We accrue losses for a legal proceeding when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount 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 coverage and could materially adversely affect our business, cash flows, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. Unless otherwise indicated, we are unable to estimate reasonably possible losses in excess of any amounts accrued.

SDG&E has resolved all litigation associated with three wildfires that occurred in October 2007, except one appeal that remains pending after judgment in the trial court. SDG&E does not expect additional plaintiffs to file lawsuits given the applicable statutes of limitation, but could receive additional settlement demands and damage estimates from the remaining plaintiff until the case is resolved. SDG&E maintains reserves for the wildfire litigation and adjusts these reserves as information becomes available and amounts are estimable.

SDG&E recorded regulatory assets for CPUC-related costs incurred to resolve wildfire claims in excess of its liability insurance coverage and the amounts recovered from third parties. In September 2015, SDG&E filed an application with the CPUC seeking authority to recover these CPUC-related costs in rates over a six- to ten-year period. The requested amount is the net estimated CPUC-related cost incurred by SDG&E after deductions for insurance reimbursement and third-party settlement recoveries, and reflects a voluntary 10-percent shareholder contribution applied to the net regulatory asset for wildfire costs. In response to our application seeking recovery, in April 2016, the CPUC issued a ruling establishing the scope and schedule for the proceeding to be managed in two phases. Phase 1 addresses SDG&E’s operational and management prudence surrounding the 2007 wildfires. Phase 2 addresses whether SDG&E’s actions and decision-making in connection with settling legal claims in relation to the wildfires were reasonable. On August 22, 2017, two ALJs in the CPUC proceeding issued a proposed decision denying SDG&E’s request to recover the 2007 wildfire costs submitted in our application.

In consideration of the proposed decision denying recovery of these costs, and the actions taken and not taken by the CPUC subsequent to issuance of the proposed decision (including the actions not taken through the October 26, 2017 CPUC meeting), we have concluded that the wildfire regulatory asset no longer meets the probability threshold for recovery required by U.S. GAAP. Accordingly, SDG&E impaired the wildfire regulatory asset, resulting in a charge of $351 million ($208 million after-tax) in the third quarter of 2017, in Impairment of Wildfire Regulatory Asset on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations for Sempra

If the proposed decision is adopted by the CPUC and is not overturned through rehearing or appeal, Phase 2 of the proceeding would be rendered moot and the proceeding would be closed. In such case, SDG&E would apply to the CPUC for rehearing of its decision within 30 days, upon which the CPUC may grant a rehearing, modify its decision, or deny the request and affirm its original decision. Ultimately, SDG&E has the right to file a petition with the Court of Appeal of California seeking to reverse the CPUC’s decision, and we will appeal the decision, if necessary. We expect a CPUC final decision in the fourth quarter of 2017.

SDG&E participated as a claimant and respondent in an arbitration proceeding initiated by Edison in October 2013 against MHI seeking damages stemming from the failure of the MHI replacement steam generators at the SONGS nuclear power plant. In March 2017, the Tribunal found MHI liable for breach of contract, subject to a contractual limitation of liability, but determined that MHI was the prevailing party and awarded it 95 percent of its arbitration costs. We discuss this arbitration and decision further in Note 9.

Pursuant to a stipulation and order by the LA Superior Court, SoCalGas provided temporary relocation support to residents in the nearby community who requested it before the well was permanently sealed. Following the permanent sealing of the well, the DPH conducted testing in certain homes in the Porter Ranch community, and concluded that indoor conditions did not present a long-term health risk and that it was safe for residents to return home. In May 2016, the LA Superior Court ordered SoCalGas to offer to clean residents’ homes at SoCalGas’ expense as a condition to ending the relocation program. SoCalGas completed the residential cleaning program and the relocation program ended in July 2016.

In May 2016, the DPH also issued a directive that SoCalGas additionally professionally clean (in accordance with the proposed protocol prepared by the DPH) the homes of all residents located within the Porter Ranch Neighborhood Council boundary, or who participated in the relocation program, or who are located within a five-mile radius of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility and experienced symptoms from the Leak (the Directive). SoCalGas disputes the Directive, contending that it is invalid and unenforceable, and has filed a petition for writ of mandate to set aside the Directive.

The total costs incurred to remediate and stop the Leak and to mitigate local community impacts are significant and may increase, and we may be subject to potentially significant damages, restitution, and civil, administrative and criminal fines, costs and other penalties. To the extent any of these costs are not covered by insurance (including any costs in excess of applicable policy limits), or if there were to be significant delays in receiving insurance recoveries, such costs could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial condition and results of operations.

Cost Estimates and Accounting Impact. As of September 30, 2017, SoCalGas recorded estimated costs of $841 million related to the Leak. Of this amount, approximately two-thirds is for the temporary relocation program (including cleaning costs and certain labor costs). Other estimated costs include amounts for efforts to control the well, stop the Leak, stop or reduce the emissions, and the estimated cost of the root cause analysis being conducted by an independent third party to investigate the cause of the Leak. The remaining portion of the $841 million includes legal costs incurred to defend litigation, the value of lost gas, the costs to mitigate the actual natural gas released, and other costs. The value of lost gas reflects the current replacement cost of volumes purchased in September 2017 and estimates of the cost to replace the remaining volumes. SoCalGas adjusts its estimated total liability associated with the Leak as additional information becomes available. The $841 million represents management’s best estimate of these costs related to the Leak. Of these costs, a substantial portion has been paid and $42 million is accrued as Reserve for Aliso Canyon Costs as of September 30, 2017 on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for amounts expected to be paid after September 30, 2017.

As of September 30, 2017, we recorded the expected recovery of the costs described in the immediately preceding paragraph related to the Leak of $542 million as Insurance Receivable for Aliso Canyon Costs on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. This amount is net of insurance retentions and $294 million of insurance proceeds we received through September 30, 2017 related to control-of-well expenses and temporary relocation costs. If we were to conclude that this receivable or a

The above amounts do not include any unsettled damage claims, restitution, or civil, administrative or criminal fines, costs or other penalties that may be imposed in connection with the incident or our responses thereto, as it is not possible to predict the outcome of any civil or criminal proceeding or any administrative action in which such damage awards, restitution or civil, administrative or criminal fines, costs or other penalties could be imposed, and any such amounts, if awarded or imposed or otherwise paid, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. In addition, the recorded amounts above do not include the costs to clean additional homes pursuant to the Directive, future legal costs necessary to defend litigation, and other potential costs that we currently do not anticipate incurring or that we cannot reasonably estimate.

In March 2016, the CPUC ordered SoCalGas to establish a memorandum account to prospectively track its authorized revenue requirement and all revenues that it receives for its normal, business-as-usual costs to own and operate the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility and, in September 2016, approved SoCalGas’ request to begin tracking these revenues as of March 17, 2016. The CPUC will determine at a later time whether, and to what extent, the authorized revenues tracked in the memorandum account may be refunded to ratepayers.

Insurance. Excluding directors and officers liability insurance, we have four kinds of insurance policies that together provide between $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion in insurance coverage, depending on the nature of the claims. We cannot predict all of the potential categories of costs or the total amount of costs that we may incur as a result of the Leak. Subject to various policy limits, exclusions and conditions, based on what we know as of the filing date of this report, we believe that our insurance policies collectively should cover the following categories of costs: costs incurred for temporary relocation (including cleaning costs and certain labor costs), costs to address the Leak and stop or reduce emissions, the root cause analysis being conducted to investigate the cause of the Leak, the value of lost natural gas, costs incurred to mitigate the actual natural gas released, costs associated with litigation and claims by nearby residents and businesses, any costs to clean additional homes pursuant to the Directive, and, in some circumstances depending on their nature and manner of assessment, fines and penalties. We have been communicating with our insurance carriers and, as discussed above, we have received insurance payments for a portion of control-of-well expenses and a portion of temporary relocation costs. We intend to pursue the full extent of our insurance coverage for the costs we have incurred or may incur. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in obtaining insurance coverage for these costs under the applicable policies, and to the extent we are not successful in obtaining coverage or these costs exceed the amount of our coverage, such costs could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial condition and results of operations.

Our recorded estimate as of September 30, 2017 of $841 million of certain costs in connection with the Leak may rise significantly as more information becomes available, and any costs not included in our estimate could be material. To the extent not covered by insurance (including any costs in excess of applicable policy limits), or if there were to be significant delays in receiving insurance recoveries, such costs could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial condition and results of operations.

Governmental Investigations and Civil and Criminal Litigation. Various governmental agencies, including DOGGR, DPH, SCAQMD, CARB, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, CPUC, PHMSA, EPA, Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office and California Attorney General’s Office, have investigated or are investigating this incident. Other federal agencies (e.g., the DOE and the U.S. Department of the Interior) investigated the incident as part of a joint interagency task force. In January 2016, DOGGR and the CPUC selected Blade to conduct an independent analysis under their supervision and to be funded by SoCalGas to investigate the technical root cause of the Leak. The timing of the root cause analysis is under the control of Blade, DOGGR and the CPUC.

As of October 26, 2017, 344 lawsuits, including over 43,826 plaintiffs, are pending in the LA Superior Court against SoCalGas, some of which have also named Sempra Energy. These various lawsuits assert causes of action for negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, property damage, fraud, public and private nuisance (continuing and permanent), trespass, inverse condemnation, fraudulent concealment, unfair business practices and loss of consortium, among other things, and additional litigation may be filed against us in the future related to this incident. A complaint alleging violations of Proposition 65 was also filed. These complaints seek compensatory and punitive damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief, costs of future medical monitoring and attorneys’ fees, and several seek class action status. All of these cases, other than a matter brought by the Los Angeles County District Attorney and the federal securities class action discussed below, are coordinated before a single court in the LA County Superior Court for pretrial management (the Coordination Proceeding).

In addition to the lawsuits described above, a federal securities class action alleging violation of the federal securities laws has been filed against Sempra Energy and certain of its officers and certain of its directors in the SDCA. In June 2017, the SDCA dismissed the federal securities class action on the grounds the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to establish a claim for securities fraud. In July 2017, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, again alleging violation of the federal securities laws, and five shareholder derivative actions are also pending in the Coordination Proceeding alleging breach of fiduciary duties against certain officers and certain

Pursuant to the Coordination Proceeding, in March 2017, the individuals and business entities asserting tort and Proposition 65 claims filed a Second Amended Consolidated Master Case Complaint for Individual Actions, through which their separate lawsuits will be managed for pretrial purposes. The consolidated complaint asserts causes of action for negligence, negligence per se, private and public nuisance (continuing and permanent), trespass, inverse condemnation, strict liability, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent concealment, loss of consortium and violations of Proposition 65 against SoCalGas, with certain causes also naming Sempra Energy. The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages for personal injuries, lost wages and/or lost profits, property damage and diminution in property value, injunctive relief, costs of future medical monitoring, civil penalties (including penalties associated with Proposition 65 claims alleging violation of requirements for warning about certain chemical exposures), and attorneys’ fees.

In January 2017, pursuant to the Coordination Proceeding, two consolidated class action complaints were filed against SoCalGas and Sempra Energy, one on behalf of a putative class of persons and businesses who own or lease real property within a five-mile radius of the well (the Property Class Action), and a second on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities conducting business within five miles of the facility (the Business Class Action). Both complaints assert claims for strict liability for ultra-hazardous activities, negligence and violation of California Unfair Competition Law. The Property Class Action also asserts claims for negligence per se, trespass, permanent and continuing public and private nuisance, and inverse condemnation. The Business Class Action also asserts a claim for negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. Both complaints seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees.

Three actions filed by public entities are pending, as follows. These lawsuits are also included in the Coordination Proceeding. First, in July 2016, the County of Los Angeles, on behalf of itself and the people of the State of California, filed a complaint against SoCalGas in the LA Superior Court for public nuisance, unfair competition, breach of franchise agreement, breach of lease, and damages. This suit alleges that the four natural gas storage fields operated by SoCalGas in Los Angeles County require safety upgrades, including the installation of a sub-surface safety shut-off valve on every well. It additionally alleges that SoCalGas failed to comply with the DPH Directive. It seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, civil penalties, and damages for the County’s costs to respond to the Leak, as well as punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

Second, in August 2016, the California Attorney General, acting in an independent capacity and on behalf of the people of the State of California and the CARB, together with the Los Angeles City Attorney, filed a third amended complaint on behalf of the people of the State of California against SoCalGas alleging public nuisance, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, violations of California Health and Safety Code sections 41700 (prohibiting discharge of air contaminants that cause annoyance to the public) and 25510 (requiring reporting of the release of hazardous material), as well as California Government Code section 12607 for equitable relief for the protection of natural resources. The complaint seeks an order for injunctive relief, to abate the public nuisance, and to impose civil penalties.

Third, in March 2017, the County of Los Angeles filed a petition for writ of mandate against DOGGR and its State Oil and Gas Supervisor, as to which SoCalGas is the real party in interest. In July 2017, the County amended the petition to add the CPUC and its Executive Director. The petition alleges that in issuing its July 19, 2017 determination that the requirements for the resumption of injection operations have been met, discussed under “Natural Gas Storage Operations and Reliability” below, DOGGR failed to comply with the provisions of SB 380, which requires a comprehensive safety review of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility before injection of natural gas may resume. The County alleges, among other things, that DOGGR failed to comply with the provisions of SB 380 in declaring the safety review complete and authorizing the resumption of injection of natural gas into the facility before the root cause analysis was complete, failing to make its safety-review documents available to the public and failing to address seismic risks to the field as part of its safety review. The County further alleges that CEQA requires DOGGR to perform an Environmental Impact Review before the resumption of injection of natural gas at the facility may be approved. The petition seeks a writ of mandate requiring DOGGR and the State Oil and Gas Supervisor to comply with SB 380 and CEQA, and to produce records in response to the County’s Public Records Act request; as well as, declaratory and injunctive relief against any authorization to inject natural gas and attorneys’ fees. On July 24, 2017, the County filed an application for an immediate stay of DOGGR’s order, a temporary restraining order and order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued to stop the reopening of the facility. On July 28, 2017, the Superior Court denied the application on the ground that, pursuant to Public Utilities Code sections 714 and 1759(a), the CPUC has jurisdiction over regulating injections at the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, and the Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to rule on the County’s application. On July 31, 2017, the County filed a petition for writ of mandate, prohibition, stay or other appropriate relief and a request for immediate stay in the Court of Appeal, seeking review of the Superior Court’s order denying the County’s application for a temporary restraining order. Later the same day, the Court of Appeal denied the County’s request for an immediate stay on injections.

Separately, in February 2016, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office filed a misdemeanor criminal complaint against SoCalGas seeking penalties and other remedies for alleged failure to provide timely notice of the Leak pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 25510(a), Los Angeles County Code section 12.56.030, and Title 19 California Code of Regulations section 2703(a), and for allegedly violating California Health and Safety Code section 41700 prohibiting discharge of air contaminants that cause annoyance to the public. Pursuant to a settlement agreement with the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, SoCalGas agreed to plead no contest to the notice charge under Health and Safety Code section 25510(a) and agreed to pay the maximum fine of $75,000, penalty assessments of approximately $233,500, and operational commitments estimated to cost approximately $5 million, reimbursement and assessments in exchange for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office moving to dismiss the remaining counts at sentencing and settling the complaint (the District Attorney Settlement). In November 2016, SoCalGas completed the commitments and obligations under the District Attorney Settlement, and on November 29, 2016, the Court approved the settlement and entered judgment on the notice charge. Certain individuals residing near the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility who objected to the settlement have filed a notice of appeal of the judgment, as well as a petition asking the LA Superior Court to set aside the November 29, 2016 order and grant them restitution. The LA Superior Court dismissed the petition in January 2017, ruling that the petitioners have a remedy at law via their direct appeal.

The costs of defending against these civil and criminal lawsuits, cooperating with these investigations, and any damages, restitution, and civil, administrative and criminal fines, costs and other penalties, if awarded or imposed, as well as the costs of mitigating the actual natural gas released, could be significant and to the extent not covered by insurance (including any costs in excess of applicable policy limits), or if there were to be significant delays in receiving insurance recoveries, such costs could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial condition and results of operations.

Regulatory Proceedings. In February 2017, the CPUC opened a proceeding pursuant to SB 380 to determine the feasibility of minimizing or eliminating the use of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, while still maintaining energy and electric reliability for the region. The proceeding will be conducted in two phases, with Phase 1 undertaking a comprehensive effort to develop the appropriate analyses and scenarios to evaluate the impact of reducing or eliminating the use of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility and Phase 2 evaluating the impacts of reducing or eliminating the use of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility using the scenarios and models adopted in Phase 1. In accordance with the Phase 1 schedule, public participation hearings began in April 2017, and workshops and additional public participation hearings are expected to occur later in 2017.

Section 455.5 of the California Public Utilities Code, among other things, directs regulated utilities to notify the CPUC if all or any portion of a major facility has been out of service for nine consecutive months. Although SoCalGas does not believe the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility or any portion of that facility has been out of service for nine consecutive months, SoCalGas provided notification out of an abundance of caution to demonstrate its commitment to regulatory compliance and transparency, and because the process for obtaining authorization to resume injection operations at the facility required longer to complete than initially contemplated. In response, and as required by section 455.5, the CPUC issued an OII to address whether the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility or any portion of that facility has been out of service for nine consecutive months pursuant to section 455.5, and if it is determined to have been out of service, whether the CPUC should adjust SoCalGas’ rates to reflect the period the facility is deemed to have been out of service. Under section 455.5, hearings on the investigation are to be held, if necessary, in conjunction with SoCalGas’ 2019 GRC proceeding; however, the CPUC issued a procedural schedule that includes an evidentiary hearing on January 9, 2018, if needed. If the CPUC determines that all or any portion of the facility has been out of service for nine consecutive months, the amount of any refund to ratepayers and the inability to earn a return on those assets could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial condition and results of operations.

Governmental Orders and Additional Regulation. In January 2016, the Governor of the State of California issued an Order (the Governor’s Order) proclaiming a state of emergency to exist in Los Angeles County due to the Leak. The Governor’s Order imposes various orders with respect to: stopping the Leak; protecting public health and safety; ensuring accountability; and strengthening oversight. Most of the directives in the Governor’s Order have been fulfilled, with the following remaining open items: (1) applicable agencies must convene an independent panel of scientific and medical experts to review public health concerns stemming from the natural gas leak and evaluate whether additional measures are needed to protect public health; (2) the CPUC must ensure that SoCalGas covers costs related to the natural gas leak and its response, while protecting ratepayers, and CARB was ordered to develop a program to fully mitigate the leak’s emissions of methane by March 31, 2016, with such program to be funded by SoCalGas; and (3) DOGGR, CPUC, CARB and the CEC must submit to the Governor’s Office a report that assesses the long-term viability of natural gas storage facilities in California.

In December 2015, SoCalGas made a commitment to mitigate the actual natural gas released from the Leak and has been working on a plan to accomplish the mitigation. In March 2016, pursuant to the Governor’s Order, the CARB issued its Aliso Canyon Methane Leak Climate Impacts Mitigation Program, which set forth its recommended approach to achieve full mitigation of the emissions from the Leak. The CARB program requires that reductions in short-lived climate pollutants and other greenhouse gases be at least equivalent to the amount of the emissions from the Leak, and that the amount of reductions required be derived using the global warming potential based on a 20-year term (rather than the 100-year term the CARB and other state and federal agencies use in regulating emissions), resulting in a target of approximately 9,000,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. CARB’s program also calls for all of the mitigation to occur in California over the next five to ten years without the use of allowances or offsets. In October 2016, CARB issued its final report concluding that the incident resulted in total emissions from 90,350 to 108,950 metric tons of methane, and asserting that SoCalGas should mitigate 109,000 metric tons of methane to fully mitigate the greenhouse gas impacts of the Leak. We have not agreed with CARB’s estimate of methane released and continue to work with CARB on developing a mitigation plan.

PHMSA, DOGGR, SCAQMD, EPA and CARB each commenced separate rulemaking proceedings to adopt further regulations covering natural gas storage facilities and injection wells. DOGGR issued new regulations following the Governor’s Order as described above, and in 2016, the California Legislature enacted four separate bills providing for additional regulation of natural gas storage facilities. Additional hearings in the California Legislature, as well as with various other federal and state regulatory agencies, have been or may be scheduled, additional legislation has been proposed in the California Legislature, and additional laws, orders, rules and regulations may be adopted.

Natural Gas Storage Operations and Reliability. Natural gas withdrawn from storage is important for service reliability during peak demand periods, including peak electric generation needs in the summer and heating needs in the winter. The Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, with a storage capacity of 86 Bcf (which represents 63 percent of SoCalGas’ natural gas storage inventory capacity), is the largest SoCalGas storage facility and an important element of SoCalGas’ delivery system. SoCalGas calculated that approximately 4.62 Bcf of natural gas was released from the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility as a result of the Leak. SoCalGas did not inject natural gas into the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility after October 25, 2015, pursuant to orders by DOGGR and the Governor, and in accordance with SB 380. Limited withdrawals of natural gas from the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility have been made in 2017 to augment natural gas supplies during critical demand periods.

The process to begin limited injection operations at the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility was initiated in November 2016, when SoCalGas submitted a request to DOGGR seeking authorization to resume injection operations at the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility. In accordance with SB 380, DOGGR held public meetings in the affected community to provide the public an opportunity to comment on the safety review findings (the comment period has expired). Also, in April and June of 2017, SoCalGas advised the CAISO, CEC, CPUC and PHMSA of its concerns that the inability to inject natural gas into the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility poses a risk to energy reliability in Southern California.

On July 19, 2017, DOGGR issued its determination that the requirements of SB 380 for the resumption of injection operations, including all safety requirements, have been met. On the same date, the CPUC’s Executive Director issued his concurrence with that determination, and DOGGR issued its Order to: Test and Take Temporary Actions Upon Resuming Injection: Aliso Canyon Gas Storage Facility. The order lifted the prohibition on injection at the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, subject to its requirements that SoCalGas conduct and report results of a leak survey and measurement of total site methane emissions before resuming injection operations, as well as other requirements after injection resumes. The CPUC additionally issued a directive to SoCalGas to maintain a range of working gas in the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility at a target of 23.6 Bcf (approximately 28 percent of its maximum capacity), and at all times above 14.8 Bcf. DOGGR’s findings require SoCalGas to continue to operate the facility under restrictions that limit the rate at which it is able to withdraw natural gas from the field. The County of Los Angeles has filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and stay of DOGGR’s order lifting the prohibition against injecting natural gas at the facility. We provide further detail regarding the County of Los Angeles’ suit above in “Governmental Investigations and Civil and Criminal Litigation.” Also on July 19, 2017, the CEC released a letter to the CPUC indicating that its staff is prepared to work with the CPUC and other agencies on a plan to phase out the use of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility within ten years. The CEC and other stakeholders will be providing input into the SB 380 proceeding underway at the CPUC that

If the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility were determined to be out of service for any meaningful period of time or permanently closed, or if future cash flows were otherwise insufficient to recover its carrying value, it could result in an impairment of the facility and significantly higher than expected operating costs and/or additional capital expenditures, and natural gas reliability and electric generation could be jeopardized. At September 30, 2017, the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility has a net book value of $609 million, including $244 million of construction work in progress for the project to construct a new compression station. Any significant impairment of this asset could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s results of operations for the period in which it is recorded. Higher operating costs and additional capital expenditures incurred by SoCalGas may not be recoverable in customer rates, and could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial condition and results of operations.

Energía Costa Azul. Sempra Mexico has been engaged in a long-running land dispute relating to property adjacent to its Energía Costa Azul LNG terminal near Ensenada, Mexico. A claimant to the adjacent property filed complaints in the federal Agrarian Court challenging the refusal of the SEDATU in 2006 to issue a title to him for the disputed property. In November 2013, the federal Agrarian Court ordered that SEDATU issue the requested title and cause it to be registered. Both SEDATU and Sempra Mexico challenged the ruling, due to lack of notification of the underlying process. Both challenges are pending to be resolved by a Federal Court in Mexico. Sempra Mexico expects additional proceedings regarding the claims.

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 September 2015, the Court granted Sempra Energy’s motion for summary judgment and closed the case. The claimant appealed the summary judgment and an earlier order dismissing certain of his causes of action. In July 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued a ruling affirming the summary judgment and dismissal of his other causes of action, except one alleging theft of personal property in connection with the alleged eviction. In September 2017, the District Court dismissed the remaining claim.

Two real property cases have been filed against Energía Costa Azul. In one, the plaintiffs seek to annul the recorded property title for a parcel on which the Energía Costa Azul LNG terminal is situated and to obtain possession of a different parcel that allegedly sits in the same place. A second complaint was served in April 2013 seeking to invalidate the contract by which Energía Costa Azul purchased another of the terminal parcels, on the grounds the purchase price was unfair. In January 2016, the second complaint was dismissed by the Federal Agrarian Court. Sempra Mexico expects further proceedings on these two matters.

Guaymas-El Oro Segment of the Sonora Pipeline. IEnova’s Sonora natural gas pipeline consists of two segments, the Sasabe-Puerto Libertad-Guaymas segment, and the Guaymas-El Oro segment. Each segment has its own service agreement with the CFE. In 2015, the Yaqui tribe, with the exception of some members living in the Bácum community, granted its consent and a right-of-way easement agreement for the construction of the Guaymas-El Oro segment of the Sonora natural gas pipeline that crosses its territory. Representatives of the Bácum community filed an amparo in Mexican Federal Court demanding the right to withhold consent for the project, the stoppage of work in the Yaqui territory and damages. The judge granted a suspension order that prohibited the construction of such segment through the Bácum community territory. Because the pipeline does not pass through the Bácum community, IEnova did not believe the order prohibited construction in the remainder of the Yaqui territory. As a result of the dispute, however, IEnova was delayed in the construction of the approximately 14 kilometers of pipeline that pass through territory of the Yaqui tribe. The CFE agreed to extend the deadline for commercial operations until the second quarter of 2017. Construction of the Guaymas-El Oro segment is complete, and commercial operations began in May 2017. Following the start of commercial operations, an appellate court ruled that the scope of the suspension encompassed the wider Yaqui territory. The amparo remains pending. IEnova has subsequently reported damage and declared a force majeure event for the Guaymas-El Oro segment of the Sonora pipeline in the Yaqui territory that has interrupted its operations since August 23, 2017. There is no economic impact as of September 30, 2017. The Sasabe-Puerto Libertad-Guaymas segment remains in full operation.

cross-border generation tie line connecting the Energía Sierra Juárez wind project in Mexico to the electric grid in the United States. The suit alleged violations of the NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court largely denied in September 2015. One NEPA claim, however, was not resolved – whether the Environmental Impact Statement’s assessment of alleged extraterritorial impacts of the generation tie line in the United States on the environment in Mexico was inadequate (the “extraterritorial impact issue”) – and was the subject of additional briefing in 2016. On January 30, 2017, the Court issued a ruling on the extraterritorial impact issue and, contrary to its prior ruling, ruled that the Environmental Impact Statement was deficient for not considering the effects in Mexico of both the U.S. and Mexican portion of the generation tie line and the wind farm itself. On August 29, 2017, the Court denied the plaintiffs request to vacate the presidential permit or enjoin operation of the tie line and remanded the case to the DOE for preparation of a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement that addresses the deficiencies identified by the Court, and entered judgment ending the case.

Sempra Energy holds a noncontrolling interest in RBS Sempra Commodities, a limited liability partnership in the process of being liquidated. RBS, our partner in the joint venture, paid an £86 million assessment in October 2014 to HMRC for denied VAT refund claims filed in connection with the purchase of carbon credit allowances by RBS SEE, a subsidiary of RBS Sempra Commodities. RBS SEE has since been sold to JP Morgan and later to Mercuria Energy Group, Ltd. HMRC asserted that RBS was not entitled to reduce its VAT liability by VAT paid on certain carbon credit purchases during 2009 because RBS knew or should have known that certain vendors in the trading chain did not remit their own VAT to HMRC. After paying the assessment, RBS filed a Notice of Appeal of the assessment with the First-Tier Tribunal. The First-Tier Tribunal held a preliminary hearing in September 2016 to determine whether HMRC’s assessment was time-barred. In January 2017, the First-Tier Tribunal issued a decision in favor of HMRC concluding that the assessment was not time-barred. RBS has decided not to appeal the First-Tier Tribunal’s decision to the Upper Tribunal. There will be a hearing on the substantive matter regarding whether RBS knew or should have known that certain vendors in the trading chain did not remit their VAT to HMRC.

During 2015, liquidators, acting on behalf of ten companies (the Companies) that engaged in carbon credit trading via chains that included a company that RBS SEE traded with directly, filed a claim in the High Court of Justice asserting damages of £160 million against RBS and Mercuria Energy Europe Trading Limited (the Defendants). The claim alleges that the Defendants’ participation in the purchase and sale of carbon credits resulted in the Companies’ carbon credit trading transactions creating a VAT liability they were unable to pay. The £160 million is comprised of a claim by the Companies for £80 million for equitable compensation due to dishonest assistance, and a claim by the Liquidators for compensation in the same amount under the Insolvency Act of 1986. The parties have agreed that to the extent the Companies’ claims are successful, the liquidators cannot collect under the Insolvency Act of 1986, however, the award amount is ultimately determined by the Court. Trial of the matter has been set for the summer of 2018. JP Morgan has notified us that Mercuria Energy Group, Ltd. has sought indemnity for the claim, and JP Morgan has in turn sought indemnity from us and RBS.

In May 2016, Sempra LNG & Midstream permanently released certain pipeline capacity that it held with Rockies Express and others, which we discuss in Note 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Annual Report. The effect of the permanent capacity releases resulted in a pretax charge of $206 million ($123 million after-tax) in the second quarter of 2016, recorded in Other Cost of Sales on the Sempra Energy Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. In May 2017, Sempra LNG & Midstream

Sempra LNG & Midstream has a purchase agreement for the supply of LNG to the Energía Costa Azul terminal. The commitment amount is calculated using a predetermined formula based on estimated forward prices of the index applicable from 2017 to 2029. At September 30, 2017, the commitment amount is expected to decrease by $425 million in 2017, $40 million in 2018, $22 million in 2019, $32 million in 2020, $37 million in 2021 and $775 million thereafter (through contract termination in 2029) compared to December 31, 2016, reflecting changes in estimated forward prices since December 31, 2016 and actual transactions for the first nine months of 2017. These LNG commitment amounts are based on the assumption that all cargoes, less those already confirmed to be diverted, under the agreement are delivered. Although this agreement specifies a number of cargoes to be delivered, under its terms, the customer may divert certain cargoes, which would reduce amounts paid under the agreement by Sempra LNG & Midstream. Actual LNG purchases in the current and prior years have been significantly lower than the maximum amount provided under the agreement due to the customer electing to divert cargoes as allowed by the agreement.

SDG&E and the other owners of SONGS have insurance to cover claims from nuclear liability incidents arising at SONGS. This insurance provides $450 million in coverage limits, the maximum amount available, including coverage for acts of terrorism. In addition, the Price-Anderson Act provides for up to $13 billion of SFP. If a nuclear liability loss occurring at any U.S. licensed/commercial reactor exceeds the $450 million insurance limit, all nuclear reactor owners could be required to contribute to the SFP. In such case, SDG&E’s contribution would be up to $50.9 million. This amount is subject to an annual maximum of $7.6 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 maintain nuclear property damage insurance that exceeds the minimum federal requirements of $1.06 billion. This insurance coverage is provided through NEIL. The NEIL policies have specific exclusions and limitations that can result in reduced or eliminated coverage. Insured members as a group are subject to retrospective premium assessments to cover losses sustained by NEIL under all issued policies. SDG&E could be assessed up to $10.4 million of retrospective premiums based on overall member claims. All of SONGS’ insurance claims arising out of the failures of the MHI replacement steam generators have been settled with NEIL, as we discuss in Note 13 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Annual Report.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 made the DOE responsible for accepting, transporting, and disposing 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. SDG&E will continue to support Edison in its pursuit of claims on behalf of the SONGS co-owners against the DOE for its failure to timely accept the spent nuclear fuel. In April 2016, Edison executed a spent fuel settlement agreement with the DOE for $162 million covering damages incurred from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2013. In May 2016, Edison refunded SDG&E $32 million for its respective share of the damage award paid. In applying this refund, SDG&E recorded a $23 million reduction to the SONGS regulatory asset, an $8 million reduction of its nuclear decommissioning balancing account and a $1 million reduction in its SONGS O&M cost balancing account.

In September 2016, Edison filed claims with the DOE for $56 million in spent fuel management costs incurred in 2014 and 2015 on behalf of the SONGS co-owners under the terms of the 2016 spent fuel settlement agreement. In February 2017, the DOE reduced the request to approximately $43 million primarily due to reductions to the claimed fuel canister costs. SDG&E received its $9 million respective share of the claim from Edison in May 2017 and recorded the proceeds in balancing accounts or as reductions to regulatory assets for the benefit of ratepayers.

We maintain credit policies and systems designed 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 and Peru.