Contingencies (Notes)	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2023
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 a feasibility study, along with a 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 that had 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 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, 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. 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 estimated liabilities and recover incurred 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 GRC. 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. 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, the SEC, and the FERC. Management cannot predict the eventual scope or outcome of these matters. Colstrip-Related Litigation The Company has a 20% ownership interest in the Colstrip Units 3 and 4 coal-fired generating plant (Colstrip), which is located in the state of Montana and operated by one of the co-owners, Talen Montana, LLC (Talen). In May 2022, Talen’s parent company, Talen Energy Supply, LLC filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, although Colstrip continues to operate and generate electricity for PGE customers and others. Various business disagreements have arisen amongst the co-owners regarding interpretation of the Ownership and Operation (O&O) Agreement and other matters. An arbitration process has been initiated to address such business disagreements and has resulted in several legal proceedings, which, along with other matters related to Colstrip, are summarized below. Arbitration—In March 2021, co-owner NorthWestern Corporation (NorthWestern) initiated arbitration against all other co-owners of Colstrip to determine whether co-owners representing 55% or more of the ownership shares can vote to close one or both units of Colstrip, or, alternatively, 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. The arbitration has been stayed through January 12, 2024, by agreement of the parties. PGE cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the arbitration process. Petition to compel arbitration—In April 2021, co-owners Avista Corporation, Puget Sound Energy Inc., PacifiCorp, and PGE (the Petitioners) petitioned in Spokane County Superior Court, Washington, Case No. 21201000-32, against NorthWestern and Talen to compel the arbitration initiated by NorthWestern that is described above. In May 2021, Talen removed the case to Federal Court (Eastern District of Washington Case No. 2:21-cv-00163-RMP). Following a hearing in July 2021, Talen’s motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana was granted. On August 10, 2023, the court dismissed the matter with prejudice pursuant to the parties’ stipulation. Complaint to implement Montana Senate Bill 265 (MSB 265)—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 MSB 265. The case was subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court - Montana, Billings Division, Case No. 1:21-cv-00058-SPW-TJC. On August 10, 2023, the court dismissed the matter with prejudice pursuant to the parties’ stipulation. Richard Burnett; Colstrip Properties Inc., et al v. Talen Montana, LLC; PGE, et al.—In December 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. In August 2021, the claim was amended to add PGE as a defendant. 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. This matter was stayed for a time as a result of the bankruptcy filing of Talen’s parent company, but litigation has resumed and the parties are working through discovery issues. The Court has entered a procedural schedule that leads to a trial, which would begin November 6, 2024.The Company is unable to predict outcome of this matter. Westmoreland Mine Permits—Two lawsuits have been commenced by the Montana Environmental Information Center, challenging certain permits relating to the operation of the Westmoreland Rosebud Mine, which provides coal to Colstrip. In the first, the Montana District Court for Rosebud County issued an order vacating a permit for one area of the mine. In the second, the Montana Federal District Court issued findings and recommended that a decision approving expansion of the mine into a new area should be vacated, but recommending the decision not take effect for 365 days from the date of a final order. Both decisions may be subject to appellate review. PGE is not a party to either of these proceedings, but is continuing to monitor the progress of both lawsuits and assess the impact, if any, of the proceedings on Westmoreland’s ability to meet its contractual coal supply obligations. Regulatory Matters Faraday—On February 15, 2023, PGE filed with the OPUC a General Rate Case based on a 2024 test year (2024 GRC) requesting an increase that included recovery of $188 million in capital costs associated with the Faraday Resiliency and Repowering Project. The upgrade project was placed into service January 31, 2023. Certain parties to the 2024 GRC proceeding challenged the prudence of aspects of PGE’s investment in the Faraday project and recommended rate base reductions and disallowances. On August 21, 2023, PGE and certain stakeholder groups reached an agreement and filed a stipulation with the OPUC that resolves certain issues related to rate base additions in PGE's 2024 GRC. Capital-related items that were collectively settled include the Faraday Resiliency and Repowering Project, Transportation Electrification investments, Transmission and Distribution investments, and various other rate base associated items. Adjustments in the settlement are not attributable to any individual capital project. Parties agree that the collective settlement is inclusive of resolution of all issues concerning recovery of costs for the project to repower the original 1907 Faraday hydro facility. Although the stipulation is pending approval from the OPUC, which has significant discretion in making the final determination of the GRC that may result in the disallowance of certain costs for recovery in customer prices, PGE believes the probability of a disallowance related to Faraday is remote based on the settlements reached with parties. Costs directly disallowed for recovery in customer prices, if any, would be charged to expense at the time such disallowance becomes probable and reasonably estimable. Regulatory review of the 2024 GRC (OPUC Docket UE 416) will continue, with a final order expected to be issued later this year, for new customer prices effective January 1, 2024. 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 a feasibility study, along with a 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 that had 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 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, 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. 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 estimated liabilities and recover incurred 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 GRC. 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.

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, the SEC, and the FERC. Management cannot 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 located in the state of Montana and operated by one of the co-owners, Talen Montana, LLC (Talen). In May 2022, Talen’s parent company, Talen Energy Supply, LLC filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, although Colstrip continues to operate and generate electricity for PGE customers and others. Various business disagreements have arisen amongst the co-owners regarding interpretation of the Ownership and Operation (O&O) Agreement and other matters. An arbitration process has been initiated to address such business disagreements and has resulted in several legal proceedings, which, along with other matters related to Colstrip, are summarized below.

Arbitration—In March 2021, co-owner NorthWestern Corporation (NorthWestern) initiated arbitration against all other co-owners of Colstrip to determine whether co-owners representing 55% or more of the ownership shares can vote to close one or both units of Colstrip, or, alternatively, 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

Petition to compel arbitration—In April 2021, co-owners Avista Corporation, Puget Sound Energy Inc., PacifiCorp, and PGE (the Petitioners) petitioned in Spokane County Superior Court, Washington, Case No. 21201000-32, against NorthWestern and Talen to compel the arbitration initiated by NorthWestern that is described above. In May 2021, Talen removed the case to Federal Court (Eastern District of Washington Case No. 2:21-cv-00163-RMP). Following a hearing in July 2021, Talen’s motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana was granted. On August 10, 2023, the court dismissed the matter with prejudice pursuant to the parties’ stipulation.

Complaint to implement Montana Senate Bill 265 (MSB 265)—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 MSB 265. The case was subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court - Montana, Billings Division, Case No. 1:21-cv-00058-SPW-TJC. On August 10, 2023, the court dismissed the matter with prejudice pursuant to the parties’ stipulation.

Richard Burnett; Colstrip Properties Inc., et al v. Talen Montana, LLC; PGE, et al.—In December 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. In August 2021, the claim was amended to add PGE as a defendant. 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. This matter was stayed for a time as a result of the bankruptcy filing of Talen’s parent company, but litigation has resumed and the parties are working through discovery issues. The Court has entered a procedural schedule that leads to a trial, which would begin November 6, 2024.The Company is unable to predict outcome of this matter.

Westmoreland Mine Permits—Two lawsuits have been commenced by the Montana Environmental Information Center, challenging certain permits relating to the operation of the Westmoreland Rosebud Mine, which provides coal to Colstrip. In the first, the Montana District Court for Rosebud County issued an order vacating a permit for one area of the mine. In the second, the Montana Federal District Court issued findings and recommended that a decision approving expansion of the mine into a new area should be vacated, but recommending the decision not take effect for 365 days from the date of a final order. Both decisions may be subject to appellate review. PGE is not a party to either of these proceedings, but is continuing to monitor the progress of both lawsuits and assess the impact, if any, of the proceedings on Westmoreland’s ability to meet its contractual coal supply obligations.

Faraday—On February 15, 2023, PGE filed with the OPUC a General Rate Case based on a 2024 test year (2024 GRC) requesting an increase that included recovery of $188 million in capital costs associated with the Faraday Resiliency and Repowering Project. The upgrade project was placed into service January 31, 2023. Certain parties to the 2024 GRC proceeding challenged the prudence of aspects of PGE’s investment in the Faraday project and recommended rate base reductions and disallowances.

On August 21, 2023, PGE and certain stakeholder groups reached an agreement and filed a stipulation with the OPUC that resolves certain issues related to rate base additions in PGE's 2024 GRC. Capital-related items that were collectively settled include the Faraday Resiliency and Repowering Project, Transportation Electrification investments, Transmission and Distribution investments, and various other rate base associated items. Adjustments in the settlement are not attributable to any individual capital project. Parties agree that the collective settlement is inclusive of resolution of all issues concerning recovery of costs for the project to repower the original 1907

Faraday hydro facility. Although the stipulation is pending approval from the OPUC, which has significant discretion in making the final determination of the GRC that may result in the disallowance of certain costs for recovery in customer prices, PGE believes the probability of a disallowance related to Faraday is remote based on the settlements reached with parties.

Costs directly disallowed for recovery in customer prices, if any, would be charged to expense at the time such disallowance becomes probable and reasonably estimable. Regulatory review of the 2024 GRC (OPUC Docket UE 416) will continue, with a final order expected to be issued later this year, for new customer prices effective January 1, 2024.

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.