XML 23 R13.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.5.0.2

Carty Generating Station (Notes) | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2016
Carty Generating Station [Abstract] |
contractors [Text Block] | CARTY GENERATING STATION Carty Placed In Service—On July 29, 2016, the Company placed into service the Carty Generating Station (Carty), a 440 MW baseload natural gas-fired generating plant in Eastern Oregon, located adjacent to the Boardman coal plant. As of June 30, 2016, PGE had $587 million, including $59 million of AFDC, included in CWIP for the project as compared to $424 million, including $41 million of AFDC, as of December 31, 2015. The final order issued by the OPUC on November 3, 2015 in connection with the Company’s 2016 GRC, authorized the inclusion in customer prices of capital costs for Carty of up to $514 million, including AFDC, as well as Carty’s operating costs, at such time that the plant is placed in service, provided that occurred by July 31, 2016. As Carty was placed in service on July 29, 2016, the Company has been authorized to include in customer prices, effective August 1, 2016, its revenue requirement necessary to allow for recovery of capital costs of up to $514 million, as well as operating costs, associated with the construction and operation of Carty. Construction Litigation—In 2013, the Company entered into an agreement (Construction Agreement) with its engineering, procurement and construction contractor - Abeinsa EPC LLC, Abener Construction Services, LLC, Teyma Construction USA, LLC, and Abeinsa Abener Teyma General Partnership, an affiliate of Abengoa S.A. (collectively, the “Contractor”) - for the construction of Carty. On December 18, 2015, the Company declared the Contractor in default under the Construction Agreement and terminated the Construction Agreement. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Zurich American Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Sureties”), have provided a performance bond of $145.6 million (Performance Bond) under the Construction Agreement. On January 28, 2016, the Company received notice from the International Chamber of Commerce International Court of Arbitration that Abengoa S.A. had submitted a Request for Arbitration. In the request, Abengoa S.A. alleged that the Company’s termination of the Construction Agreement was wrongful and in breach of the agreement terms and does not give rise to any liability of Abengoa S.A. under the terms of a guaranty in favor of PGE and pursuant to which Abengoa S.A. agreed to guaranty certain obligations of the Contractor under the Construction Agreement. Abengoa S.A. is also seeking to implead the Contractor into this arbitration. PGE disagrees with the assertions in the Request for Arbitration and on February 29, 2016 filed a Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon seeking to have the arbitration claim dismissed on the grounds that the Company has not made a demand under the Abengoa S.A. guaranty, and therefore the matter is not ripe for arbitration. On March 28, 2016, Abengoa S.A. and several of its foreign affiliates filed petitions for recognition under Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code requesting interim relief, including an injunction precluding the prosecution of any proceedings against the Chapter 15 debtors. On March 29, 2016, a number of Abengoa S.A.’s U.S. subsidiaries, including the four entities that collectively comprise the Contractor, filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. As a result, on April 5, 2016, the U.S. District Court issued an order stating that the Company’s District Court action against Abengoa S.A. was stayed. In June 2016, the Company filed with the bankruptcy court in the Chapter 11 proceeding a motion for relief from stay with respect to the four entities that collectively comprise the Contractor, which, if granted would allow the Company to bring claims against such entities in the U.S. District Court. On March 9, 2016, the Sureties delivered a letter to the Company denying liability in whole under the Performance Bond. In the letter, the Sureties make the following assertions in support of their determination:
1. | that, because Abengoa S.A. has alleged that PGE wrongfully terminated the Construction Agreement, PGE must disprove such claim as a condition precedent to recovery under the Performance Bond; and
2. | that, irrespective of the outcome of the foregoing wrongful termination claim, the Sureties have various contractual and equitable defenses to payment and are not liable to PGE for any amount under the Performance Bond.
The Company disagrees with the foregoing assertions and, on March 23, 2016, filed a breach of contract action against the Sureties in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The Company’s complaint disputes the Sureties’ assertion that the Company wrongfully terminated the Construction Agreement and asserts that the Sureties are responsible for the payment of all damages sustained by PGE as a result of the Sureties' breach of contract, including damages in excess of the $145.6 million stated amount of the Performance Bond. Such damages include additional costs incurred by PGE to complete Carty. On April 15, 2016, the Sureties filed a motion to stay this U.S. District Court proceeding, alleging that PGE’s claims should be addressed in the arbitration proceeding initiated by Abengoa S.A. and referenced above because PGE’s claims are intertwined with the issues involved in such arbitration and all parties necessary to resolve PGE’s claims are parties to the arbitration. PGE opposed the motion and filed a motion to enjoin the Sureties from pursuing, in the ICC arbitration proceeding, claims relating to the Performance Bond. On July 27, 2016, the court denied the Sureties’ motion to stay and granted PGE’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Recovery of Capital Costs in Excess of $514 Million—Following termination of the Construction Agreement, PGE brought on new contractors and resumed construction. Costs for Carty have exceeded the $514 million approved for inclusion in customer prices by the OPUC. The incremental costs resulted from various matters relating to the resumption of construction activities following the termination of the Construction Agreement, including, among other things, determining the remaining scope of construction, preparing work plans for contractors, identifying new contractors, negotiating contracts, and procuring additional materials. Costs also increased as a result of PGE’s discovery through the construction process of latent defects in work performed by the former Contractor and the corresponding labor and materials required to correct the work. Other items contributing to the increase include costs relating to the removal of certain liens filed on the property for goods and services provided under contracts with the former Contractor, and costs to repair equipment damage resulting from poor storage and maintenance on the part of the former Contractor. PGE currently estimates the total cost of Carty could range from $640 million to $660 million, including AFDC. This cost estimate does not reflect any amounts that may be received from the Sureties pursuant to the Performance Bond. This estimate includes approximately $15 million of lien claims filed against PGE for goods and services provided under contracts with the former Contractor. The Company believes these liens are invalid and is contesting the claims in the courts. In the event the total project costs incurred by PGE, net of amounts that may be received from the Sureties, Abengoa S.A. or the Contractor, exceed the $514 million amount approved by the OPUC for inclusion in customer prices, the Company intends to seek approval to recover the excess amounts in customer prices in a subsequent rate proceeding after exhausting all remedies against the aforementioned parties. However, there is no assurance that such recovery would be allowed by the OPUC. In accordance with GAAP and the Company’s accounting policies, any such excess costs would be charged to expense at the time disallowance of recovery becomes probable and a reasonable estimate of the amount of such disallowance can be made. As of the date of this report, the Company has concluded that the likelihood that a portion of the cost of Carty will be disallowed for recovery in customer prices is less than probable. Accordingly, no loss has been recorded to date related to the project. As actual project costs for Carty exceed $514 million, including AFDC, the Company will incur a higher cost of service than what is reflected in the current authorized revenue requirement amount, primarily due to higher depreciation and interest expense. On July 29, 2016, the Company requested from the OPUC a regulatory deferral for the recovery of the revenue requirement associated with the incremental capital costs for Carty starting from its in service date to the date that such amounts are approved in a subsequent GRC proceeding. The Company has requested the OPUC to delay its review of this deferral request until the Company’s claims against the Sureties have been resolved. Until such time, the effects of this higher cost of service will be recognized in the Company’s results of operations, as a deferral for such amounts would not be considered probable of recovery at this time, in accordance with GAAP. Any amounts approved by the OPUC for recovery under the deferral filing will be recognized in earnings in the period of such approval.

X
- Definition Carty Generating Station [Abstract] + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | por_CartyGeneratingStationAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | por_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition Carty Generating Station disclosures[Text Block] + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | por_ContractorsTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | por_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration