COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

3 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2013

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

NOTE 10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We accrue losses for legal proceedings when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amounts of the loss can be reasonably estimated. However, the uncertainties inherent in legal proceedings make it difficult to estimate with reasonable certainty the costs and effects of resolving these matters. Accordingly, actual costs incurred may differ materially from amounts accrued, may exceed applicable insurance 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 June 30, 2013, Sempra Energy's accrued liabilities for material legal proceedings, on a consolidated basis, were $231 million. At June 30, 2013, accrued liabilities for material legal proceedings for SDG&E and SoCalGas were $216 million and $5 million, respectively. At June 30, 2013, accrued liabilities of $214 million at Sempra Energy and SDG&E were related to wildfire litigation discussed below.

SDG&E

2007 Wildfire Litigation

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

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

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

In October 2010, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling that these claims must be pursued in individual lawsuits, rather than as class actions on behalf of all persons who incurred wildfire damages. In February 2011, the California Supreme Court denied a petition for review of the affirmance. A trial has been setfor September 26, 2014.

SDG&E filed cross-complaints against Cox seeking indemnification for any liability that SDG&E might incur in connection with the Guejito fire, two SDG&E contractors seeking indemnification in connection with the Witch fire, and one SDG&E contractor seeking indemnification in connection with the Rice fire. SDG&E settled its claims against Cox and the three contractors for a total of approximately $824 million. Among other things, the settlement agreements provide that SDG&E will defend and indemnify Cox and the three contractors against all compensatory damage claims and related costs arising out of the wildfires.

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

The wildfire litigation also includes claims of non-insurer plaintiffs for damage to uninsured and underinsured structures, business interruption, evacuation expenses, agricultural damage, emotional harm, personal injuries and other losses. SDG&E has settled the claims of approximately 5,800 of these plaintiffs, including all of the government entities. Substantially all of the approximately 350 remaining individual and business plaintiffs have submitted settlement demands and damage estimates totaling approximately $750million. SDG&E does not expect a significant number of additional plaintiffs to file lawsuits given the applicable statutes of limitation, but does expect to receive additional settlement demands and damage estimates from existing plaintiffs as settlement negotiations continue. SDG&E has established reserves for the wildfire litigation as we discuss below.

SDG&E's settled claims and defense costs have exceeded its $1.1 billion of liability insurance coverage for the covered period and the $824 million recovered from third parties. It expects that its wildfire reserves and amounts paid to resolve wildfire claims will continue to increase as it obtains additional information.

As we discuss in Note 9, SDG&E has concluded that it is probable that it will be permitted to recover in rates a substantial portion of its reasonably incurred costs of resolving wildfire claims in excess of its liability insurance coverage and the amounts recovered from third parties. Accordingly, although such recovery will require future regulatory approval, at June 30, 2013, Sempra Energy and SDG&E have recorded assets of $352 million in Regulatory Assets Arising From Wildfire Litigation Costs on their Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, including $320 million related to CPUC-regulated operations, which represents the amount substantially equal to the aggregate amount it has paid or reserved for payment for the resolution of wildfire claims and related costs in excess of its liability insurance coverage and amounts recovered from third parties. SDG&E will increase the regulatory assets if the estimate of amounts to settle remaining claims increases.

SDG&E will continue to assess the probability of recovery of these excess wildfire costs in rates. Should SDG&E conclude that recovery in rates is no longer probable, SDG&E will record a charge against earnings at the time such conclusion is reached. If SDG&E had concluded that the recovery of regulatory assets related to CPUC-regulated operations was no longer probable or was less than currently estimated atJune 30, 2013, the resulting after-tax charge against earnings would have been up to $190 million. In addition, in periods following any such conclusion, SDG&E's earnings will be adversely impacted by increases in the estimated cost to litigate or settle pending wildfire claims. We provide additional information about excess wildfire claims cost recovery and related CPUC actions in Note 9 and discuss how we assess the probability of recovery of our regulatory assets in Note 1 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Annual Report.

SDG&E's cash flow may be materially adversely affected due to the timing differences between the resolution of claims and the recoveries in rates, which may extend over a number of years. Also, recovery from customers will require future regulatory actions, and a failure to obtain substantial or full recovery, or any negative assessment of the likelihood of recovery, would likely have a material adverse effect on Sempra Energy's and SDG&E's businesses, financial condition, cash flows, results of operations and prospects.

SDG&E will continue to gather information to evaluate and assess the remaining wildfire claims and the likelihood, amount and timing of related recoveries in rates and will make appropriate adjustments to wildfire reserves and the related regulatory assets as additional information becomes available.

Since 2010, as liabilities for wildfire litigation have become reasonably estimable in the form of settlement demands, damage estimates, and other damage information, SDG&E has recorded related reserves as a liability. The impact of this liability at June 30, 2013 is offset by the recognition of regulatory assets, as discussed above, for reserves in excess of the insurance coverage and recoveries from third parties. The adverse impact of the change in the reserves on SDG&E's and Sempra Energy's after-tax earnings was $0 and $3.3 million for the three months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively, and $0.3 million and $4.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively. At June 30, 2013, wildfire litigation reserves were $214 million ($182 million current and $32 million long-term). Additionally, through June 30, 2013, SDG&E has expended $241 million (cumulative, excluding amounts covered by insurance and amounts recovered from third parties) to pay for the settlement of wildfire claims and related costs.

Sunrise Powerlink Electric Transmission Line

The Sunrise Powerlink is a 117-mile, 500-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line between the Imperial Valley and the San Diego region that was energized and placed in service in June 2012. The Sunrise Powerlink project was approved by the CPUC in December 2008, the BLM in January 2009, and the USFS in July 2010. Numerous administrative appeals and legal challenges have been resolved in favor of the project. Three legal challenges are pending.

In February 2010, project opponents filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in San Diego alleging that the BLM failed to properly address the environmental impacts of the approved Sunrise Powerlink route and the related potential development of renewable resources in east San Diego County and Imperial County. In July 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's grant of the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

In January 2011, project opponents filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in San Diego alleging that the federal approvals for construction of the project on USFS land and BLM land violated the National Environmental Policy Act and other federal environmental laws. In June 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

In February 2011, opponents of the Sunrise Powerlink filed a lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court against the State Water Resources Control Board and SDG&E alleging that the water quality certification issued by the Board under the Federal Clean Water Act violated the California Environmental Quality Act. The Superior Court denied the plaintiffs' petition in July 2012, and the plaintiffs have appealed.

A claim for additional compensation has been submitted by one of SDG&E's contractors on the Sunrise Powerlink project. The contractor was awarded the transmission line overhead and underground construction contract on a fixed-fee basis of $456 million after agreed-upon amendments. The contractor has asserted that it is owed additional compensation above the fixed-fee portion of the contract. In May 2013, the contractor filed two civil complaints, one in San Diego County and the other in Imperial County, seeking Foreclosure of Mechanics Liens previously filed in the sum of $99.2 million and $81.1 million.  SDG&E has not been formally served with the complaints. At this time, based on the documentation submitted by the contractor and the terms of the fixed-fee agreement, SDG&E has concluded that the contractor has not supported its claim for additional compensation in the amount it has requested.

September 2011 Power Outage

In September 2011, a power outage lasting approximately 12 hours affected millions of people from Mexico to southern Orange County, California. Within several days of the outage, several SDG&E customers filed a class action lawsuit in Federal District Court in San Diego against Arizona Public Service Company, Pinnacle West, and SDG&E alleging that the companies failed to prevent the outage. The lawsuit seeks recovery of unspecified amounts of damages, including punitive damages. In July 2012, the court granted SDG&E's motion to dismiss the punitive damages request and dismissed Arizona Public Service Company and Pinnacle West from the lawsuit. SDG&E has filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a determination by the court that it has no liability for the damages sought in the lawsuit.

The FERC and North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) conducted a joint inquiry to determine the cause of the power failure and issued a report in May 2012 regarding their findings. The report does not make any findings of failure on SDG&E's part that led to the power failure. However, this report is not dispositive on any potential liability of SDG&E related to the events of that power outage.

More than 7,000 customers' claims, primarily related to food spoilage, have been submitted directly to SDG&E.

Smart Meters Patent Infringement Lawsuit

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

Lawsuit Against Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.

On July 18, 2013, SDG&E filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California in the County of San Diego against Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Mitsubishi Nuclear Energy Systems, Inc., and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc.(collectively MHI).  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages SDG&E has incurred and will incur related to the design defects in the steam generators MHI provided to theSONGS nuclear power plant. The lawsuit asserts a number of causes of action, including fraud, based on the representations MHI made about its qualifications and ability to design generators free from defects of the kind that resulted in the permanent shutdown of the plant and further seeks to set aside the contractual limitation of damages that MHI has asserted. On July 24, 2013, MHI removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. 

SoCalGas

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

Sempra Natural Gas

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

Sempra Mexico

Sempra Mexico has been engaged in a long-running land dispute relating to property adjacent to its Energía Costa Azul LNG terminal near Ensenada, Mexico. The adjacent property is not required by environmental or other regulatory permits for the operation of the terminal. A claimant to the adjacent property has nonetheless asserted that his health and safety are endangered by the operation of the facility. In February 2011, based on a complaint by the claimant, the then new Ensenada Mayor attempted to temporarily close the terminal based on claims of irregularities in municipal permits issued six years earlier. This attempt was promptly countermanded by Mexican federal and Baja California state authorities. No terminal permits or operations were affected as a result of these proceedings or events and the terminal has continued to operate normally. Sempra Mexico expects additional Mexican court proceedings and governmental actions regarding the claimant's assertions as to whether the terminal's permits should be modified or revoked in any manner.

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

Additionally, several administrative challenges are pending in Mexico before the Mexican environmental protection agency (SEMARNAT) and/or the Federal Tax and Administrative Courts seeking revocation of the environmental impact authorization (EIA) issued to Energía Costa Azul in 2003. These cases generally allege that the conditions and mitigation measures in the EIA are inadequate and challenge findings that the activities of the terminal are consistent with regional development guidelines. A similar administrative challenge seeking to revoke the port concession for our marine operations at our Energía Costa Azul LNG terminal, which was filed with and rejected by the Mexican Communications and Transportation Ministry, remains on appeal in Mexican federal court as well. Also, there are two real property cases pending against Energía Costa Azul in which the plaintiffs seek to annul the recorded property titles for parcels on which the Energía Costa Azul LNG terminal is situated and to obtain possession of different parcels that allegedly sit in the same place. A third complaint was served in April 2013 seeking to invalidate the contract by which EnergíaCosta Azul, S. de R.L. de C.V. purchased another of the terminal parcels, on the grounds the purchase price was unfair. Sempra Mexico expects further proceedings on each of these matters.

In July 2012, a Mexicali state court issued a ruling declaring the purchase contract by which Termoeléctrica de Mexicali (TDM) acquired the property on which the facility is located to be invalid, on the grounds that the proceeding in which the seller acquired title was invalid. In June 2013, an appellate court overturned the lower court ruling.

In October 2012, a competitor for one of the two contracts awarded by the Mexican Federal Electricity Commission (Comisión Federal de Electricidad, or CFE) for the construction and operation of a natural gas pipeline in Sonora filed an amparo in the Mexican federal district court in Mexico City, challenging the tender process and the award to us. The competitor, a subsidiary of Fermaca, Sásabe Pipeline, S. de R.L. de C.V., filed suit against 11 different governmental authorities, including the CFE, the President of Mexico, and the Mexican Energy Ministry. Sásabe Pipeline, which was the second-place bidder, alleges CFE discriminated against it in the bidding process, including by failing to accept its comments on the bid guidelines. In February 2013, we were notified that Guaymas Pipeline S. de R. L. de C.V., another subsidiary of Fermaca, filed another, similar amparo challenging the process by which the second of the two contracts was awarded, although it did not submit a bid for the project. Both cases were dismissed in April 2013.

Other Litigation

As described in Note 4, we hold a noncontrolling interest in RBS Sempra Commodities, a limited liability partnership in the process of being liquidated. In March 2012, RBS received a letter from the United Kingdom's Revenue and Customs Department (HMRC) regarding a value-added-tax (VAT) matter related to RBS Sempra Energy Europe (RBS SEE), a former indirect subsidiary of RBS Sempra Commodities that was sold to JP Morgan. The letter states that HMRC is conducting a number of investigations into VAT tax refund claims made by various businesses related to the purchase and sale of carbon credit allowances. The letter also states that HMRC believes it has grounds to deny RBS the ability to reduce its VAT liability by VAT paid during 2009 because it knew or should have known that certain vendors in the trading chain did not remit their own VAT to HMRC. In September 2012, HMRC issued an assessment of £86 million for the VAT paid in connection with these transactions and identified several options for responding, including requesting a review by HMRC and appealing to an independent tribunal. HMRC indicated that the assessment was issued on a protective basis as discussion about the issues is continuing.

In August 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision reversing and remanding certain FERC orders declining to provide refunds regarding short-term bilateral sales up to one month in the Pacific Northwest for the January2000 to June 2001 time period. In December 2010, the FERC approved a comprehensive settlement previously reached by Sempra Energy and RBS Sempra Commodities with the State of California. The settlement resolves all issues with regard to sales between the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and Sempra Commodities in the Pacific Northwest, but potential claims may exist regarding sales in the Pacific Northwest between Sempra Commodities and other parties. The FERC is in the process of addressing these potential claims on remand. Pursuant to the agreements related to the formation of RBS Sempra Commodities, we have indemnified RBS should the liability from the final resolution of these matters be greater than the reserves related to Sempra Commodities. Pursuant to our agreement with the Noble Group Ltd., one of the buyers of RBS Sempra Commodities' businesses, we have also indemnified Noble Americas Gas & Power Corp. and its affiliates for all losses incurred by such parties resulting from these proceedings as related to Sempra Commodities.

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

NUCLEAR INSURANCE

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

The SONGS owners, including SDG&E, also have $2.75 billion of nuclear property, decontamination, and debris removal insurance. In addition, the SONGS owners have insurance coverage for outage expenses and replacement power costs due to accidental property damage. These insurance coverages are provided through Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL), a mutual insurance company. The NEIL policies have specific exclusions and limitations that can result in reduced or eliminated coverage. Insured members are subject to retrospective premium assessments. SDG&E could be assessed up to $9.7 million. Edison, on behalf of itself and the other minority owners of SONGS (including SDG&E), has placed NEIL on notice of claims under both the property damage and outage insurance policies as a result of SONGS' Units 2 and 3 being shut down since early 2012.

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

We provide additional information about SONGS in Note 9.

CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENTS

We discuss below significant changes in the first sixmonths of 2013 to contractual commitments discussed in Note 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Annual Report.

Natural Gas Contracts

SoCalGas' natural gas purchase and pipeline capacity commitments have decreased by $112 million since December 31, 2012. The decrease,primarily due to fulfillment of commitmentsin the first six months of 2013 of $366 million, is partially offset by an increase of $254 million from new natural gas purchase and pipeline capacity contracts. Net future payments are expected to decrease by $220 million in 2013 and toincrease by $108 million in 2014compared to December 31, 2012.

Sempra Natural Gas' natural gas purchase and storage capacity commitments haveincreased by $11 million since December 31, 2012, primarily due to additional storage capacity under existing contracts in the firstsix months of 2013. Net future payments are expected to decrease by$29 million in 2013, and increase by $12 million in 2014, $5 million in 2015, $5 million in 2016, $5 million in 2017 and $13 million thereafter compared to December 31, 2012.

Sempra Rockies Marketing, a subsidiary of Sempra Natural Gas, has an agreement for capacity on the Rockies Express Pipeline through November 2019, as we discuss in Note 4. Historically, the capacity costs have been more than offset by revenues from releases of the capacity. However, certain capacity release commitments will conclude during 2013 and new contracting activity related to that capacity may not be sufficient to offset all of our capacity commitments. Including capacity released to others, Sempra Rockies Marketing's obligation to Rockies Express Pipeline LLC for future capacity payments are expected to be $6 million in 2013, $14 million each year in 2014 through 2017 and $83 million thereafter.

LNG Purchase Agreements

At June 30, 2013, Sempra Natural Gas has various purchase agreements with major international companies for the supply of LNG to theEnergía Costa Azul and Cameron terminals. We discuss these agreements further in Note 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Annual Report. Sempra Natural Gas' commitments under all LNG purchase agreements, reflecting changes in forward prices since December 31, 2012 and actual transactions for the first six months of 2013, are expected to decrease by $281 million in 2013, $35 million in 2014, $23 million in 2015, $18 million in 2016 and $10 million in 2017 and increase by $666million thereafter compared to December 31, 2012.

The LNG commitment amounts above are based on Sempra Natural Gas' commitment to accept the maximum possible delivery of cargoes under the agreements. Actual LNG purchases for the six months ended June 30, 2013 have been significantly lower than the maximum amounts possible.

Purchased-Power Contracts

SDG&E's commitments under purchased-power contract commitments haveincreased by $2.9 billion since December 31, 2012. Theincrease is primarily due to newcontracts associated with renewable energy development projects. Net future payments are therefore expected to increase by $7 million in 2013, $81 million in 2014, $124 million in 2015,$125 million in 2016, $125 million in 2017and $2.4billion thereafter compared to December 31, 2012.

Operating Leases

Sempra Renewables entered into a land leasefor the Copper Mountain Solar 3 project, which lease expires in 2050. Future payments on the lease are $2 million each year in 2014 through 2017 and $75 million thereafter.

Construction and Development Projects

In the first six months of 2013, significant net increases to contractual commitments at SoCalGas were $28 million primarily for the Pipeline Safety Enhancement Program. The future payments under these contractual commitments are expected to be $26 million in 2013 and $2 million in 2014.

In the first six months of 2013, significant net increases to contractual commitments at Sempra Mexico were $374million for contracts related to the construction of an approximately 500-mile natural gas transport pipeline network and $144 million for the Energía Sierra Juárez wind project. The future payments under these contractual commitments are expected to be $101 million in 2013, $303million in 2014 and $114 million in 2015.

In the first six months of 2013, significant net increases to contractual commitments at Sempra Renewables were $42 million for the construction of Copper Mountain Solar 3 facilities. The future payments under this contractual commitment are expected to be $41 million in 2013 and $1 million in 2014.

Guarantees

In the first six months of 2013, Sempra Renewables provided additional guarantees to certain wind farm joint ventures aggregating a maximum of $170 million with an associated aggregated carrying value of $14 million for debt service and operation of the wind farms, as we discuss in Note 6.

Other

In February 2013, Sempra Natural Gas entered into a long-term operations and maintenance agreement for its remaining block of the Mesquite Power natural gas-fired power plant, which expires in 2033. The total cost associated with this agreement is estimated to be approximately $36 million. The future payments for this contractual commitment are expected to be $1 million in 2013, $2 million each year in 2014 through 2017 and $27 million thereafter. We provide additional information about Mesquite Power in Note 3.