with the passage of time. 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, not including PGE, have entered into consent agreements to perform remedial design and the EPA has indicated it will take the initial lead to perform remedial design on the remaining areas. The Company anticipates that remedial design 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 announced on February 12, 2021 that the entirety of Portland Harbor is under an active engineering design phase.

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 conclusion of remedial design, a final allocation methodology, and 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. It is probable that PGE will share in a portion of the costs related to Portland Harbor. Based on the above facts and remaining uncertainties in the voluntary allocation process, 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. However, the Company may obtain sufficient information, prior to the final determination of allocation percentages among PRPs, to develop a reasonable estimate, or range, of its potential liability that would require recording of the estimate, or low end of the range. The Company’s liability related to the cost of remediating Portland Harbor 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 (CTWS), 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 (PHERA) mechanism. As approved by the OPUC in 2017, the PHERA allows the Company to defer and recover incurred estimated liabilities and environmental expenditures related to Portland Harbor through a combination of third-party proceeds, including but not limited to 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 collecting any Portland Harbor cost from the PHERA through customer prices.

During September and October, 2020, three putative class action complaints were filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against PGE and certain of its officers, captioned Hessel v. Portland General Electric Co., No. 20-cv-01523 (“Hessel”), Cannataro v. Portland General Electric Co., No. 3:20-cv-01583 (“Cannataro”), and Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi v. Portland General Electric Co., No. 20-cv-01786 (“PERS of Mississippi”). Two of these actions were filed on behalf of purported purchasers of PGE stock between April 24, 2020, and August 24, 2020; a third action was filed on behalf of purported purchasers of PGE stock between February 13, 2020, and August 24, 2020.

During the fourth quarter of 2020, the plaintiff in Hessel voluntarily dismissed his case and the Court consolidated Cannataro and PERS of Mississippi into a single case captioned In re Portland General Electric Company Securities Litigation (the “Securities Action”) and appointed Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi lead plaintiff (“Lead Plaintiff”). On January 11, 2021, Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting causes of action arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for alleged misstatements and omissions regarding, among other things, PGE’s alleged lack of sufficient internal controls and risks associated with PGE's trading activity in wholesale electric markets, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of PGE stock between February 13, 2020, and August 24, 2020 (“the Amended Complaint”). The Amended Complaint demands a jury trial and seeks compensatory damages of an unspecified amount and reimbursement of plaintiffs’ costs, and attorneys’ and expert fees. On March 12, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

On July 11, 2021, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Agreement") to fully resolve the Securities Action. The Agreement, which is subject to Court approval, provides for a settlement payment of $6.75 million in exchange for the complete dismissal with prejudice and a release of all claims against the defendants in connection with the Securities Action, without any admission of fault or wrongdoing by the defendants. On July 16, 2021, the Lead Plaintiff filed an application for Court approval of the settlement. In an order dated August 10, 2021, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, stayed all proceedings in the action except with respect to settlement, and scheduled a final settlement approval hearing for March 11, 2022. The settlement payment was paid by the Company’s insurance provider under its insurance policy. In light of the Agreement, the Court removed the hearing on the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss from the calendar. At the hearing on March 11, 2022, the Court approved the settlement, with an opinion to follow; on March 22, 2022, the Court entered an Opinion and Order Approving Settlement, Attorney’s Fees, and Expenses; and on March 28, 2022, the Court entered a final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice.

On January 26, 2021, a putative shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court, Oregon, captioned Shimberg v. Pope, No. 21- cv-02957, (the “Shimberg Action”) against one current and one former PGE executive and certain members and former members of the Company's Board of Directors and naming the Company as a nominal defendant only. The plaintiff asserts a claim for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, purportedly on behalf of PGE, arising from the energy trading losses the Company previously announced in August 2020. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made material misstatements and omissions and allowed the Company to operate with inadequate internal controls. The complaint demands a jury trial and seeks damages to be awarded to the Company of not less than $10 million, equitable relief to remedy the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, and an award of plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs. On June 1, 2021, the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to consolidate this lawsuit with the Ashabraner Action (described below), which the Court granted in an order dated July 27, 2021.

On March 17, 2021, a putative shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, captioned JS Halberstam Irrevocable Grantor Trust v. Davis, No. 3:21-cv-00413-SI, (the “JS Halberstam Action”) against one current and one former PGE executive and certain current and former members of the Company's Board of Directors. The plaintiff asserts claims for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, contribution and indemnification, aiding and abetting, and gross mismanagement, purportedly on behalf of PGE, arising from the energy trading losses the Company previously announced in August 2020. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made material misstatements and omissions and allowed the Company to operate with inadequate internal controls. The complaint demands a jury trial and seeks equitable relief to remedy and prevent future alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, and an award of plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs.

On April 7, 2021, a putative shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court, Oregon, captioned, Ashabraner v. Pope, 21-cv-13698 (the “Ashabraner Action”), against one current and one former PGE executive and certain and former members of the Company's Board of Directors. The plaintiff asserts a claim for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, purportedly on behalf of PGE, arising from the energy trading losses the Company previously announced in August 2020. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made material misstatements and omissions and allowed the Company to operate with inadequate internal controls. The complaint demands a jury trial and seeks damages to be awarded to the Company, equitable relief, and an award of plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs. On July 27, 2021, the Court issued an order consolidating the Ashabraner Action with the Shimberg Action.

On May 21, 2021, a putative shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division captioned Berning v. Pope, No. 3:21-cv-00783-SI, (the “Berning Action”; collectively with the Shimberg, JS Halberstam, and Ashabraner Actions, the “Derivative Actions”), against one current and one former PGE executive and certain current and former members of the Company's Board of Directors and naming the Company as a nominal defendant only. The plaintiff asserts claims for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, purportedly on behalf of PGE, arising from the energy trading losses the Company previously announced in August 2020. The plaintiff also asserts a claim against the two executives for contribution and indemnity based on alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. The complaint demands a jury trial and seeks multiple forms of relief, including, among other things: a declaration that defendants breached and/or aided and abetted the breach of their fiduciary duties to PGE; an order directing PGE to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures; restitution; and an award of attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs.

On December 17, 2021, the parties to the Derivative Actions entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle the Derivative Actions subject to court approval and other terms (the "MOU"). After the parties entered into the MOU, the Court in the Shimberg and Ashabraner Actions granted an order to abate the proceedings until June 21, 2022. On December 17, 2021, the parties in the JS Halberstam Action filed a motion to stay the proceedings pending submission and court review of the settlement contemplated in the MOU.

On February 11, 2022, the parties to the Derivative Actions entered into a Stipulation of Settlement memorializing the terms of the non-monetary settlement, subject to Court approval, as set forth in the MOU. Under the Stipulation of Settlement, the parties to the JS Halberstam Action agree to stay the proceedings in the Derivative Actions pending Court approval of the settlement. In addition, the Stipulation of Settlement provides that defendants will not oppose or object to a request by plaintiffs’ counsel for fees and expenses up to $750,000, which is subject to Court approval. Upon final approval of the Court, PGE expects such fees and expenses to be paid by the Company’s insurance provider under its insurance policy. On February 15, 2022, the plaintiff in the JS Halberstam Action filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.

9, 2022, in the JS Halberstam Action. On April 18, 2022, the plaintiff in the JS Halberstam Action filed a motion for final approval of the settlement and fee and expense award. Under the current schedule, that motion will be fully briefed on May 2, 2022. The settlement remains subject to final Court approval.

In March, April and May 2021, the Division of Enforcement of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the "CFTC"), the Division of Enforcement of the SEC, and the Division of Enforcement of the FERC, respectively, informed the Company they are conducting investigations arising out of the energy trading losses the Company previously announced in August 2020. The Company is cooperating with the CFTC, SEC, and FERC. Management cannot at this time predict the eventual scope or outcome of these matters.

The Company has a 20% ownership interest in the Colstrip Units 3 and 4 coal-fired generating plant (Colstrip), which is operated by one of the co-owners, Talen Montana, LLC (Talen). Various business disagreements have arisen amongst the co-owners regarding interpretation of the Ownership and Operation (O&O) Agreement and other matters. In addition, other parties have brought claims against the co-owners, which, along with the co-owner disagreements, are described below.

Petition to compel arbitration—On April 12, 2021, Avista Corporation, Puget Sound Energy Inc., PacifiCorp, and Portland General Electric Company (the Petitioners) petitioned in Spokane County Superior Court, Washington, Case No. 21201000-32, against NorthWestern Corporation (Northwestern) and Talen to compel the arbitration initiated by NorthWestern to determine whether owners representing 55% or more of the ownership shares can vote to close one or both units of Colstrip, or whether unanimous consent is required. The O&O Agreement among the parties states that any dispute shall be submitted for resolution to a single arbitrator with appropriate expertise. On April 14, 2021, the Petitioners filed a petition to compel arbitration. On May 14, 2021, Talen removed the case to Federal Court (Eastern District of Washington Case No. 2:21-cv-00163-RMP). Petitioners filed a motion to remand on June 4, 2021, which was denied. Talen filed a motion, which, following a hearing in July 2021, was granted, to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana.

Challenge to constitutionality of Montana Senate Bills 265 and 266 (SB 265 and SB 266)—On May 4, 2021, the Petitioners filed a claim against NorthWestern and Talen in U.S. District Court - Montana, Billings Division, Case No. 1:21-cv-00047-SPW-KLD, based on the passage of SB 265 in Montana, which attempts to void contractual provisions within the co-owner agreement for Colstrip if they do not provide for three arbitrators or provide for venue outside of the county where the plant is located. The passage of SB 265 was supported by Defendants and purports to void the O&O Agreement between all parties, which provides for one arbitrator and venue in Spokane, Washington. The petitioners allege that SB 265 violates the contracts clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Montana Constitution, and is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The Petitioners seek declaratory relief that SB 265 is unconstitutional as applied to the O&O Agreement and the FAA preempts the enforcement of SB 265.

Petitioners filed a First Amended Complaint on May 19, 2021, adding the Attorney General of Montana (Montana AG) as defendant and challenging the constitutionality of Montana Senate Bill 266 (SB 266), which purportedly gives the Montana AG authority to penalize and restrain any co-owner of Colstrip who takes steps to shut-down the plant without unanimous consent, or otherwise fails to pay the costs to maintain the plant. Defendant Northwestern filed an answer on June 2, 2021 and asked that the case Talen filed, as described in the “Complaint to implement SB 265 and SB 266” below, and this case be consolidated. On May 27, 2021, Petitioners filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, to enjoin the Montana AG from enforcing SB 266 against them. On June 17, 2021, defendants

NorthWestern and Talen filed their Oppositions to Motion for Preliminary Injunction (PI) and the Montana AG filed a response taking no position on the PI, stating the State of Montana does not envision enforcing SB 266 any time soon. The Court held a hearing on the Petitioners’ Motion for PI August 6, 2021. On October 13, 2021, the Court issued an order that granted the Petitioners’ Motion for PI, enjoining the Montana AG from enforcing SB 266 against them and on December 17. 2021, the Court further clarified its PI order.

On August 17, 2021, the Petitioners filed for partial summary judgment on their claim to declare unconstitutional or unenforceable SB 265, which purports to invalidate the arbitration provision of the parties’ contract. Talen opposes the motion and Northwestern does not oppose the motion, but requests the Court compel arbitration. On October 29, 2021, the Petitioners filed a motion for summary judgment on their claim to declare unconstitutional and unenforceable SB 266. In November 2021, parties filed responses, opposition, and a motion to stay action on the summary judgment. On December 3, 2021, NorthWestern moved to compel arbitration and to appoint a magistrate to oversee the arbitrator selection process. On December 23, 2021, Petitioners and Talen filed their responses. The Court has scheduled a hearing for April 26, 2022.

Complaint to implement SB 265 and SB 266—On May 4, 2021, Talen filed a complaint against the Petitioners and NorthWestern, in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court in the State of Montana, as an attempt to implement Montana laws when determining the language of the O&O agreement based on the recent enactment of SB 265, which purports to invalidate provisions of the co-owner operating agreement regarding arbitration, and SB 266, which purports to give the Montana AG authority to prosecute and levy a $100,000 a day fine against any co-owner who takes steps to close Colstrip without unanimous consent of all co-owners. The case was subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court - Montana, Billings Division, Case No. 1:21-cv-00058-SPW-TJC. Talen filed a motion to remand the case to the State of Montana District Court. Petitioners and NorthWestern have filed a motion to consolidate this case with the Challenge to constitutionality of Montana Senate Bills 265 and 266, described above. On October 21, 2022, the Court stayed the motion to consolidate pending the outcome of Talen’s petition to remand. On December 1, 2021, the U.S. Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations to remand the case back to state Court. On December 15, 2021, the Petitioners filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

Richard Burnett; Colstrip Properties Inc., et al v. Talen Montana, LLC; PGE, et al. On December 14, 2020, the original claim was filed in the Montana Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Rosebud County, Cause No. CV-20-58. The plaintiffs allege they have suffered adverse effects from the defendants coal dust. On August 26, 2021, the claim was amended to add PGE as a defendant. On November 1, 2021, the defendants filed an answer to the complaint. Plaintiffs are seeking economic damages, costs and disbursements, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and an injunction prohibiting defendants from allowing coal dust to blow onto plaintiffs’ properties, as determined by the Court. The Court set a trial to begin September 26, 2023.

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 known 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.