COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES LEGAL PROCEEDINGS 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. At March 31, 2018, loss contingency accruals for legal matters, including associated legal fees, that are probable and estimable were $144 million for Sempra Energy Consolidated, including $3 million for SDG&E and $90 million for SoCalGas. Amounts for Sempra Energy and SoCalGas include $85 million for matters related to the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility gas leak, which we discuss below. SDG&E 2007 Wildfire Litigation and Net Cost Recovery Status 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. As a result of a CPUC decision denying SDG&E’s request to recover wildfire costs, SDG&E wrote off the wildfire regulatory asset, resulting in a charge of $351 million ($208 million after-tax) in the third quarter of 2017. SDG&E will continue to vigorously pursue recovery of these costs, which were incurred through settling claims brought under the doctrine of inverse condemnation. SDG&E applied to the CPUC for rehearing of its decision on January 2, 2018. The CPUC may grant a rehearing, modify its decision, or deny the request and affirm its original decision. We will appeal the decision with the California Courts of Appeal seeking to reverse the CPUC’s decision, if necessary. SoCalGas Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Storage Facility Gas Leak On October 23, 2015, SoCalGas discovered a leak at one of its injection-and-withdrawal wells, SS25, at its Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility (the Leak), located in the northern part of the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County. The Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility has been operated by SoCalGas since 1972. SS25 is one of more than 100 injection-and-withdrawal wells at the storage facility. SoCalGas worked closely with several of the world’s leading experts to stop the Leak, and on February 18, 2016, DOGGR confirmed that the well was permanently sealed. 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. Local Community Mitigation Efforts. 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 costs incurred to remediate and stop the Leak and to mitigate local community impacts have been significant and may increase, and we may be subject to potentially significant damages, restitution, and civil, administrative and criminal fines, penalties and other costs. 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. At March 31, 2018, SoCalGas estimates that its costs related to the Leak are $954 million, which includes $928 million of costs recovered or probable of recovery from insurance. Of the $954 million of estimated costs, approximately 60 percent 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 $954 million includes legal costs incurred to defend litigation, the estimated costs to settle certain actions, the costs to mitigate the actual natural gas released, the value of lost gas, and other costs. The value of lost gas reflects the replacement cost of all lost gas. SoCalGas adjusts its estimated total liability associated with the Leak as additional information becomes available. The $954 million represents management’s best estimate of these costs related to the Leak. Of these costs, a substantial portion has been paid and $122 million is accrued as Reserve for Aliso Canyon Costs as of March 31, 2018 on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for amounts expected to be paid after March 31, 2018. As of March 31, 2018, we recorded the expected recovery of the costs described in the immediately preceding paragraph related to the Leak of $447 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 $481 million of insurance proceeds we received through March 31, 2018 related to control-of-well expenses, lost gas and temporary relocation costs. If we were to conclude that this receivable or a portion of it was no longer probable of recovery from insurers, some or all of this receivable would be charged against earnings, which could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial condition and results of operations. As described in “Governmental Investigations and Civil and Criminal Litigation” below, the actions seek compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, and civil, administrative and criminal fines, penalties and other costs, which except for the amounts paid or estimated to settle certain actions, are not included in the above amounts as it is not possible at this time to predict the outcome of these actions or reasonably estimate the amount of damages, restitution or civil, administrative or criminal fines, penalties or other costs that may be imposed. The recorded amounts above also 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. Furthermore, the cost estimate of $954 million does not include certain other costs expensed by Sempra Energy through March 31, 2018 associated with defending against shareholder derivative lawsuits. 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 will 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 portions of control-of-well expenses, lost gas and 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 additional insurance recovery 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. At March 31, 2018, SoCalGas’ estimated costs related to the Leak of $954 million include $928 million of costs recovered or probable of recovery from insurance. This estimate may rise significantly as more information becomes available. Any costs not included in the $954 million cost 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 Energy Partners to conduct, under their supervision, an independent analysis of the technical root cause of the Leak, to be funded by SoCalGas. The timing of the root cause analysis is under the control of Blade Energy Partners, DOGGR and the CPUC. As of May 3, 2018, 381 lawsuits, including approximately 48,000 plaintiffs, are pending against SoCalGas, some of which have also named Sempra Energy. 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 Superior Court for pretrial management (the Coordination Proceeding). 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. In December 2017, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District ruled that the purely economic damages alleged in the Business Class Action are not recoverable under the law. In February 2018, the California Supreme Court granted a petition filed by the plaintiffs to review that ruling. 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 United States District Court for the Southern District of California. In March 2018, the District Court dismissed the action with prejudice, and in April 2018 the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the order. Five shareholder derivative actions are also pending in the Coordination Proceeding alleging breach of fiduciary duties against certain officers and certain directors of Sempra Energy and/or SoCalGas, four of which were joined in a Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint in August 2017. Three actions filed by public entities are pending 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, a petition for writ of mandate filed by the County of Los Angeles is pending against DOGGR and its State Oil and Gas Supervisor and the CPUC and its Executive Director, as to which SoCalGas is the real party in interest. The petition alleges that in issuing its July 2017 determination that the requirements for the resumption of injection operations were 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 required DOGGR to prepare an EIR 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. 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 $6 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 LA Superior 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 an appeal of the judgment, contending they should be granted restitution. The costs of defending against these civil and criminal lawsuits, cooperating with these investigations, and any damages, restitution, and civil, administrative and criminal fines, penalties and other costs, 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 CPUC indicated it intends to conduct the proceeding 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 using those analyses and scenarios to evaluate the impacts of reducing or eliminating the use of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility. The order establishing the scope of the proceeding expressly excludes issues with respect to air quality, public health, causation, culpability or cost responsibility regarding the Leak. The CPUC adopted a high level Phase 1 schedule contemplating public participation hearings and workshops beginning in April 2017, but no hearings until Phase 2. 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 the facility was out of service (as that term is meant in section 455.5) for nine consecutive months, SoCalGas provided notification out of an abundance of caution to demonstrate its commitment to regulatory compliance and transparency, and because obtaining authorization to resume injection operations at the facility required more time 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 the facility was out of service for nine consecutive months under section 455.5, and if so, whether the CPUC should disallow costs for such period from SoCalGas’ rates. Under section 455.5, hearings on the investigation are to be held, if necessary, in conjunction with SoCalGas’ 2019 GRC proceeding. If the CPUC determines that all or any portion of the facility was 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 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; (3) CARB must 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 (4) 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 GHG 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 GHG 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. 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. Beginning October 25, 2015, pursuant to orders by DOGGR and the Governor of the State of California, and in accordance with SB 380, SoCalGas suspended injection of natural gas into the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility. In April and June of 2017, SoCalGas advised the California ISO, CEC, CPUC and PHMSA of its concerns that the inability to inject natural gas into the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility posed a risk to energy reliability in Southern California. Limited withdrawals of natural gas from the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility were made in 2017 and in February and March of 2018 to augment natural gas supplies during critical demand periods. On July 19, 2017, DOGGR issued its determination that SoCalGas had met the requirements of SB 380 for the resumption of injection operations, including all safety requirements. 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 lifting the prohibition on injection at the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, subject to certain requirements after injection resumed, including limitations on the rate at which SoCalGas may withdraw natural gas from the field. The CPUC additionally issued a directive to SoCalGas to maintain a range of working gas in the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility above 14.8 Bcf at all times, with a target of 23.6 Bcf (approximately 28 percent of its maximum capacity), and later amended the directive to require that the range be maintained from zero Bcf to 24.6 Bcf of working gas. The County of Los Angeles filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and a 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.” Having completed the steps outlined by state agencies to safely begin injections at the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, as of July 31, 2017, SoCalGas resumed limited injections. If the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility were determined to have been 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 March 31, 2018, the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility has a net book value of $656 million, including $259 million of construction work in progress for the project to construct a new compressor 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. Sempra Mexico Property Disputes and Permit Challenges Energía Costa Azul. Sempra Mexico has been engaged in a long-running land dispute relating to property adjacent to its ECA LNG terminal near Ensenada, Mexico. A claimant to the adjacent property filed complaints in the federal Agrarian Court challenging the refusal of 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. Several administrative challenges are pending in Mexico before the Mexican environmental protection agency and the Federal Tax and Administrative Courts seeking revocation of the environmental impact authorization issued to ECA in 2003. These cases generally allege that the conditions and mitigation measures in the environmental impact authorization are inadequate and challenge findings that the activities of the terminal are consistent with regional development guidelines. Cases involving two parcels of real property have been filed against ECA. In one case, filed in the federal Agrarian Court in 2006, the plaintiffs seek to annul the recorded property title for a parcel on which the ECA LNG terminal is situated and to obtain possession of a different parcel that allegedly sits in the same place. Another civil complaint was served in April 2012 seeking to invalidate the contract by which ECA purchased another of the terminal parcels, on the grounds the purchase price was unfair; the plaintiff filed a second complaint in 2013 in the federal Agrarian Court seeking an order that SEDATU issue title to her. In January 2016, the federal Agrarian Court ruled against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff appealed the ruling. 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 a legal challenge in Mexican Federal Court demanding the right to withhold consent for the project, the stoppage of work in the Yaqui territory and damages. In 2016, 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 2016 suspension order prohibited construction in the remainder of the Yaqui territory. Because 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. IEnova declared a force majeure under its contract with the CFE as a result of such construction delays. The CFE agreed to extend the deadline for commercial operations of the Guaymas-El Oro segment until the second quarter of 2017 and to pay fixed charge payments pursuant to the service agreement during such extension. Construction of the Guaymas-El Oro segment was completed, and commercial operations began in May 2017. Following the start of commercial operations of the Guaymas-El Oro segment, an appellate court ruled that the scope of the 2016 suspension order encompassed the wider Yaqui territory. The legal challenge 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. The Sasabe-Puerto Libertad-Guaymas segment of the Sonora pipeline remains in full operation. Other Litigation 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 ruled that HMRC’s assessment was timely. 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 Liquidating 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 Liquidating 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 U.K. Insolvency Act of 1986. The parties have agreed that to the extent the Companies’ claims are successful, the liquidators cannot collect under the U.K. 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 Sempra Energy and RBS. Our remaining investment in RBS Sempra Commodities of $67 million at March 31, 2018 is accounted for under the equity method and reflects remaining distributions expected to be received from the partnership as it is liquidated. The timing and amount of distributions may be impacted by these matters. Certain EFH subsidiaries that we acquired as part of the Merger are defendants in approximately 140 personal injury lawsuits brought in state courts throughout the U.S. These cases allege illness or death as a result of exposure to asbestos in power plants designed and/or built by companies whose assets were purchased by predecessor entities to the EFH subsidiaries, and generally assert claims for product defects, negligence, strict liability and wrongful death. They seek compensatory and punitive damages. Additionally, in connection with the EFH bankruptcy proceeding, approximately 28,000 proofs of claim were filed on behalf of persons who allege exposure to asbestos under similar circumstances and assert the right to file such lawsuits in the future. We anticipate additional lawsuits will be filed. None of these claims or lawsuits were discharged in the EFH bankruptcy proceeding. We are also defendants in ordinary routine litigation incidental to our businesses, including personal injury, employment litigation, product liability, property damage and other claims. Juries have demonstrated an increasing willingness to grant large awards, including punitive damages, in these types of cases.CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENTS We discuss below significant changes in the first three months of 2018 to contractual commitments discussed in Notes 1 and 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Annual Report. Natural Gas Contracts Sempra LNG & Midstream’s natural gas purchase and transportation commitments have decreased by $54 million since December 31, 2017, primarily due to payments on existing contracts and changes in forward natural gas prices in the first three months of 2018. Net future payments are expected to decrease by $62 million in 2018, and increase by $3 million in 2019, $2 million in 2020, $2 million in 2021, and $1 million in 2022 compared to December 31, 2017. LNG Purchase Agreement Sempra LNG & Midstream has a purchase agreement for the supply of LNG to the ECA terminal. The commitment amount is calculated using a predetermined formula based on estimated forward prices of the index applicable from 2018 to 2029. At March 31, 2018, the commitment amount is expected to decrease by $112 million in 2018, $55 million in 2019, $42 million in 2020, $40 million in 2021, $30 million in 2022 and $110 million thereafter (through contract termination in 2029) compared to December 31, 2017, reflecting changes in estimated forward prices since December 31, 2017 and actual transactions for the first three months of 2018. These LNG commitment amounts are based on the assumption that all LNG 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. Construction and Development Projects Sempra Mexico In the first three months of 2018, significant net increases to contractual commitments at Sempra Mexico were $94 million, primarily for contracts related to the construction of liquid fuels terminals. Net future payments under these contractual commitments are expected to increase by $91 million in 2018, $2 million in 2019 and $1 million thereafter compared to December 31, 2017. Other Commitments Sempra Mexico In the first three months of 2018, significant net increases to contractual commitments at Sempra Mexico were $81 million, primarily for contracts for the construction of renewables projects. Net future payments under these contractual commitments are expected to increase by $53 million in 2018 and $28 million in 2019 compared to December 31, 2017.CONCENTRATION OF CREDIT RISK 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. Projects and businesses owned or partially owned by Sempra Energy place significant reliance on the ability of their suppliers, customers and partners 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 and investment opportunities.

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.

At March 31, 2018, loss contingency accruals for legal matters, including associated legal fees, that are probable and estimable were $144 million for Sempra Energy Consolidated, including $3 million for SDG&E and $90 million for SoCalGas. Amounts for Sempra Energy and SoCalGas include $85 million for matters related to the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility gas leak, which we discuss below.

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.

As a result of a CPUC decision denying SDG&E’s request to recover wildfire costs, SDG&E wrote off the wildfire regulatory asset, resulting in a charge of $351 million ($208 million after-tax) in the third quarter of 2017. SDG&E will continue to vigorously pursue recovery of these costs, which were incurred through settling claims brought under the doctrine of inverse

On October 23, 2015, SoCalGas discovered a leak at one of its injection-and-withdrawal wells, SS25, at its Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility (the Leak), located in the northern part of the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County. The Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility has been operated by SoCalGas since 1972. SS25 is one of more than 100 injection-and-withdrawal wells at the storage facility. SoCalGas worked closely with several of the world’s leading experts to stop the Leak, and on February 18, 2016, DOGGR confirmed that the well was permanently sealed. 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.

Local Community Mitigation Efforts. 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 costs incurred to remediate and stop the Leak and to mitigate local community impacts have been significant and may increase, and we may be subject to potentially significant damages, restitution, and civil, administrative and criminal fines, penalties and other costs. 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. At March 31, 2018, SoCalGas estimates that its costs related to the Leak are $954 million, which includes $928 million of costs recovered or probable of recovery from insurance. Of the $954 million of estimated costs, approximately 60 percent 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 $954 million includes legal costs incurred to defend litigation, the estimated costs to settle certain actions, the costs to mitigate the actual natural gas released, the value of lost gas, and other costs. The value of lost gas reflects the replacement cost of all lost gas. SoCalGas adjusts its estimated total liability associated with the Leak as additional information becomes available. The $954 million represents management’s best estimate of these costs related to the Leak. Of these costs, a substantial portion has been paid and $122 million is accrued as Reserve for Aliso Canyon Costs as of March 31, 2018 on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for amounts expected to be paid after March 31, 2018.

As of March 31, 2018, we recorded the expected recovery of the costs described in the immediately preceding paragraph related to the Leak of $447 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 $481 million of insurance proceeds we received through March 31, 2018 related to control-of-well expenses, lost gas and temporary relocation costs. If we were to conclude that this receivable or a portion of it was no longer probable of recovery from insurers, some or all of this receivable would be charged against earnings, which could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial condition and results of operations.

As described in “Governmental Investigations and Civil and Criminal Litigation” below, the actions seek compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, and civil, administrative and criminal fines, penalties and other costs, which except for the amounts paid or estimated to settle certain actions, are not included in the above amounts as it is not possible at this time to predict the outcome of these actions or reasonably estimate the amount of damages, restitution or civil, administrative or criminal fines, penalties or other costs that may be imposed. The recorded amounts above also 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

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 will 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 portions of control-of-well expenses, lost gas and 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 additional insurance recovery 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.

At March 31, 2018, SoCalGas’ estimated costs related to the Leak of $954 million include $928 million of costs recovered or probable of recovery from insurance. This estimate may rise significantly as more information becomes available. Any costs not included in the $954 million cost 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 Energy Partners to conduct, under their supervision, an independent analysis of the technical root cause of the Leak, to be funded by SoCalGas. The timing of the root cause analysis is under the control of Blade Energy Partners, DOGGR and the CPUC.

As of May 3, 2018, 381 lawsuits, including approximately 48,000 plaintiffs, are pending against SoCalGas, some of which have also named Sempra Energy. 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 Superior Court for pretrial management (the Coordination Proceeding).

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. In December 2017, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District ruled that the purely economic damages alleged in the Business Class Action are not recoverable under the law. In February 2018, the California Supreme Court granted a petition filed by the plaintiffs to review that ruling.

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 United States District Court for the Southern District of California. In March 2018, the District Court dismissed the action with prejudice, and in April 2018 the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the order.

Three actions filed by public entities are pending 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, a petition for writ of mandate filed by the County of Los Angeles is pending against DOGGR and its State Oil and Gas Supervisor and the CPUC and its Executive Director, as to which SoCalGas is the real party in interest. The petition alleges that in issuing its July 2017 determination that the requirements for the resumption of injection operations were 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 required DOGGR to prepare an EIR 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.

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 $6 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 LA Superior 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 an appeal of the judgment, contending they should be granted restitution.

The costs of defending against these civil and criminal lawsuits, cooperating with these investigations, and any damages, restitution, and civil, administrative and criminal fines, penalties and other costs, 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 CPUC indicated it intends to conduct the proceeding 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 using those analyses and scenarios to evaluate the impacts of reducing or eliminating the use of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility.

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 the facility was out of service (as that term is meant in section 455.5) for nine consecutive months, SoCalGas provided notification out of an abundance of caution to demonstrate its commitment to regulatory compliance and transparency, and because obtaining authorization to resume injection operations at the facility required more time 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 the facility was out of service for nine consecutive months under section 455.5, and if so, whether the CPUC should disallow costs for such period from SoCalGas’ rates. Under section 455.5, hearings on the investigation are to be held, if necessary, in conjunction with SoCalGas’ 2019 GRC proceeding. If the CPUC determines that all or any portion of the facility was 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 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; (3) CARB must 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 (4) 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 GHG 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 GHG 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.

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. Beginning October 25, 2015, pursuant to orders by DOGGR and the Governor of the State of California, and in accordance with SB 380,

SoCalGas suspended injection of natural gas into the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility. In April and June of 2017, SoCalGas advised the California ISO, CEC, CPUC and PHMSA of its concerns that the inability to inject natural gas into the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility posed a risk to energy reliability in Southern California. Limited withdrawals of natural gas from the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility were made in 2017 and in February and March of 2018 to augment natural gas supplies during critical demand periods.

On July 19, 2017, DOGGR issued its determination that SoCalGas had met the requirements of SB 380 for the resumption of injection operations, including all safety requirements. 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 lifting the prohibition on injection at the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, subject to certain requirements after injection resumed, including limitations on the rate at which SoCalGas may withdraw natural gas from the field. The CPUC additionally issued a directive to SoCalGas to maintain a range of working gas in the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility above 14.8 Bcf at all times, with a target of 23.6 Bcf (approximately 28 percent of its maximum capacity), and later amended the directive to require that the range be maintained from zero Bcf to 24.6 Bcf of working gas. The County of Los Angeles filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and a 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.” Having completed the steps outlined by state agencies to safely begin injections at the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, as of July 31, 2017, SoCalGas resumed limited injections.

If the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility were determined to have been 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 March 31, 2018, the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility has a net book value of $656 million, including $259 million of construction work in progress for the project to construct a new compressor 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 ECA LNG terminal near Ensenada, Mexico. A claimant to the adjacent property filed complaints in the federal Agrarian Court challenging the refusal of 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.

Several administrative challenges are pending in Mexico before the Mexican environmental protection agency and the Federal Tax and Administrative Courts seeking revocation of the environmental impact authorization issued to ECA in 2003. These cases generally allege that the conditions and mitigation measures in the environmental impact authorization are inadequate and challenge findings that the activities of the terminal are consistent with regional development guidelines.

Cases involving two parcels of real property have been filed against ECA. In one case, filed in the federal Agrarian Court in 2006, the plaintiffs seek to annul the recorded property title for a parcel on which the ECA LNG terminal is situated and to obtain possession of a different parcel that allegedly sits in the same place. Another civil complaint was served in April 2012 seeking to invalidate the contract by which ECA purchased another of the terminal parcels, on the grounds the purchase price was unfair; the plaintiff filed a second complaint in 2013 in the federal Agrarian Court seeking an order that SEDATU issue title to her. In January 2016, the federal Agrarian Court ruled against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff appealed the ruling. 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 a legal challenge in Mexican Federal Court demanding the right to withhold consent for the project, the stoppage of work in the Yaqui territory and damages. In 2016, 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 2016 suspension order prohibited construction in the remainder of the Yaqui territory. Because 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. IEnova declared a force majeure under its contract with the CFE as a result of such construction delays. The CFE agreed to extend the deadline for commercial operations of the Guaymas-El Oro segment until the second quarter of 2017 and to pay fixed charge payments pursuant to the service agreement during such extension. Construction of the Guaymas-El Oro segment was completed, and commercial operations began in May 2017.

Following the start of commercial operations of the Guaymas-El Oro segment, an appellate court ruled that the scope of the 2016 suspension order encompassed the wider Yaqui territory. The legal challenge 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. The Sasabe-Puerto Libertad-Guaymas segment of the Sonora pipeline remains in full operation.

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 ruled that HMRC’s assessment was timely. 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 Liquidating 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 Liquidating 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 U.K. Insolvency Act of 1986. The parties have agreed that to the extent the Companies’ claims are successful, the liquidators cannot collect under the U.K. 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 Sempra Energy and RBS.

Certain EFH subsidiaries that we acquired as part of the Merger are defendants in approximately 140 personal injury lawsuits brought in state courts throughout the U.S. These cases allege illness or death as a result of exposure to asbestos in power plants designed and/or built by companies whose assets were purchased by predecessor entities to the EFH subsidiaries, and generally assert claims for product defects, negligence, strict liability and wrongful death. They seek compensatory and punitive damages. Additionally, in connection with the EFH bankruptcy proceeding, approximately 28,000 proofs of claim were filed on behalf of persons who allege exposure to asbestos under similar circumstances and assert the right to file such lawsuits in the future. We anticipate additional lawsuits will be filed. None of these claims or lawsuits were discharged in the EFH bankruptcy proceeding.

Sempra LNG & Midstream’s natural gas purchase and transportation commitments have decreased by $54 million since December 31, 2017, primarily due to payments on existing contracts and changes in forward natural gas prices in the first three months of 2018. Net future payments are expected to decrease by $62 million in 2018, and increase by $3 million in 2019, $2 million in 2020, $2 million in 2021, and $1 million in 2022 compared to December 31, 2017.

Sempra LNG & Midstream has a purchase agreement for the supply of LNG to the ECA terminal. The commitment amount is calculated using a predetermined formula based on estimated forward prices of the index applicable from 2018 to 2029. At March 31, 2018, the commitment amount is expected to decrease by $112 million in 2018, $55 million in 2019, $42 million in 2020, $40 million in 2021, $30 million in 2022 and $110 million thereafter (through contract termination in 2029) compared to December 31, 2017, reflecting changes in estimated forward prices since December 31, 2017 and actual transactions for the first three months of 2018. These LNG commitment amounts are based on the assumption that all LNG 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.

In the first three months of 2018, significant net increases to contractual commitments at Sempra Mexico were $94 million, primarily for contracts related to the construction of liquid fuels terminals. Net future payments under these contractual commitments are expected to increase by $91 million in 2018, $2 million in 2019 and $1 million thereafter compared to December 31, 2017.

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.