We accrue losses for legal proceedings when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amounts of the loss can be reasonably estimated. However, the uncertainties inherent in legal proceedings make it difficult to estimate with reasonable certainty the costs and effects of resolving these matters. Accordingly, actual costs incurred may differ materially from amounts accrued, may exceed applicable insurance coverages and could materially adversely affect our business, cash flows, results of operations, and financial condition. Unless otherwise indicated, we are unable to estimate reasonably possible losses in excess of any amounts accrued.

At December 31, 2011, Sempra Energy's accrued liabilities for material legal proceedings, on a consolidated basis, were $625 million. At December 31, 2011, accrued liabilities for material legal proceedings for SDG&E and SoCalGas were $596 million and $18 million, respectively. At December 31, 2011, liabilities of $596 million at Sempra Energy and SDG&E were related to wildfire litigation discussed below.

In October 2007, San Diego County experienced several catastrophic wildfires. Reports issued by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) concluded that two of these fires (the Witch and Rice fires) were SDG&E “power line caused” and that a third fire (the Guejito fire) occurred when a wire securing a Cox Communications' (Cox) fiber optic cable came into contact with an SDG&E power line “causing an arc and starting the fire.” Cal Fire reported that the Rice fire burned approximately 9,500 acres and damaged 206 homes and two commercial properties, and the Witch and Guejito fires merged and eventually burned approximately 198,000 acres, resulting in two fatalities, approximately 40 firefighters injured and approximately 1,141 homes destroyed.

A September 2008 staff report issued by the CPUC's CPSD reached substantially the same conclusions as the Cal Fire reports, but also contended that the power lines involved in the Witch and Rice fires and the lashing wire involved in the Guejito fire were not properly designed, constructed and maintained. In April 2010, proceedings initiated by the CPUC to determine if any of its rules were violated were settled with SDG&E's payment of $14.75 million.

Numerous parties have sued SDG&E and Sempra Energy in San Diego County Superior Court seeking recovery of unspecified amounts of damages, including punitive damages, from the three fires. These include owners and insurers of properties that were destroyed or damaged in the fires and public entities seeking recovery of firefighting, emergency response, and environmental costs. They assert various bases for recovery, including inverse condemnation based upon a California Court of Appeal decision finding that another California investor-owned utility was subject to strict liability, without regard to foreseeability or negligence, for property damages resulting from a wildfire ignited by power lines.

In October 2010, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling that these claims must be pursued in individual lawsuits, rather than as class actions on behalf of all persons who incurred wildfire damages. In February 2011, the California Supreme Court denied a petition for review of the affirmance. The trial court has scheduled a Witch fire and Guejito fire trial to begin in March 2013.

SDG&E filed cross-complaints against Cox seeking indemnification for any liability that SDG&E might incur in connection with the Guejito fire, two SDG&E contractors seeking indemnification in connection with the Witch fire, and one SDG&E contractor seeking indemnification in connection with the Rice fire.

In December 2010, SDG&E and Cox reached an agreement settling SDG&E's claims against Cox and Cox's insurers in the wildfire litigation (Cox Settlement). Among other things, the settlement agreement provided that SDG&E receive approximately $444 million for wildfire related expenditures, and SDG&E will defend and indemnify Cox against all compensatory damage claims and related costs arising out of the wildfires.

At December 31, 2010, the $300 million Settlement Receivable Related to Wildfire Litigation on the Consolidated Balance Sheets of Sempra Energy and SDG&E represented cash to be received in accordance with the terms of the Cox Settlement in several payments through March 2011 and which was received. As of December 31, 2011, there was no wildfire-related restricted cash on the Consolidated Balance Sheets of Sempra Energy and SDG&E as all amounts received from Cox had been applied to wildfire related expenditures.

SDG&E has settled all of the approximately 19,000 claims brought by homeowner insurers for damage to insured property relating to the three fires. Under the settlement agreements, SDG&E has paid or will pay 57.5 percent of the approximately $1.6 billion paid or reserved for payment by the insurers to their policyholders and received an assignment of the insurers' claims against other parties potentially responsible for the fires.

The wildfire litigation also includes claims of non-insurer plaintiffs for damage to uninsured and underinsured structures, business interruption, evacuation expenses, agricultural damage, emotional harm, personal injuries and other losses. SDG&E has settled the claims of approximately 2,750 of these plaintiffs. Approximately 650 of the approximately 1,650 remaining individual and business plaintiffs have submitted settlement demands and damage estimates totaling approximately $750 million and government entity claims totaling approximately $80 million. SDG&E expects to receive additional settlement demands and damage estimates as settlement negotiations continue. SDG&E has established reserves for the wildfire litigation as we discuss below.

SDG&E's settled claims and defense costs have exceeded its $1.1 billion of liability insurance coverage and the $444 million it received from Cox. It expects that its wildfire reserves and amounts paid to resolve wildfire claims will continue to increase as it obtains additional information; it is presently unable to reasonably estimate the amount or timing of recoveries from other potentially responsible parties.

SDG&E has concluded, however, that it is probable that it will be permitted to recover from its utility customers substantially all reasonably incurred costs of resolving wildfire claims in excess of its liability insurance coverage and any amounts recovered from other potentially responsible parties. Accordingly, although such recovery will require future regulatory actions, at December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, SDG&E recorded a regulatory asset of $594 million and $364 million, respectively, which represents the amount substantially equal to the aggregate amount it has paid or reserved for payment for the resolution of wildfire claims and related costs in excess of its liability insurance coverage and amounts received from Cox. SDG&E will increase the regulatory asset as additional amounts are paid or reserves are recorded and reduce it by any amounts recovered from other potentially responsible parties.

As a consequence of the expected recovery of wildfire costs from utility customers, Sempra Energy and SDG&E expect no significant earnings impact from the resolution of the remaining wildfire claims. However, SDG&E's cash flow may be materially adversely affected due to the timing differences between the resolution of claims and the recoveries from other potentially responsible parties and utility customers, which may extend over a number of years. Also, recovery from customers will require future regulatory actions, and a failure to obtain substantial or full recovery, or any negative assessment of the likelihood of recovery, would likely have a material adverse effect on Sempra Energy's and SDG&E's financial position, cash flows and results of operations.

SDG&E will continue to gather information to evaluate and assess the remaining wildfire claims and the likelihood, amount and timing of related recoveries from other potentially responsible parties and utility customers and will make appropriate adjustments to wildfire reserves and the related regulatory asset as additional information becomes available.

In 2010 and 2011, as liabilities for wildfire litigation have become reasonably estimable in the form of settlement demands, damage estimates, and other damage information, SDG&E has recorded related reserves as a liability. The impact of this liability at December 31, 2011 is offset by the recognition of a regulatory asset, as discussed above, for reserves in excess of the insurance coverage and the Cox Settlement. The impact of the reserves on SDG&E's and Sempra Energy's after-tax earnings was $13 million and $20 million for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. There was no effect on SDG&E's or Sempra Energy's 2009 earnings from the recording of the reserves. At December 31, 2011, wildfire litigation reserves were $596 million ($586 million in current and $10 million in long-term).

SDG&E commenced construction on the Sunrise Powerlink in the fall of 2010. The Sunrise Powerlink is a new 117-mile, 500-kV electric transmission line that is being built between the Imperial Valley and the San Diego region, along a route that generally runs south of the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. The current project plan provides for the transmission line to be completed and in-service in the second half of 2012.

The Sunrise Powerlink project was originally approved by the CPUC in December 2008, including approval of the environmental impact review conducted jointly with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The CPUC has subsequently denied or dismissed all requests for rehearing of its approval of the project.

In February 2011, the California Supreme Court denied a petition filed jointly by the Utility Consumers' Action Network (UCAN) and the Center for Biological Diversity/Sierra Club (CBD). The petition challenged the CPUC's decision with regard to implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In addition, in August 2010, the California Court of Appeal denied a petition previously filed by UCAN with the Court of Appeal challenging the CPUC decision on other legal grounds.

In January 2009, the BLM issued its decision approving the portions of the project, route and environmental review within its jurisdiction. The Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) subsequently denied or dismissed all administrative appeals that were filed challenging the BLM's approval of the project.

The CPUC and BLM jointly approved the final Project Modification Report for Sunrise Powerlink in September 2010, accepting all of the proposed modifications to the approved route and finding that no additional environmental review was required. In December 2010, the IBLA dismissed an appeal challenging the BLM's approval of the Project Modification Report. In March 2011, opponents of the Sunrise Powerlink filed a petition for writ of review or mandamus with the California Supreme Court challenging the CPUC's acceptance of the Project Modification Report. The California Supreme Court denied the petition in April 2011.

In February 2010, parties opposed to the project filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in San Diego seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and alleging that the BLM failed to properly address the environmental impacts of the approved Sunrise Powerlink route and the related potential development of renewable resources in east San Diego County and Imperial County. In June 2011, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiffs were not challenging final government agency actions. The plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In July 2010, the United States Forest Service (USFS) issued its decision approving the portions of the project, route and environmental review within its jurisdiction. The USFS has subsequently denied all administrative appeals challenging its approval of the project.

In January 2011, project opponents filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in San Diego alleging that the federal approvals for construction of the project on USFS land and BLM land violated the National Environmental Policy Act and other federal environmental laws. The lawsuit asks the court for injunctive relief preventing the USFS and the BLM from approving any ongoing or future construction activities. In October 2011, the opponents appealed the court's denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction.

In February 2011, opponents of the Sunrise Powerlink filed a lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court against the State Water Resources Control Board and SDG&E alleging that the water quality certification issued by the Board under the Federal Clean Water Act violated CEQA. The complaint seeks to have the certification set aside and requests an injunction be issued.

In September 2011, a power outage lasting approximately 12 hours affected millions of people from Mexico to southern Orange County, California. Several agencies, including the FERC and North American Electric Reliability Corp., are participating in a joint investigation to determine the cause of the power failure. Within several days of the outage, several SDG&E customers filed a class action lawsuit in Federal District Court against Arizona Public Service Company, Pinnacle West, and SDG&E alleging that the companies failed to prevent the outage. The lawsuit seeks recovery of unspecified amounts of damages, including punitive damages. In addition, more than 6,500 customers' claims, primarily related to food spoilage, have been submitted directly to SDG&E.

In October 2011, SDG&E was sued by a Texas design and manufacturing company in Federal District Court alleging that SDG&E's recently installed smart meters infringed certain patents. The meters were purchased from a third party vendor that has agreed to defend and indemnify SDG&E. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and recovery of unspecified amounts of damages.

SoCalGas, along with Monsanto Co., Solutia, Inc., Pharmacia Corp., and Pfizer, Inc., are defendants in two Los Angeles County Superior Court lawsuits served in May 2011 seeking recovery of unspecified amounts of damages, including punitive damages, as a result of plaintiffs' exposure to PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls). The lawsuits allege plaintiffs were exposed to PCBs not only through the food chain and other various sources but from PCB-contaminated natural gas pipelines owned and operated by SoCalGas. This contamination allegedly caused plaintiffs to develop cancer and other serious illnesses. Plaintiffs assert various bases for recovery, including negligence and products liability.

Liberty Gas Storage, LLC (Liberty) received a demand for arbitration from Williams Midstream Natural Gas Liquids, Inc. (Williams) in February 2011 related to a sublease agreement. Williams alleges that Liberty was negligent in its attempt to convert certain salt caverns to natural gas storage and seeks damages of $56.7 million. Liberty filed a counterclaim alleging breach of contract in the inducement and seeks damages of more than $215 million.

Sempra Mexico has been engaged in a long-running land dispute relating to property adjacent to its Energía Costa Azul liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal near Ensenada, Mexico. The adjacent property is not required by environmental or other regulatory permits for the operation of the terminal. A claimant to the adjacent property has nonetheless asserted that his health and safety are endangered by the operation of the facility. In June 2010, a Mexican federal appeals court revoked a district court order, issued at the behest of the claimant, directing Mexican regulatory authorities to provisionally suspend authorizations for the operation of the LNG terminal. In February 2011, based on a complaint by the claimant, the new Ensenada Mayor attempted to temporarily close the terminal based on claims of irregularities in municipal permits issued six years earlier. This attempt was promptly countermanded by Mexican federal and Baja California state authorities. No terminal permits or operations were affected as a result of these proceedings or events and the terminal has continued to operate normally.

Sempra Mexico expects additional Mexican court proceedings and governmental actions regarding the claimant's assertions as to whether the terminal's permits should be modified or revoked in any manner.

The property claimant also filed a lawsuit in July 2010 against Sempra Energy in Federal District Court in San Diego seeking compensatory and punitive damages as well as the earnings from the Energía Costa Azul LNG terminal based on his allegations that he was wrongfully evicted from the adjacent property and that he has been harmed by other allegedly improper actions.

In August 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision reversing and remanding certain FERC orders declining to provide refunds regarding short-term bilateral sales up to one month in the Pacific Northwest for the December 2000 to June 2001 time period. In December 2010, the FERC approved a comprehensive settlement previously reached by Sempra Energy and RBS Sempra Commodities with the State of California. The settlement resolves all issues with regard to sales between the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and Sempra Commodities in the Pacific Northwest, but potential claims may exist regarding sales between Sempra Commodities and other buyers in the Pacific Northwest. The FERC is in the process of addressing these potential claims on remand. Pursuant to the agreements related to the formation of RBS Sempra Commodities, we have indemnified RBS should the liability from the final resolution of these matters be greater than the reserves related to Sempra Commodities. Pursuant to our agreement with the Noble Group, we have also indemnified Noble Americas Gas & Power Corp. and its affiliates for all losses incurred by such parties resulting from these proceedings as related to Sempra Commodities.

Sempra Energy and several subsidiaries, along with three oil and natural gas companies, the City of Beverly Hills, and the Beverly Hills Unified School District, are defendants in toxic tort lawsuits filed beginning in 2003 in Los Angeles County Superior Court by approximately 1,000 plaintiffs. These lawsuits claim that various emissions resulted in cancer or fear of cancer. In November 2006, the court granted the defendants' summary judgment motions based on lack of medical causation for the 12 initial plaintiffs scheduled to go to trial first. The court also granted summary judgment excluding punitive damages. The court has stayed the lawsuits as to the remaining plaintiffs pending the appeal of the rulings. A mediation occurred in June 2010, after which the plaintiffs' counsel agreed to recommend a settlement of the lawsuits as to Sempra Energy and its subsidiaries for an amount that is not significant and has been recorded. Any such settlement will require approval by each of the plaintiffs. If approval is obtained, finalization of the settlement is expected to occur within six months.

We are also defendants in ordinary routine litigation incidental to our businesses, including personal injury, product liability, property damage and other claims. California juries have demonstrated an increasing willingness to grant large awards, including punitive damages, in these types of cases.

We discuss certain commitments remaining from an energy crisis matter resolved prior to 2010 below under “Other Commitments.”

The following is a description of the 2010 litigation settlements relating to California energy crisis matters.

In 2010, Sempra Energy, RBS Sempra Commodities and Sempra Natural Gas reached a comprehensive settlement with the State of California to resolve substantially all of their remaining litigation arising out of the 2000 – 2001 California energy crisis for a total payment of $410 million. The matters resolved include the settlement of multiple actions brought by the DWR and other parties with respect to the validity, pricing and operation of Sempra Natural Gas' contract with the DWR and the settlement of the FERC refund and manipulation proceedings against RBS Sempra Commodities. The FERC approved both settlements in December 2010.

The payment of $410 million was funded largely from previously recorded reserves and receivables at RBS Sempra Commodities. Sempra Energy also recorded an additional pretax charge of $159 million in the first quarter of 2010 to provide for the remainder of the settlement, including $139 million at Sempra Natural Gas and $20 million at Sempra Commodities. The amount at Sempra Commodities was reduced by $11 million pretax in the fourth quarter of 2010 to reflect a receipt in January 2011 from an unrelated party that had a joint liability for the claim. In January 2011, Sempra Natural Gas paid $130 million to the DWR under the terms of the settlement agreement.

SoCalGas has the responsibility for procuring natural gas for both SDG&E's and SoCalGas' core customers in a combined portfolio. SoCalGas buys natural gas under short-term and long-term contracts for this portfolio. Purchases are from various producing regions in the southwestern U.S., U.S. Rockies, and Canada and are primarily based on published monthly bid-week indices.

SoCalGas transports natural gas primarily under long-term firm interstate pipeline capacity agreements that provide for annual reservation charges, which are recovered in rates. SoCalGas has commitments with interstate pipeline companies for firm pipeline capacity under contracts that expire at various dates through 2027.

Sempra Natural Gas' and Sempra Mexico's businesses have various natural gas purchase agreements to fuel natural gas-fired power plants and capacity agreements for natural gas storage and transportation.

At December 31, 2011, the future minimum payments under existing natural gas contracts and natural gas storage and transportation contracts were

Sempra Energy Consolidated
		Storage and
(Dollars in millions)		Transportation		Natural Gas(1)		Total(1)
2012		$	143	$	415	$	558
2013			106		148		254
2014			74		103		177
2015			60		3		63
2016			55		3		58
Thereafter			252		5		257
Total minimum payments		$	690	$	677	$	1,367
(1)	Excludes amounts related to LNG purchase agreements at discussed below.

SoCalGas
(Dollars in millions)	Transportation		Natural Gas		Total
2012	$	110	$	290	$	400
2013		81		19		100
2014		55		2		57
2015		41		2		43
2016		36		2		38
Thereafter		145		―		145
Total minimum payments	$	468	$	315	$	783

Sempra Natural Gas has various purchase agreements with major international companies for the supply of LNG to the Energía Costa Azul and Cameron terminals. The agreements range from short-term to multi-year periods and are priced using a predetermined formula based on natural gas market indices.

Although these contracts specify a number of cargoes to be delivered, under their terms, customers may divert certain cargoes, which would reduce amounts paid under the contracts by Sempra Natural Gas. As of December 31, 2011, if all cargoes under the contracts were to be delivered, future payments under these contracts would be

The amounts above are based on forward prices of the index applicable to each contract from 2012 to 2021 and an estimated one percent escalation per year beyond 2021. The LNG commitment amounts above are based on Sempra Natural Gas' commitment to accept the maximum possible delivery of cargoes under the agreements. Actual LNG purchases in 2011 have been significantly lower than the maximum amount possible.

For 2012, SDG&E expects to receive 9 percent of its customer power requirements from DWR allocations. The remaining requirements are expected to be met as follows:

Chilquinta Energía and Luz del Sur also have purchased-power contracts, with various dates extending through 2025, which cover most of the consumption needs of the companies' customers. These commitments are included under Sempra Energy Consolidated in the table below.

At December 31, 2011, the estimated future minimum payments under long-term purchased-power contracts (not including the DWR allocations for SDG&E) were:

		Sempra
		Energy
(Dollars in millions)		Consolidated		SDG&E
2012		$	1,049	$	319
2013			1,120		321
2014			1,110		260
2015			1,164		229
2016			1,199		231
Thereafter			9,555		1,948
Total minimum payments(1)		$	15,197	$	3,308
(1)	Excludes purchase agreements accounted for as capital leases and amounts related to Otay Mesa VIE, as it is consolidated by Sempra Energy and SDG&E.

Payments on these contracts represent capacity charges and minimum energy purchases. SDG&E is required to pay additional amounts for actual purchases of energy that exceed the minimum energy commitments. Excluding DWR-allocated contracts, total payments under purchased-power contracts were:

	Years ended December 31,
(Dollars in millions)	2011		2010		2009
Sempra Energy Consolidated	$	918	$	314	$	413
Sempra South American Utilities		572		-		-
SDG&E		346		314		413

Sempra Energy, SDG&E and SoCalGas have operating leases on real and personal property expiring at various dates from 2012 through 2054. Certain leases on office facilities contain escalation clauses requiring annual increases in rent ranging from two percent to six percent at both Sempra Energy and SDG&E and three percent to five percent at SoCalGas. The rentals payable under these leases may increase by a fixed amount each year or by a percentage of a base year, and most leases contain extension options that we could exercise.

The California Utilities have an operating lease agreement for future acquisitions of fleet vehicles with RBS Asset Finance, Inc. with an aggregate maximum lease limit of $125 million, $66 million of which has been utilized.

At December 31, 2011, the minimum rental commitments payable in future years under all noncancelable operating leases were as follows:

	Sempra
	Energy
(Dollars in millions)	Consolidated		SDG&E		SoCalGas
2012	$	73	$	19	$	28
2013		72		18		28
2014		68		18		28
2015		65		17		28
2016		60		17		26
Thereafter		538		46		240
Total future rental commitments	$	876	$	135	$	378

The California Utilities entered into agreements with U.S. Bancorp Equipment Finance in 2009 and with RBS Asset Finance, Inc. in 2010 to refinance existing fleet vehicles. These are capital leases, and as of December 31, 2011, the related capital lease obligations were $24 million at Sempra Energy, including $13 million at SDG&E and $11 million at SoCalGas. As of December 31, 2010, the related capital lease obligations were $39 million at Sempra Energy, including $20 million at SDG&E and $19 million at SoCalGas.

At December 31, 2011, the future minimum lease payments and present value of the net minimum lease payments under these capital leases are as follows:

	Sempra
	Energy
(Dollars in millions)	Consolidated		SDG&E		SoCalGas
2012	$	13	$	7	$	6
2013		7		4		3
2014		4		2		2
Total minimum lease payments		24		13		11
Less: interest		―		―		―
Present value of net minimum lease payments	$	24	$	13	$	11

The 2011 annual amortization charge for the utility fleet vehicles was $15 million at Sempra Energy, including $7 million at SDG&E and $8 million at SoCalGas. The 2010 annual amortization charge for the utility fleet vehicles was $17 million at Sempra Energy, including $6 million at SDG&E and $11 million at SoCalGas. The 2009 annual amortization charge for the utility fleet vehicles was $3 million at Sempra Energy, including $1 million at SDG&E and $2 million at SoCalGas.

SDG&E has two power purchase agreements with peaker plant facilities that went into commercial operation in June 2010 and are accounted for as capital leases. As of December 31, 2011, capital lease obligations for these leases, each with a 25-year term, were valued at $180 million.

At December 31, 2011, the future minimum lease payments and present value of the net minimum lease payments under these capital leases for both Sempra Energy Consolidated and SDG&E were as follows:

(Dollars in millions)
	2012	$	24
	2013		24
	2014		24
	2015		24
	2016		24
	Thereafter		442
	Total minimum lease payments(1)		562
	Less: estimated executory costs		(93)
	Less: interest(2)		(289)
	Present value of net minimum lease payments(3)	$	180
(1)	This amount will be recorded over the lives of the leases as Cost of Electric Fuel and Purchased Power on Sempra Energy’s and SDG&E’s Consolidated Statements of Operations. This expense will receive ratemaking treatment consistent with purchased-power costs.
(2)	Amount necessary to reduce net minimum lease payments to present value at the inception of the leases.
(3)	Includes $2 million in Current Portion of Long-Term Debt and $178 million in Long-Term Debt on Sempra Energy’s and SDG&E’s Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2011.

The annual amortization charge for the power purchase agreements was $2 million for 2011 and $1 million for 2010.

Sempra Energy has various capital projects in progress in the United States, Mexico and South America. The following is a summary of contractual commitments and contingencies related to the construction projects.

At December 31, 2011, SDG&E has commitments to make future payments of $408 million for construction projects that include

SDG&E expects future payments under these contractual commitments to be $229 million in 2012, $39 million in 2013, $16 million in 2014, $14 million in 2015, $27 million in 2016 and $83 million thereafter.

At December 31, 2011, SoCalGas has commitments to make future payments of $378 million for construction and infrastructure improvements for natural gas transmission and distribution operations, pipeline integrity and the Advanced Metering Infrastructure Program. The future payments under these contractual commitments are expected to be $60 million in 2012, $72 million in 2013, $65 million in 2014, $65 million in 2015, $6 million in 2016 and $110 million thereafter.

At December 31, 2011, Sempra South American Utilities has commitments to make future payments of $134 million for construction projects that include $129 million for the construction of the Santa Teresa hydroelectric power plant at Luz del Sur. The future payments under these contractual commitments are expected to be $64 million in 2012, $62 million in 2013 and $8 million in 2014.

At December 31, 2011, Sempra Renewables has commitments to make future payments of $836 million for the construction of Mesquite Solar 1 and Copper Mountain 2 Solar facilities. The future payments under these contractual commitments are expected to be $610 million in 2012 and $226 million in 2013.

At December 31, 2011, Sempra Natural Gas has commitments to make future payments of $43 million for construction projects that include $34 million for the construction of natural gas storage facilities at Bay Gas and Mississippi Hub. The future payments under these contractual commitments are expected to be $32 million in 2012 and $11 million in 2013.

Sempra Energy's guarantees related to RBS Sempra Commodities, Fowler Ridge 2 and Cedar Creek 2 are discussed in Note 5.

As of December 31, 2011, SDG&E and SoCalGas did not have any outstanding guarantees.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 made the DOE responsible for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. However, it is uncertain when the DOE will begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from SONGS. This delay will lead to increased costs for spent fuel storage. This cost will be recovered through SONGS revenue unless SDG&E is able to recover the increased cost from the federal government.

Additional consideration for the settlement discussed above in “Legal Proceedings – Resolved Matters – Energy Crisis Litigation Settlement” included an agreement that, for a period of 18 years beginning in 2011, Sempra Natural Gas would sell to the California Utilities, subject to annual CPUC approval, up to 500 million cubic feet (MMcf) per day of regasified LNG from Sempra Mexico's Energía Costa Azul facility that is not delivered or sold in Mexico at the California border index minus $0.02 per MMBtu.

We discuss reserves at Sempra Energy and SDG&E for wildfire litigation above in “Legal Proceedings – SDG&E – 2007 Wildfire Litigation.

Our operations are subject to federal, state and local environmental laws. We also are subject to regulations related to hazardous wastes, air and water quality, land use, solid waste disposal and the protection of wildlife. These laws and regulations require that we investigate and correct the effects of the release or disposal of materials at sites associated with our past and our present operations. These sites include those at which we have been identified as a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) under the federal Superfund laws and similar state laws.

In addition, we are required to obtain numerous governmental permits, licenses and other approvals to construct facilities and operate our businesses. The related costs of environmental monitoring, pollution control equipment, cleanup costs, and emissions fees are significant. Increasing national and international concerns regarding global warming and mercury, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions could result in requirements for additional pollution control equipment or significant emissions fees or taxes that could adversely affect Sempra Natural Gas and Sempra Mexico. The California Utilities' costs to operate their facilities in compliance with these laws and regulations generally have been recovered in customer rates.

We generally capitalize the significant costs we incur to mitigate or prevent future environmental contamination or extend the life, increase the capacity, or improve the safety or efficiency of property used in current operations. The following table shows (in millions) our capital expenditures in order to comply with environmental laws and regulations:

		Years ended December 31,
		2011		2010		2009
Sempra Energy Consolidated(1)		$	21	$	21	$	43
SDG&E			7		10		24
SoCalGas			13		10		17
(1)	In cases of non-wholly owned affiliates, includes only our share.

Decreases in 2010 compared to 2009 were primarily due to a decrease in environmental-related spending on SoCalGas' natural gas transmission projects, completion of SDG&E's Miramar II facility and the deconsolidation of a VIE at SDG&E. We have not identified any significant environmental issues outside the United States. From 2009 through 2013, SDG&E expects to incur costs of approximately $286 million for environmental mitigation measures associated with the Sunrise Powerlink construction project.

At the California Utilities, costs that relate to current operations or an existing condition caused by past operations are generally recorded as a regulatory asset due to the probability that these costs will be recovered in rates.

The environmental issues currently facing us or resolved during the last three years include (1) investigation and remediation of the California Utilities' manufactured-gas sites, (2) cleanup of third-party waste-disposal sites used by the California Utilities at sites for which we have been identified as a PRP and (3) mitigation of damage to the marine environment caused by the cooling-water discharge from SONGS. The requirements for enhanced fish protection and restoration of 150 acres of coastal wetlands for the SONGS mitigation are in process and a 150-acre artificial reef was completed in 2008. The table below shows the status at December 31, 2011, of the California Utilities' manufactured-gas sites and the third-party waste-disposal sites for which we have been identified as a PRP:

	# Sites		# Sites
	Completed		In Process
SDG&E
Manufactured-gas sites		3		―
Third-party waste-disposal sites		1		1
SoCalGas
Manufactured-gas sites		38		4
Third-party waste-disposal sites		1		2

We record environmental liabilities at undiscounted amounts when our liability is probable and the costs can be reasonably estimated. In many cases, however, investigations are not yet at a stage where we can determine whether we are liable or, if the liability is probable, to reasonably estimate the amount or range of amounts of the costs. Estimates of our liability are further subject to uncertainties such as the nature and extent of site contamination, evolving cleanup standards and imprecise engineering evaluations. We review our accruals periodically and, as investigations and cleanup proceed, we make adjustments as necessary. The following table shows (in millions) our accrued liabilities for environmental matters at December 31, 2011:

				Waste		Former Fossil-		Other
		Manufactured-		Disposal		Fueled Power		Hazardous
		Gas Sites		Sites (PRP)(1)		Plants		Waste Sites		Total
SDG&E(2)		$	0.1	$	―	$	1.0	$	0.5	$	1.6
SoCalGas			21.3		0.5		―		1.6		23.4
Other			2.7		1.2		―		0.1		4.0
Total Sempra Energy		$	24.1	$	1.7	$	1.0	$	2.2	$	29.0
(1)	Sites for which we have been identified as a Potentially Responsible Party.
(2)	Does not include SDG&E’s liability for SONGS marine mitigation.

We expect to pay the majority of these accruals over the next three years. In connection with the issuance of operating permits, SDG&E and the other owners of SONGS previously reached an agreement with the California Coastal Commission to mitigate the damage to the marine environment caused by the cooling-water discharge from SONGS. At December 31, 2011, SDG&E's share of the estimated mitigation costs remaining to be spent through 2050 is $17 million, which is recoverable in rates.

We discuss renewable energy requirements and greenhouse gas regulation in Note 14.

SDG&E and the other owners of SONGS have insurance to cover claims from nuclear liability incidents arising at SONGS. This insurance provides $375 million in coverage limits, the maximum amount available, including coverage for acts of terrorism. In addition, the Price-Anderson Act provides for up to $12.2 billion of secondary financial protection (SFP). If a nuclear liability loss occurring at any U.S. licensed/commercial reactor exceeds the $375 million insurance limit, all nuclear reactor owners could be required to contribute to the SFP. SDG&E's contribution would be up to $47 million. This amount is subject to an annual maximum of $7 million, unless a default occurs by any other SONGS owner. If the SFP is insufficient to cover the liability loss, SDG&E could be subject to an additional assessment.

The SONGS owners, including SDG&E, also have $2.75 billion of nuclear property, decontamination, and debris removal insurance. In addition, the SONGS owners have up to $490 million insurance coverage for outage expenses and replacement power costs due to accidental property damage. This coverage is limited to $3.5 million per week for the first 52 weeks, then $2.8 million per week for up to 110 additional weeks. There is a 12-week waiting period deductible. These insurance coverages are provided through a mutual insurance company. Insured members are subject to retrospective premium assessments. SDG&E could be assessed up to $9.6 million.

The nuclear property insurance program includes an industry aggregate loss limit for non-certified acts of terrorism (as defined by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act). The industry aggregate loss limit for property claims arising from non-certified acts of terrorism is $3.24 billion. This is the maximum amount that will be paid to insured members who suffer losses or damages from these non-certified terrorist acts.

We maintain credit policies and systems to manage our overall credit risk. These policies include an evaluation of potential counterparties' financial condition and an assignment of credit limits. These credit limits are established based on risk and return considerations under terms customarily available in the industry. We grant credit to utility customers and counterparties, substantially all of whom are located in our service territory, which covers most of Southern California and a portion of central California for SoCalGas, and all of San Diego County and an adjacent portion of Orange County for SDG&E. We also grant credit to utility customers and counterparties of our other companies providing natural gas or electric services in Mexico, Chile, Peru and southwest Alabama.

When they become operational, projects owned or partially owned by Sempra Natural Gas, Sempra Renewables, Sempra South American Utilities and Sempra Mexico place significant reliance on the ability of their suppliers and customers to perform on long-term agreements and on our ability to enforce contract terms in the event of nonperformance. We consider many factors, including the negotiation of supplier and customer agreements, when we evaluate and approve development projects.

At December 31, 2011, RBS Sempra Commodities no longer requires significant working capital support, although RBS is obligated to provide RBS Sempra Commodities with all credit support. However, we have provided back-up guarantees for a portion of RBS Sempra Commodities' remaining trading obligations. A few of these back-up guarantees may continue for a prolonged period of time. We provide additional information regarding these back-up guarantees and other guarantees in Note 5.