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 reasonably estimate 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 September 30, 2020, loss contingency accruals for legal matters, including associated legal fees, that are probable and estimable were $444 million for Sempra Energy Consolidated, including $299 million for SoCalGas. Amounts for Sempra Energy Consolidated and SoCalGas include $273 million for matters related to the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility gas leak, which we discuss below.

From October 23, 2015 through February 11, 2016, SoCalGas experienced a natural gas leak from one of the injection-and-withdrawal wells, SS25, at its Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility in Los Angeles County. As described below in “Civil and Criminal Litigation” and “Regulatory Proceedings,” numerous lawsuits, investigations and regulatory proceedings have been

Civil and Criminal Litigation. As of November 2, 2020, 394 lawsuits, including approximately 36,000 plaintiffs, are pending against SoCalGas related to the Leak, some of which have also named Sempra Energy. All 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.

In November 2017, in the coordinated proceeding, individuals and business entities filed a Third 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, wrongful death and violations of Proposition 65 against SoCalGas, with certain causes of action 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. The initial trial previously scheduled for June 2020 for a small number of randomly selected individual plaintiffs was postponed, with a new trial date to be determined by the court.

In January 2017, 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). The Property Class Action asserts claims for strict liability for ultra-hazardous activities, negligence, negligence per se, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, trespass, permanent and continuing public and private nuisance, and inverse condemnation. The Business Class Action asserts a claim for violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. Both complaints seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees.

Three property developers filed complaints in July and October of 2018 against SoCalGas and Sempra Energy alleging causes of action for strict liability, negligence per se, negligence, continuing nuisance, permanent nuisance and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, as well as claims for negligence against certain directors of SoCalGas. The complaints seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees.

In October 2018 and January 2019, complaints were filed on behalf of 51 firefighters stationed near the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility who allege they were injured by exposure to chemicals released during the Leak. The complaints against SoCalGas and Sempra Energy assert causes of actions 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 and loss of consortium. The complaints seek compensatory and punitive damages for personal injuries, lost wages and/or lost profits, property damage and diminution in property value, and attorney’s fees.

In February 2019, the LA Superior Court approved a settlement between SoCalGas and the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, the County of Los Angeles, the California Office of the Attorney General and CARB of three actions filed by these entities under which SoCalGas made payments and agreed to provide funding for environmental projects totaling $120 million, including $21 million in civil penalties, as well as other safety-related commitments.

In September 2016, SoCalGas settled a misdemeanor criminal complaint filed in February 2016 by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office against SoCalGas, pleading no contest to a charge that it failed 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). In November 2016, the LA Superior Court approved the settlement and entered judgment on the notice charge. Under the settlement, SoCalGas paid a $75,000 fine, $233,500 in penalties, and $246,673 to reimburse costs incurred by Los Angeles County Fire Department’s Health and Hazardous Materials Division, as well as completed operational commitments estimated to cost approximately $6 million. Certain individuals who objected to the settlement petitioned the Court of Appeal to vacate the judgment, contending they should be granted restitution. In July 2019, the Court of Appeal denied the petition in part, but remanded the matter to the trial court to give the petitioners an opportunity to

Regulatory Proceedings. In January 2016, CalGEM and the CPUC directed an independent analysis of the technical root cause of the Leak to be conducted by Blade. In May 2019, Blade released its report, which concluded that the Leak was caused by a failure of the production casing of the well due to corrosion and that attempts to stop the Leak were not effectively conducted, but did not identify any instances of non-compliance by SoCalGas. Blade concluded that SoCalGas’ compliance activities conducted prior to the Leak did not find indications of a casing integrity issue. Blade opined, however, that there were measures, none of which were required by gas storage regulations at the time, that could have been taken to aid in the early identification of corrosion and that, in Blade’s opinion, would have prevented or mitigated the Leak. The report also identified well safety practices and regulations that have since been adopted by CalGEM and implemented by SoCalGas, which address most of the root cause of the Leak identified during Blade’s investigation.

In June 2019, the CPUC opened an OII to consider penalties against SoCalGas for the Leak, which it later bifurcated into two phases. The first phase will consider whether SoCalGas violated California Public Utilities Code Section 451 or other laws, CPUC orders or decisions, rules or requirements, whether SoCalGas engaged in unreasonable and/or imprudent practices with respect to its operation and maintenance of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility or its related record-keeping practices, whether SoCalGas cooperated sufficiently with the Safety Enforcement Division (SED) and Blade during the pre-formal investigation, and whether any of the mitigation proposed by Blade should be implemented to the extent not already done. In November 2019, SED, based largely on the Blade report, alleged a total of 330 violations, asserting that SoCalGas violated California Public Utilities Code Section 451 and failed to cooperate in the investigation and to keep proper records. We expect hearings in the first phase of the OII to begin in the first quarter of 2021. The second phase will consider whether SoCalGas should be sanctioned for the Leak and what damages, fines or other penalties or sanctions, if any, should be imposed for any violations, unreasonable or imprudent practices, or failure to sufficiently cooperate with the SED as determined by the CPUC in the first phase. In addition, the second phase will determine the amounts of various costs incurred by SoCalGas and other parties in connection with the Leak and the ratemaking treatment or other disposition of such costs, which could result in little or no recovery of such costs by SoCalGas. SoCalGas is engaged in settlement discussions in connection with this proceeding.

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, but excluding issues with respect to air quality, public health, causation, culpability or cost responsibility regarding the Leak. The first phase of the proceeding established a framework for the hydraulic, production cost and economic modeling assumptions for the potential reduction in usage or elimination of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility. Phase 2 of the proceeding, which will evaluate the impacts of reducing or eliminating the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility using the established framework and models, began in the first quarter of 2019. The CPUC is scheduled to issue its report for Phase 2 by March 31, 2021. In December 2019, the CPUC added a third phase of the proceeding to consider alternative means for meeting or avoiding the demand for the facility’s services if it were eliminated in either 2027 or 2045.

If the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility were to be permanently closed, or if future cash flows from its operation 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, 2020, the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility had a net book value of $788 million. Any significant impairment of this asset, or higher operating costs and additional capital expenditures incurred by SoCalGas that may not be recoverable in customer rates, could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Cost Estimates, Accounting Impact and Insurance. SoCalGas has incurred significant costs for temporary relocation of community residents; to control the well and stop the Leak; to mitigate the natural gas released; to purchase natural gas to replace what was lost through the Leak; to defend against and, in certain cases, settle, civil and criminal litigation arising from the Leak; to pay the costs of the government-ordered response to the Leak, including the costs for Blade to conduct the root cause analysis described above; to respond to various government and agency investigations regarding the Leak; and to comply with increased regulation imposed as a result of the Leak. At September 30, 2020, SoCalGas estimates these costs related to the Leak are $1,440 million (the cost estimate), which includes the $1,279 million of costs recovered or probable of recovery from insurance. This cost estimate may increase significantly as more information becomes available. A substantial portion of the cost estimate has been paid, and $268 million is accrued as Reserve for Aliso Canyon Costs and $7 million is accrued in Deferred Credits and Other as of September 30, 2020 on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Consolidated Balance Sheets and $100 million ($72 million after tax) was recorded in O&M on the SoCalGas and Sempra Energy Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations related to settlement discussions in connection with the private plaintiffs’ actions described in “Civil and Criminal Litigation” above. SoCalGas continues to monitor and evaluate the status of the private plaintiffs’ actions and the OII described in “Regulatory Proceedings” above and, in the third quarter of 2020, recorded an additional accrual of $27 million ($22 million after tax) in O&M on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. These accruals are included in the cost estimate that we describe above.

Except for the amounts paid or estimated to settle certain actions, as described in “Civil and Criminal Litigation” above, the cost estimate does not include all litigation, regulatory proceedings or regulatory costs to the extent it is not possible to predict at this time the outcome of these actions or reasonably estimate the costs to defend or resolve the actions or the amount of damages, restitution, or civil, administrative or criminal fines, sanctions, penalties or other costs or remedies that may be imposed or incurred. The cost estimate also does not include certain other costs incurred by Sempra Energy associated with defending against shareholder derivative lawsuits and other potential costs that we currently do not anticipate incurring or that we cannot reasonably estimate. These costs not included in the cost estimate could be significant and could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial condition and results of operations.

We have received insurance payments for many of the costs included in the cost estimate, including temporary relocation and associated processing costs, control-of-well expenses, costs of the government-ordered response to the Leak, certain legal costs and lost gas. We intend to pursue the full extent of our insurance coverage for the costs we have incurred. Other than directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, after taking into consideration the additional accrual related to litigation matters described above, we have exhausted all of our insurance in this matter, except as to certain defense costs we may incur in the future, including those related to the shareholder derivative lawsuits described above. We continue to pursue other sources of insurance coverage for costs related to this matter, but we may not be successful in obtaining additional insurance recovery for any of these costs. If we are not able to secure additional insurance recovery for all or a substantial portion of these costs, if any costs we have recorded as an insurance receivable are not collected, if there are delays in receiving insurance recoveries, or if the insurance recoveries are subject to income taxes while the associated costs are not tax deductible, such amounts, which could be significant, could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial condition and results of operations.

As of September 30, 2020, we recorded the expected recovery of the cost estimate related to the Leak of $504 million as Insurance Receivable for Aliso Canyon Costs on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. This amount is exclusive of insurance retentions and $775 million of insurance proceeds we received through September 30, 2020. If we were to conclude that this receivable or a portion of it is 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.

IEnova has been engaged in a long-running land dispute relating to property adjacent to its ECA LNG Regasification facility that allegedly overlaps with land owned by the ECA LNG Regasification facility (the facility, however, is not situated on the land that is the subject of this dispute). A claimant to the adjacent property filed complaints in the federal Agrarian Court challenging the refusal of SEDATU in 2006 to issue 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 IEnova challenged the ruling due to lack of notification of the underlying process. In May 2019, a federal court in Mexico reversed the ruling and ordered a retrial.

Four other cases involving two adjacent areas of real property on which part of the ECA LNG Regasification facility is situated, each brought by a single plaintiff or her descendants, remain pending against the facility. The first disputed area is subject to a claim in the federal Agrarian Court that has been ongoing since 2006, in which the plaintiffs seek to annul the property title for a portion of the land on which the ECA LNG Regasification facility is situated and to obtain possession of a different parcel that allegedly overlaps with the site of the ECA LNG Regasification facility. The second disputed area is one parcel adjacent to the ECA LNG Regasification facility that allegedly overlaps with land on which the ECA LNG Regasification facility is situated, which is subject to a claim in the Agrarian Court and two claims in civil courts. The Agrarian Court proceeding, which seeks an order that SEDATU issue title to the plaintiff, was initiated in 2013 and the parties are awaiting a final decision. The two civil court proceedings, which seek to invalidate the contract by which the ECA LNG Regasification facility purchased the applicable parcel of land on which the ECA LNG Regasification facility is situated on the grounds that the purchase price was allegedly unfair, are progressing at different stages. In the first, initiated in 2013, a lower court ruled in favor of the ECA LNG Regasification facility and the ruling has been appealed by the plaintiff. The same plaintiff filed the second civil case in 2019, which is in its initial stages.

Several administrative challenges are pending before Mexico’s Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (the Mexican environmental protection agency) and Federal Tax and Administrative Courts, seeking revocation of the environmental impact authorization issued to the ECA LNG Regasification facility 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.

In 2018, two related claimants filed separate challenges in the federal district court in Ensenada, Baja California in relation to the environmental and social impact permits issued by each of Agencia de Seguridad, Energía y Ambiente (ASEA) and SENER to ECA LNG JV authorizing natural gas liquefaction activities at the ECA LNG Regasification facility. In the first case, the court issued a provisional injunction in September 2018. In December 2018, ASEA approved modifications to the environmental permit that facilitate the development of the proposed natural gas liquefaction facility in two phases. In May 2019, the court canceled the provisional injunction. The claimant appealed the court’s decision canceling the injunction, but was not successful. The claimant’s underlying challenge to the permits remains pending. In the second case, the initial request for a provisional injunction was denied. That decision was reversed on appeal in January 2020, resulting in the issuance of a new injunction against the same environmental and social impact permits that were already issued by ASEA and SENER. This injunction has uncertain application absent clarification by the court. The reversal and issuance of the injunction in the second case is under further appeal.

In September 2020, parties claiming a property interest in the land on which the ECA LNG Regasification facility is situated and the proposed ECA LNG liquefaction facility is anticipated to be situated filed an administrative proceeding with the Municipality of Ensenada against the construction permit for the construction of the proposed liquefaction export projects at the ECA LNG Regasification facility. The construction permit has been suspended pending resolution of the claim and the ECA LNG Regasification facility and ECA LNG JV are contesting the validity of the claim.

In May 2020, the two third-party capacity customers at the ECA LNG Regasification facility, Shell Mexico and Gazprom, asserted that a 2019 update of the general terms and conditions for service at the facility, as approved by the CRE, resulted in a breach of contract by IEnova and a force majeure event. Citing these circumstances, the customers subsequently stopped making payments of amounts due under their respective LNG storage and regasification agreements. IEnova has rejected the customers’ assertions and has drawn (and expects to continue to draw) on the customers’ letters of credit provided as payment security. The parties engaged in discussions under the applicable contractual dispute resolution procedures without coming to a mutually acceptable resolution. In July 2020, Shell Mexico submitted a request for arbitration of the dispute. IEnova will avail itself of its available claims, defenses and remedies in the arbitration proceeding. Gazprom has since replenished the amounts drawn on its letter of credit and has resumed making regular monthly payments under its LNG storage and regasification agreement. In October 2020, IEnova was informed by Gazprom of its consent to join the arbitration proceeding initiated by Shell Mexico against the ECA LNG Regasification facility and is awaiting the formalization of Gazprom’s recognition as a claimant party in such arbitration. IEnova intends to enforce its rights in the arbitration process, seeking to dismiss the customers’ claims. Shell Mexico also filed a constitutional challenge to the CRE’s approval of the update to the general terms and conditions. In October 2020, Shell Mexico’s request to stay CRE’s approval was denied and, subsequently, Shell Mexico filed an appeal of that decision.

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. 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, IEnova reported damage to the Guaymas-El Oro segment of the Sonora pipeline in the Yaqui territory that has made that section inoperable since August 2017 and, as a result, IEnova declared a force majeure event. In 2017, an appellate court ruled that the scope of the 2016 suspension order encompassed

the wider Yaqui territory, which has prevented IEnova from making repairs to put the pipeline back in service. In July 2019, a federal district court ruled in favor of IEnova and held that the Yaqui tribe was properly consulted and that consent from the Yaqui tribe was properly received. Representatives of the Bácum community appealed this decision, causing the suspension order preventing IEnova from repairing the damage to the Guaymas-El Oro segment of the Sonora pipeline in the Yaqui territory to remain in place until the appeals process is exhausted.

In July 2019, the CFE filed a request for arbitration generally to nullify certain contract terms that provide for fixed capacity payments in instances of force majeure and made a demand for substantial damages in connection with the force majeure event. In September 2019, the arbitration process ended when IEnova and the CFE reached an agreement to restart natural gas transportation service on the earlier of completion of repair of the damaged pipeline or January 15, 2020, and to modify the tariff structure and extend the term of the contract by 10 years. Subsequently, IEnova and the CFE agreed to extend the service start date to May 15, 2020 and then again to September 15, 2020. In the third quarter of 2020, the parties agreed to further extend the service start date to March 14, 2021. Under the revised agreement, the CFE will resume making payments only when the damaged section of the Guaymas-El Oro segment of the Sonora pipeline is repaired. If the pipeline is not repaired by March 14, 2021 and the parties do not agree on a new service start date, IEnova retains the right to terminate the contract and seek to recover its reasonable and documented costs and lost profits.

If IEnova is unable to make such repairs and resume operations in the Guaymas-El Oro segment of the Sonora pipeline within this time frame or if IEnova terminates the contract and is unable to obtain recovery, there may be a material adverse impact on Sempra Energy’s results of operations and cash flows and our ability to recover the carrying value of our investment. At September 30, 2020, the Guaymas-El Oro segment of the Sonora pipeline had a net book value of $446 million. The Sasabe-Puerto Libertad-Guaymas segment of the Sonora pipeline remains in full operation and is not impacted by these developments.

In April 2020, Mexico’s CENACE issued an order that it claims would safeguard Mexico’s national power grid from interruptions that may be caused by renewable energy projects. The main provision of the order suspends all legally mandated pre-operative testing that would be needed for new renewable energy projects to commence operations and prevents such projects from connecting to the national power grid until further notice. IEnova’s renewable energy projects affected by the order filed for legal protection through amparo claims (constitutional protection lawsuits) and, in June 2020, received injunctive relief until the claims are resolved by the courts.

IEnova’s renewable energy projects, including those in construction and in service, filed amparo claims against the SENER resolution in June 2020 and received injunctive relief in July 2020. In addition, in June 2020, COFECE, Mexico’s antitrust regulator, filed a complaint with Mexico’s Supreme Court against the SENER resolution. COFECE’s complaint was upheld by the court and, pending the court’s final ruling, the decision suspends indefinitely the resolution.

In May 2020, the CRE approved an update to the transmission rates included in legacy renewables and cogeneration energy contracts, based on the claim that the legacy transmission rates did not reflect fair and proportional costs for providing the applicable services and, therefore, created inequitable competitive conditions. Three of IEnova’s renewables’ facilities are currently holders of contracts with such legacy rates, and any increases in the transmission rates would be passed through directly to their customers. IEnova filed amparo claims for its affected facilities and, in August 2020, was granted injunctive relief.

IEnova and other companies affected by these new orders and regulations have challenged the orders and regulations by filing amparo claims, some of which have been granted injunctive relief. The court-ordered injunctions provide relief until Mexico’s Federal District Court ultimately resolves the amparo claims or, with respect to the SENER resolution, until Mexico’s Supreme

Court issues its final ruling on COFECE’s complaint, the timing of which is uncertain. An unfavorable final decision on these amparo challenges, or the potential for an extended dispute, could impact our ability to successfully complete construction of our solar facilities, or to complete them in a timely manner and within expected budgets, may impact our ability to operate our wind and solar facilities already in service at existing levels or at all, and may adversely affect our ability to develop new projects, any of which may have a material adverse impact on our results of operations and cash flows and our ability to recover the carrying values of our renewable energy investments in Mexico.

In October 2020, the CRE approved a resolution to amend the rules for the inclusion of new offtakers of legacy generation and self-supply permits (the Offtaker Resolution), which became effective immediately. The Offtaker Resolution prohibits self-supply permit holders from adding new offtakers that were not included in the original development or expansion plans, making modifications to the amount of energy allocated to the named offtakers, and including load centers that have entered into a supply arrangement under Mexico’s Electricity Industry Law. Don Diego Solar and Border Solar (two of IEnova’s projects currently in construction) and the Ventika wind power generation facilities are holders of legacy self-supply permits and are impacted by the Offtaker Resolution. If IEnova is not able to obtain legal protection for these impacted facilities, IEnova expects it will sell capacity affected by the Offtaker Resolution into the spot market. Currently, prices in the spot market are significantly lower than the fixed prices in the PPAs that were entered into through self-supply permits. IEnova is evaluating the legal procedures to challenge the Offtaker Resolution.

Sempra Energy holds an equity method investment in RBS Sempra Commodities, a limited liability partnership in the process of being liquidated. RBS, now NatWest Markets plc, our partner in the JV, paid an assessment of £86 million (approximately $138 million in U.S. dollars) 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 J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. 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. Trial on the matter, which could include the assessment of a penalty of up to 100% of the claimed amount, is scheduled to begin in June 2021.

In 2015, liquidators filed a claim in the High Court of Justice against RBS and Mercuria Energy Europe Trading Limited (the Defendants) on behalf of 10 companies (the Liquidating Companies) that engaged in carbon credit trading via chains that included a company that traded directly with RBS SEE. The claim alleges that the Defendants’ participation in the purchase and sale of carbon credits resulted in the Liquidating Companies’ carbon credit trading transactions creating a VAT liability they were unable to pay, and that the Defendants are liable to provide for equitable compensation due to dishonest assistance and for compensation under the U.K. Insolvency Act of 1986. Trial on the matter was held in June and July of 2018. In March 2020, the High Court of Justice rendered its judgment mostly in favor of the Liquidating Companies and awarded damages of approximately £45 million (approximately $58 million in U.S. dollars at September 30, 2020), plus costs and interest. In October 2020, the High Court of Justice issued an order granting the Defendants permission to appeal its March 2020 judgment to the Court of Appeal, and the Defendants have filed an application for such appeal.

Although the final outcome of both the High Court of Justice case and First-Tier Tribunal case remains uncertain, we recorded $100 million in equity losses from our investment in RBS Sempra Commodities in Equity Earnings on the Sempra Energy Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations in the nine months ended September 30, 2020, which represents an estimate of our obligations to settle pending tax matters and related legal costs.

Certain EFH subsidiaries that we acquired as part of the merger of EFH with an indirect subsidiary of Sempra Energy are defendants in personal injury lawsuits brought in state courts throughout the U.S. As of November 2, 2020, 275 such lawsuits are pending with 182 such lawsuits having been served. 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. The costs to defend or resolve these lawsuits and the amount of damages that may be imposed or incurred could have a material adverse effect on Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial condition and results of operations.

Some of our lease agreements contain nonlease components, which represent activities that transfer a separate good or service to the lessee. As the lessee for both operating and finance leases, we have elected to combine lease and nonlease components as a single lease component for real estate, fleet vehicles, power generating facilities, and pipelines, whereby fixed or in-substance fixed payments allocable to the nonlease component are accounted for as part of the related lease liability and ROU asset. As the lessor, we have elected to combine lease and nonlease components as a single lease component for real estate and power generating facilities if the timing and pattern of transfer of the lease and nonlease components are the same and the lease component would be classified as an operating lease if accounted for separately.


SUPPLEMENTAL NONCASH INFORMATION
(Dollars in millions)
	Nine months ended September 30, 2020
	Sempra Energy Consolidated		SDG&E		SoCalGas
Increase in operating lease obligations for right-of-use assets	$	24	$	—	$	4
Increase in finance lease obligations for investment in PP&E	72		26		46
	Nine months ended September 30, 2019
	Sempra Energy Consolidated		SDG&E		SoCalGas
Increase in operating lease obligations for right-of-use assets	$	571	$	147	$	117
Increase in finance lease obligations for investment in PP&E	27		12		15


LESSOR INFORMATION ON THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS – SEMPRA ENERGY
(Dollars in millions)
	Three months ended September 30,				Nine months ended September 30,
	2020		2019		2020		2019
Fixed lease payments	$	48	$	51	$	145	$	150
Variable lease payments	1		—		1		6
Total revenues from operating leases(1)	$	49	$	51	$	146	$	156

Depreciation expense	$	10	$	10	$	29	$	29

SoCalGas’ minimum purchase obligations for natural gas have increased by $54 million since December 31, 2019 primarily due to new purchase obligations entered into in the first nine months of 2020. Net future payments are expected to increase by $11 million in 2020, $43 million in 2021 and decrease by negligible amounts thereafter compared to December 31, 2019.

SoCalGas’ interstate pipeline capacity agreement commitments have increased by $597 million since December 31, 2019 primarily due to new capacity agreements entered into in the first nine months of 2020, which replace existing or expiring agreements. Net future payments are expected to decrease by $90 million in 2020, and increase by $17 million in 2021, $88 million in 2022, $100 million in 2023, $90 million in 2024 and $392 million thereafter compared to December 31, 2019.

Sempra LNG’s natural gas contracts and natural gas storage and transportation commitments have increased by $567 million since December 31, 2019, primarily from entering into new storage and transportation contracts in the first nine months of 2020. We expect future payments to decrease by $44 million in 2020, and increase by $73 million in 2021, $38 million in 2022, $34 million in 2023, $30 million in 2024 and $436 million thereafter compared to December 31, 2019.

Sempra LNG has a sale and purchase agreement for the supply of LNG to the ECA LNG Regasification facility. The commitment amount is calculated using a predetermined formula based on estimated forward prices of the index applicable from 2020 to 2029. 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. At September 30, 2020, we expect the commitment amount to decrease by $238 million in 2020, increase by $94 million in 2021, increase by $40 million in 2022, increase by $7 million in 2023, decrease by $12 million in 2024 and decrease by $56 million thereafter (through contract termination in 2029) compared to December 31, 2019, reflecting changes in estimated forward prices since December 31, 2019 and actual transactions for the first nine months of 2020. 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. 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.