CALIFORNIA UTILITIES' REGULATORY MATTERS	3 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements [Abstract]
Sempra Utilities' Regulatory Matters	NOTE 10. CALIFORNIA UTILITIES' REGULATORY MATTERS We discuss regulatory matters affecting our California Utilities in Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Annual Report, and provide updates to those discussions and details of any new matters below. JOINT MATTERS CPUC General Rate Case (GRC) The CPUC uses a general rate case proceeding to prospectively set rates sufficient to allow the California Utilities to recover their reasonable cost of operations and maintenance and to provide the opportunity to realize their authorized rates of return on their investment. In May 2013, the CPUC approved a final decision (Final GRC Decision) in the California Utilities’ 2012 GRC. The Final GRC Decision was effective retroactive to January 1, 2012, and SDG&E and SoCalGas recorded the cumulative earnings effect of the retroactive application of the Final GRC Decision of $69 million and $37 million, respectively, in the second quarter of 2013. For SDG&E and SoCalGas, respectively, these amounts included an incremental earnings impact of $52 million and $25 million related to 2012 and $17 million and $12 million related to the first quarter of 2013. The amount of revenue associated with the retroactive period is being recovered in SDG&E’s rates over a 28-month period beginning in September 2013, and in SoCalGas’ rates over a 31-month period beginning in June 2013. At September 30, 2014, SDG&E reported on its Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet $203 million as a regulatory asset, with $41 million classified as noncurrent, representing the retroactive revenue from the Final GRC Decision to be recovered by SDG&E in rates through December 2015. At September 30, 2014, SoCalGas reported on its Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet a regulatory asset of $65 million, with $13 million as noncurrent, representing the retroactive revenue from the Final GRC Decision to be recovered in rates through December 2015. The California Utilities filed their Notices of Intent (NOI) for the 2016 General Rate Case (2016 GRC) in July 2014. These NOIs included preliminary applications that propose revenue requirement increases of $168 million and $290 million for SDG&E and SoCalGas, respectively, over their 2015 revenue requirements. As included in the NOI, these proposed increases in revenue requirements would result in a 0.9 percent increase in SDG&E’s system average electric rate and 0.5 percent and 5.5 percent increases in SDG&E’s and SoCalGas’ system average gas rates, respectively. In September 2014, the CPUC staff completed its review of the NOIs. The CPUC staff found them in compliance with the Commission’s rate case plan and recommended that the NOIs be accepted. Accordingly, SDG&E and SoCalGas expect to file their official applications in the fourth quarter of 2014, including a request for a final decision on each of the applications in late 2015, with changes in rates to become effective on January 1, 2016. We provide additional information regarding the 2012 GRC in Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Annual Report. Natural Gas Pipeline Operations Safety Assessments Various regulatory agencies, including the CPUC, are evaluating natural gas pipeline safety regulations, practices and procedures. In February 2011, the CPUC opened a forward-looking rulemaking proceeding to examine what changes should be made to existing pipeline safety regulations for California natural gas pipelines. The California Utilities are parties to this proceeding. In June 2011, the CPUC directed SoCalGas, SDG&E, PG&E and Southwest Gas to file comprehensive implementation plans to test or replace natural gas transmission pipelines located in populated areas that have not been pressure tested. The California Utilities filed their Pipeline Safety Enhancement Plan (PSEP) with the CPUC in August 2011. In April 2012, the CPUC transferred the PSEP to the Triennial Cost Allocation Proceeding (TCAP) and authorized SDG&E and SoCalGas to establish regulatory accounts to record the incremental costs of initiating the PSEP prior to a final decision on the PSEP. Also in April 2012, the CPUC issued a decision expanding the scope of the rulemaking proceeding to incorporate the provisions of California Senate Bill (SB) 705, which requires gas utilities to develop and implement a plan for the safe and reliable operation of their gas pipeline facilities. SDG&E and SoCalGas submitted their pipeline safety plans in June 2012. The CPUC decision also orders the utilities to undergo independent management and financial audits to assure that the utilities are fully meeting their safety responsibilities. The CPUC’s Safety and Enforcement Division will select the independent auditors and will oversee the audits. A schedule for the audits has not been established. In December 2012, the CPUC issued a final decision accepting the utilities’ pipeline safety plans filed pursuant to SB 705. In June 2014, the CPUC issued a final decision in the TCAP proceeding addressing SDG&E’s and SoCalGas’ PSEP. Specifically, the decision: approved the utilities’ model for implementing PSEP; approved a process, including a reasonableness review, to determine the amount that the utilities will be authorized to recover from ratepayers for the interim costs incurred through the date of the final decision to implement PSEP, which are recorded in the regulatory accounts authorized by the CPUC as noted above; approved balancing account treatment, subject to a reasonableness review, for incremental costs yet to be incurred to implement PSEP; and established the criteria to determine the amounts that would not be eligible for cost recovery, including: certain costs incurred or to be incurred searching for pipeline test records, the cost of pressure testing pipelines installed after July 1, 1961 for which the company has not found sufficient records of testing, and any undepreciated balances for pipelines installed after 1961 that were replaced due to insufficient documentation of pressure testing. As a result of this decision, SoCalGas recorded an after-tax earnings charge of $5 million for costs incurred in prior periods for which SoCalGas was disallowed recovery. After taking the amounts disallowed for recovery into consideration, as of September 30, 2014, SDG&E and SoCalGas have recorded PSEP implementation costs of $0.2 million and $47 million, respectively, in the CPUC-authorized regulatory account. In October 2014, SDG&E and SoCalGas filed a request with the CPUC for authority to recover from customers PSEP costs as incurred prior to a reasonableness review by the CPUC. In July 2014, the ORA and TURN filed a joint application for rehearing of the CPUC’s June 2014 final decision. The ORA and TURN allege that the CPUC made a legal error in directing that ratepayers, not shareholders, be responsible for the costs associated with testing or replacing transmission pipelines that were installed between January 1, 1956 and July 1, 1961 for which the California Utilities do not have a record of a pressure test. In early August 2014, the California Utilities filed their response to the application for rehearing objecting to the assertions by the ORA and TURN. The CPUC is not obligated to act on the application for rehearing by a certain date. The California Utilities are continuing to implement PSEP in accordance with the June 2014 decision. We provide additional information regarding these rulemaking proceedings and the California Utilities’ PSEP in Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Annual Report. Southern Gas System Reliability Project In December 2013, SoCalGas and SDG&E filed a joint application with the CPUC seeking authority to recover the full cost of the Southern Gas System Reliability Project. Also known as the North-South Gas Project, the project will enhance reliability on the southern portions of the utilities’ integrated gas transmission system (Southern System). We estimate the cost of the project to be between $800 million to $850 million. Based on the CPUC schedule that provides for a draft decision in mid-2015, we anticipate a final CPUC decision by the end of 2015 and the project to be in service, subject to environmental permitting, by the end of 2019. We provide additional information about the project in Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Annual Report. Utility Incentive Mechanisms The CPUC applies performance-based measures and incentive mechanisms to all California investor-owned utilities, under which the California Utilities have earnings potential above authorized base margins if they achieve or exceed specific performance and operating goals. We provide additional information regarding these incentive mechanisms in Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Annual Report, and below. Natural Gas Procurement In August 2014, the CPUC issued a final decision approving SoCalGas’ application for a gas cost incentive mechanism (GCIM) award of $5.8 million for natural gas procured for its core customers during the 12-month period ending March 31, 2013. In June 2014, SoCalGas filed an application with the CPUC for approval of a $13.7 million GCIM award for natural gas procured for its core customers during the 12-month period ending March 31, 2014. SoCalGas expects a final CPUC decision in the first half of 2015. Energy Efficiency In June 2014, SoCalGas and SDG&E filed advice letters requesting awards of $5.8 million and $7.6 million, respectively, based on their performance on energy efficiency programs during program years 2012 and 2013. Of these amounts, SoCalGas and SDG&E are seeking initial 2013 program awards of $1.5 million and $2.5 million, respectively, and asking that any necessary adjustment to the 2013 awards be made in 2015 after completion of the CPUC’s audit. We expect a resolution by the end of the second quarter of 2015. SDG&E MATTERS SONGS We discuss regulatory and other matters related to SONGS in Note 9. Power Procurement and Resource Planning Cleveland National Forest Transmission Projects SDG&E filed an application with the CPUC in October 2012 for a permit to construct various transmission replacement projects in and around the Cleveland National Forest (CNF). The proposed projects will replace and fire-harden five existing transmission lines at an estimated cost of between $400 million and $450 million. As directed by the CPUC, SDG&E filed an amended application in June 2013 to provide notice of certain alternatives proposed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in connection with SDG&E’s request for a Master Special Use Permit (MSUP). USFS approval of the MSUP will establish land rights and conditions for SDG&E’s continued operation and maintenance of facilities located within the CNF. CPUC approval is not required for the MSUP, even though construction of the projects is subject to review by both the USFS and CPUC. A draft environmental report (EIR/EIS), developed jointly by the CPUC and USFS, was issued in September 2014 and a final EIR/EIS is expected in early 2015. SDG&E currently expects a CPUC decision approving the transmission projects in the first half of 2015 and then expects the various phases of this project to be placed in service starting in 2016 and continuing through the end of the project in 2019. Sycamore-Peñasquitos Transmission Project In March 2014, the CAISO selected SDG&E, as a result of a competitive bid process, to construct the Sycamore-Peñasquitos 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission project, which will provide a 16.7-mile transmission connection between SDG&E’s Sycamore Canyon and Peñasquitos substations. In July 2014, the CPUC notified SDG&E that the application requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to construct the line, which was filed with the CPUC in April 2014, is complete. The estimated $120 million to $150 million project was identified by the CAISO and a state task force as necessary to ensure grid reliability given the closure of SONGS. The project will also serve to strengthen renewable energy infrastructure in the region. SDG&E expects a CPUC decision approving the project in the first half of 2016, with the line expected to be in service in mid-2017. South Orange County Reliability Enhancement SDG&E filed an application with the CPUC in May 2012 for a CPCN to construct the South Orange County Reliability Enhancement project. The purpose of the project is to enhance the capacity and reliability of SDG&E’s electric service to the south Orange County area. The proposed project primarily includes replacing and upgrading approximately eight miles of transmission lines and rebuilding and upgrading a substation at an existing site. SDG&E expects a draft environmental report to be issued by the end of 2014 and a final CPUC decision approving the estimated $400 million to $500 million project in 2015. SDG&E obtained approval for the project from the CAISO in May 2011. As the project is planned in phases, SDG&E currently expects the entire project to be in service in 2019. South Bay Substation and Relocation Project SDG&E filed an application in 2010 with the CPUC for a permit to construct a new substation, the Bay Boulevard substation, to replace the aging and obsolete South Bay substation to accommodate regional energy demands. The existing substation will be demolished when the Bay Boulevard substation has been constructed, energized and all transmission lines have been transferred. In October 2013, the CPUC approved SDG&E’s permit to construct the Bay Boulevard substation at SDG&E’s proposed site. The project, estimated at $145 million to $175 million, will replace the existing 138/69-kV substation with the new 230/69/12-kV Bay Boulevard substation. In March 2014, the California Coastal Commission approved the project, subject to certain additional environmental enhancements. SDG&E is in the process of obtaining the remaining approvals and permits required to begin construction. SDG&E currently expects the project to be in service in 2017. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Formulaic Rate Matters In February 2013, SDG&E submitted its Electric Transmission Formula Rate (TO4) filing with the FERC to set the rate making methodology and rate of return for SDG&E’s FERC-regulated electric transmission operations and assets for the period beginning September 1, 2013. The filing proposed a FERC ROE of 11.3 percent and requested: 1) rates to be determined by a base period of historical costs and a forecast of capital investments and 2) a true-up period similar to balancing account treatment that is designed to provide SDG&E earnings of no more and no less than its actual cost of service including its authorized return on investment. In June and July 2013, the FERC issued orders accepting the filing, subject to refund, and established settlement and hearing procedures, with rates being effective as of 2013. On January 31, 2014, SDG&E filed an uncontested multi-party settlement at the FERC regarding the TO4 filing. The settlement, approved by FERC in May 2014, will be in effect through December 31, 2018, is subject to a one-time right of termination by any party, and established a 10.05 percent ROE. SDG&E also has the right to file for any ROE incentives that might apply under FERC rules. SDG&E’s debt to equity ratio will be set annually based on the actual ratio at the end of each year. Energy Resource Recovery Account (ERRA) The ERRA is the regulatory balancing account that SDG&E uses to recover the electric fuel and purchased power costs it incurs to provide energy to its bundled service customers. SDG&E files an application with the CPUC each year to establish the ERRA revenue requirement needed for the following calendar year. Additionally, to the extent the ERRA balance exceeds a certain tolerance or “ERRA Trigger”, SDG&E must file an application to adjust its rates upward or downward, as applicable, to address the under- or over-collected ERRA balance, respectively. In February 2014, the CPUC issued a decision granting SDG&E authority to increase rates to recover an ERRA Trigger revenue requirement of $221 million, which rate increase was effective on April 1, 2014 and will continue through December 31, 2015. In May 2014, the CPUC issued a final decision approving SDG&E’s proposed 2014 ERRA revenue requirement of $1.23 billion, an increase of $242 million compared to the 2013 ERRA revenue requirement of $988 million. SDG&E implemented the increased revenue requirement on August 1, 2014. Excess Wildfire Claims Cost Recovery In August 2009, SDG&E and SoCalGas filed an application, along with other related filings, with the CPUC proposing a new framework and mechanism for the future recovery of all wildfire-related expenses for claims, litigation expenses and insurance premiums that are in excess of amounts authorized by the CPUC for recovery in distribution rates. In December 2012, the CPUC issued a final decision that ultimately did not approve the proposed framework for the utilities but allowed SDG&E to maintain its authorized memorandum account so that SDG&E may file applications with the CPUC requesting recovery of amounts properly recorded in the memorandum account at a later time, subject to reasonableness review. In February 2014, the Presiding Judge assigned by the FERC to SDG&E’s annual Electric Transmission Formula Rate filing (TO3 Cycle 6) issued an Initial Decision and an Order on Summary Judgment which authorizes SDG&E to recover all of the costs incurred and allocated to SDG&E’s FERC-regulated operations resulting from settlement activities for 2007 wildfire claims for that rate cycle period. This result will stand, subject to any successful appeal by the CPUC. In connection with this proceeding, the CPUC filed an appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal of an earlier decision by the FERC denying the CPUC’s request to postpone the FERC proceeding pending CPUC action on cost recovery of the excess wildfire costs. The FERC has sought dismissal of the CPUC’s appeal on procedural grounds. The Court of Appeal has not yet ruled on the merits. SDG&E intends to pursue recovery of the costs it has incurred for settlement activities associated with the 2007 wildfire claims allocated to SDG&E’s CPUC-regulated operations in a future application with the CPUC. SDG&E will continue to assess the potential for recovery of these costs in rates. We discuss the impact should SDG&E conclude that recovery in rates is no longer probable in “Legal Proceedings — SDG&E — 2007 Wildfire Litigation” in Note 11. We 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. We provide additional information about 2007 wildfire litigation costs and their recovery in Note 11. SOCALGAS MATTER Advanced Metering Infrastructure In November 2011, the ORA (formerly the Division of Ratepayer Advocates or DRA) and TURN filed a joint petition requesting that the CPUC reconsider its prior approval of SoCalGas’ advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) project and stay AMI deployment while the CPUC considered the request. In June 2014, the CPUC denied the ORA/TURN petition, and SoCalGas is continuing its deployment of AMI pursuant to the April 2010 CPUC decision approving the project.

CALIFORNIA UTILITIES' REGULATORY MATTERS

3 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2014

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements [Abstract]

NOTE 10. CALIFORNIA UTILITIES' REGULATORY MATTERS

We discuss regulatory matters affecting our California Utilities in Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Annual Report, and provide updates to those discussions and details of any new matters below.

JOINT MATTERS

CPUC General Rate Case (GRC)

The CPUC uses a general rate case proceeding to prospectively set rates sufficient to allow the California Utilities to recover their reasonable cost of operations and maintenance and to provide the opportunity to realize their authorized rates of return on their investment. In May 2013, the CPUC approved a final decision (Final GRC Decision) in the California Utilities’ 2012 GRC. The Final GRC Decision was effective retroactive to January 1, 2012, and SDG&E and SoCalGas recorded the cumulative earnings effect of the retroactive application of the Final GRC Decision of $69 million and $37 million, respectively, in the second quarter of 2013. For SDG&E and SoCalGas, respectively, these amounts included an incremental earnings impact of $52 million and $25 million related to 2012 and $17 million and $12 million related to the first quarter of 2013.

The amount of revenue associated with the retroactive period is being recovered in SDG&E’s rates over a 28-month period beginning in September 2013, and in SoCalGas’ rates over a 31-month period beginning in June 2013. At September 30, 2014, SDG&E reported on its Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet $203 million as a regulatory asset, with $41 million classified as noncurrent, representing the retroactive revenue from the Final GRC Decision to be recovered by SDG&E in rates through December 2015. At September 30, 2014, SoCalGas reported on its Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet a regulatory asset of $65 million, with $13 million as noncurrent, representing the retroactive revenue from the Final GRC Decision to be recovered in rates through December 2015.

The California Utilities filed their Notices of Intent (NOI) for the 2016 General Rate Case (2016 GRC) in July 2014. These NOIs included preliminary applications that propose revenue requirement increases of $168 million and $290 million for SDG&E and SoCalGas, respectively, over their 2015 revenue requirements. As included in the NOI, these proposed increases in revenue requirements would result in a 0.9 percent increase in SDG&E’s system average electric rate and 0.5 percent and 5.5 percent increases in SDG&E’s and SoCalGas’ system average gas rates, respectively. In September 2014, the CPUC staff completed its review of the NOIs. The CPUC staff found them in compliance with the Commission’s rate case plan and recommended that the NOIs be accepted. Accordingly, SDG&E and SoCalGas expect to file their official applications in the fourth quarter of 2014, including a request for a final decision on each of the applications in late 2015, with changes in rates to become effective on January 1, 2016.

We provide additional information regarding the 2012 GRC in Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Annual Report.

Natural Gas Pipeline Operations Safety Assessments

Various regulatory agencies, including the CPUC, are evaluating natural gas pipeline safety regulations, practices and procedures. In February 2011, the CPUC opened a forward-looking rulemaking proceeding to examine what changes should be made to existing pipeline safety regulations for California natural gas pipelines. The California Utilities are parties to this proceeding.

In June 2011, the CPUC directed SoCalGas, SDG&E, PG&E and Southwest Gas to file comprehensive implementation plans to test or replace natural gas transmission pipelines located in populated areas that have not been pressure tested. The California Utilities filed their Pipeline Safety Enhancement Plan (PSEP) with the CPUC in August 2011.

In April 2012, the CPUC transferred the PSEP to the Triennial Cost Allocation Proceeding (TCAP) and authorized SDG&E and SoCalGas to establish regulatory accounts to record the incremental costs of initiating the PSEP prior to a final decision on the PSEP.

Also in April 2012, the CPUC issued a decision expanding the scope of the rulemaking proceeding to incorporate the provisions of California Senate Bill (SB) 705, which requires gas utilities to develop and implement a plan for the safe and reliable operation of their gas pipeline facilities. SDG&E and SoCalGas submitted their pipeline safety plans in June 2012. The CPUC decision also orders the utilities to undergo independent management and financial audits to assure that the utilities are fully meeting their safety responsibilities. The CPUC’s Safety and Enforcement Division will select the independent auditors and will oversee the audits. A schedule for the audits has not been established. In December 2012, the CPUC issued a final decision accepting the utilities’ pipeline safety plans filed pursuant to SB 705.

In June 2014, the CPUC issued a final decision in the TCAP proceeding addressing SDG&E’s and SoCalGas’ PSEP. Specifically, the decision:

approved the utilities’ model for implementing PSEP;
approved a process, including a reasonableness review, to determine the amount that the utilities will be authorized to recover from ratepayers for the interim costs incurred through the date of the final decision to implement PSEP, which are recorded in the regulatory accounts authorized by the CPUC as noted above;
approved balancing account treatment, subject to a reasonableness review, for incremental costs yet to be incurred to implement PSEP; and
established the criteria to determine the amounts that would not be eligible for cost recovery, including:

certain costs incurred or to be incurred searching for pipeline test records,
the cost of pressure testing pipelines installed after July 1, 1961 for which the company has not found sufficient records of testing, and
any undepreciated balances for pipelines installed after 1961 that were replaced due to insufficient documentation of pressure testing.

As a result of this decision, SoCalGas recorded an after-tax earnings charge of $5 million for costs incurred in prior periods for which SoCalGas was disallowed recovery. After taking the amounts disallowed for recovery into consideration, as of September 30, 2014, SDG&E and SoCalGas have recorded PSEP implementation costs of $0.2 million and $47 million, respectively, in the CPUC-authorized regulatory account. In October 2014, SDG&E and SoCalGas filed a request with the CPUC for authority to recover from customers PSEP costs as incurred prior to a reasonableness review by the CPUC.

In July 2014, the ORA and TURN filed a joint application for rehearing of the CPUC’s June 2014 final decision. The ORA and TURN allege that the CPUC made a legal error in directing that ratepayers, not shareholders, be responsible for the costs associated with testing or replacing transmission pipelines that were installed between January 1, 1956 and July 1, 1961 for which the California Utilities do not have a record of a pressure test. In early August 2014, the California Utilities filed their response to the application for rehearing objecting to the assertions by the ORA and TURN. The CPUC is not obligated to act on the application for rehearing by a certain date. The California Utilities are continuing to implement PSEP in accordance with the June 2014 decision.

We provide additional information regarding these rulemaking proceedings and the California Utilities’ PSEP in Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Annual Report.

Southern Gas System Reliability Project

In December 2013, SoCalGas and SDG&E filed a joint application with the CPUC seeking authority to recover the full cost of the Southern Gas System Reliability Project. Also known as the North-South Gas Project, the project will enhance reliability on the southern portions of the utilities’ integrated gas transmission system (Southern System). We estimate the cost of the project to be between $800 million to $850 million. Based on the CPUC schedule that provides for a draft decision in mid-2015, we anticipate a final CPUC decision by the end of 2015 and the project to be in service, subject to environmental permitting, by the end of 2019. We provide additional information about the project in Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Annual Report.

Utility Incentive Mechanisms

The CPUC applies performance-based measures and incentive mechanisms to all California investor-owned utilities, under which the California Utilities have earnings potential above authorized base margins if they achieve or exceed specific performance and operating goals.

We provide additional information regarding these incentive mechanisms in Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Annual Report, and below.

Natural Gas Procurement

In August 2014, the CPUC issued a final decision approving SoCalGas’ application for a gas cost incentive mechanism (GCIM) award of $5.8 million for natural gas procured for its core customers during the 12-month period ending March 31, 2013. In June 2014, SoCalGas filed an application with the CPUC for approval of a $13.7 million GCIM award for natural gas procured for its core customers during the 12-month period ending March 31, 2014. SoCalGas expects a final CPUC decision in the first half of 2015.

Energy Efficiency

In June 2014, SoCalGas and SDG&E filed advice letters requesting awards of $5.8 million and $7.6 million, respectively, based on their performance on energy efficiency programs during program years 2012 and 2013. Of these amounts, SoCalGas and SDG&E are seeking initial 2013 program awards of $1.5 million and $2.5 million, respectively, and asking that any necessary adjustment to the 2013 awards be made in 2015 after completion of the CPUC’s audit. We expect a resolution by the end of the second quarter of 2015.

SDG&E MATTERS

SONGS

We discuss regulatory and other matters related to SONGS in Note 9.

Power Procurement and Resource Planning

Cleveland National Forest Transmission Projects

SDG&E filed an application with the CPUC in October 2012 for a permit to construct various transmission replacement projects in and around the Cleveland National Forest (CNF). The proposed projects will replace and fire-harden five existing transmission lines at an estimated cost of between $400 million and $450 million. As directed by the CPUC, SDG&E filed an amended application in June 2013 to provide notice of certain alternatives proposed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in connection with SDG&E’s request for a Master Special Use Permit (MSUP). USFS approval of the MSUP will establish land rights and conditions for SDG&E’s continued operation and maintenance of facilities located within the CNF. CPUC approval is not required for the MSUP, even though construction of the projects is subject to review by both the USFS and CPUC. A draft environmental report (EIR/EIS), developed jointly by the CPUC and USFS, was issued in September 2014 and a final EIR/EIS is expected in early 2015. SDG&E currently expects a CPUC decision approving the transmission projects in the first half of 2015 and then expects the various phases of this project to be placed in service starting in 2016 and continuing through the end of the project in 2019.

Sycamore-Peñasquitos Transmission Project

In March 2014, the CAISO selected SDG&E, as a result of a competitive bid process, to construct the Sycamore-Peñasquitos 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission project, which will provide a 16.7-mile transmission connection between SDG&E’s Sycamore Canyon and Peñasquitos substations. In July 2014, the CPUC notified SDG&E that the application requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to construct the line, which was filed with the CPUC in April 2014, is complete. The estimated $120 million to $150 million project was identified by the CAISO and a state task force as necessary to ensure grid reliability given the closure of SONGS. The project will also serve to strengthen renewable energy infrastructure in the region. SDG&E expects a CPUC decision approving the project in the first half of 2016, with the line expected to be in service in mid-2017.

South Orange County Reliability Enhancement

SDG&E filed an application with the CPUC in May 2012 for a CPCN to construct the South Orange County Reliability Enhancement project. The purpose of the project is to enhance the capacity and reliability of SDG&E’s electric service to the south Orange County area. The proposed project primarily includes replacing and upgrading approximately eight miles of transmission lines and rebuilding and upgrading a substation at an existing site. SDG&E expects a draft environmental report to be issued by the end of 2014 and a final CPUC decision approving the estimated $400 million to $500 million project in 2015. SDG&E obtained approval for the project from the CAISO in May 2011. As the project is planned in phases, SDG&E currently expects the entire project to be in service in 2019.

South Bay Substation and Relocation Project

SDG&E filed an application in 2010 with the CPUC for a permit to construct a new substation, the Bay Boulevard substation, to replace the aging and obsolete South Bay substation to accommodate regional energy demands. The existing substation will be demolished when the Bay Boulevard substation has been constructed, energized and all transmission lines have been transferred. In October 2013, the CPUC approved SDG&E’s permit to construct the Bay Boulevard substation at SDG&E’s proposed site. The project, estimated at $145 million to $175 million, will replace the existing 138/69-kV substation with the new 230/69/12-kV Bay Boulevard substation. In March 2014, the California Coastal Commission approved the project, subject to certain additional environmental enhancements. SDG&E is in the process of obtaining the remaining approvals and permits required to begin construction. SDG&E currently expects the project to be in service in 2017.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Formulaic Rate Matters

In February 2013, SDG&E submitted its Electric Transmission Formula Rate (TO4) filing with the FERC to set the rate making methodology and rate of return for SDG&E’s FERC-regulated electric transmission operations and assets for the period beginning September 1, 2013. The filing proposed a FERC ROE of 11.3 percent and requested: 1) rates to be determined by a base period of historical costs and a forecast of capital investments and 2) a true-up period similar to balancing account treatment that is designed to provide SDG&E earnings of no more and no less than its actual cost of service including its authorized return on investment. In June and July 2013, the FERC issued orders accepting the filing, subject to refund, and established settlement and hearing procedures, with rates being effective as of 2013.

On January 31, 2014, SDG&E filed an uncontested multi-party settlement at the FERC regarding the TO4 filing. The settlement, approved by FERC in May 2014, will be in effect through December 31, 2018, is subject to a one-time right of termination by any party, and established a 10.05 percent ROE. SDG&E also has the right to file for any ROE incentives that might apply under FERC rules. SDG&E’s debt to equity ratio will be set annually based on the actual ratio at the end of each year.

Energy Resource Recovery Account (ERRA)

The ERRA is the regulatory balancing account that SDG&E uses to recover the electric fuel and purchased power costs it incurs to provide energy to its bundled service customers. SDG&E files an application with the CPUC each year to establish the ERRA revenue requirement needed for the following calendar year. Additionally, to the extent the ERRA balance exceeds a certain tolerance or “ERRA Trigger”, SDG&E must file an application to adjust its rates upward or downward, as applicable, to address the under- or over-collected ERRA balance, respectively. In February 2014, the CPUC issued a decision granting SDG&E authority to increase rates to recover an ERRA Trigger revenue requirement of $221 million, which rate increase was effective on April 1, 2014 and will continue through December 31, 2015. In May 2014, the CPUC issued a final decision approving SDG&E’s proposed 2014 ERRA revenue requirement of $1.23 billion, an increase of $242 million compared to the 2013 ERRA revenue requirement of $988 million. SDG&E implemented the increased revenue requirement on August 1, 2014.

Excess Wildfire Claims Cost Recovery

In August 2009, SDG&E and SoCalGas filed an application, along with other related filings, with the CPUC proposing a new framework and mechanism for the future recovery of all wildfire-related expenses for claims, litigation expenses and insurance premiums that are in excess of amounts authorized by the CPUC for recovery in distribution rates. In December 2012, the CPUC issued a final decision that ultimately did not approve the proposed framework for the utilities but allowed SDG&E to maintain its authorized memorandum account so that SDG&E may file applications with the CPUC requesting recovery of amounts properly recorded in the memorandum account at a later time, subject to reasonableness review.

In February 2014, the Presiding Judge assigned by the FERC to SDG&E’s annual Electric Transmission Formula Rate filing (TO3 Cycle 6) issued an Initial Decision and an Order on Summary Judgment which authorizes SDG&E to recover all of the costs incurred and allocated to SDG&E’s FERC-regulated operations resulting from settlement activities for 2007 wildfire claims for that rate cycle period. This result will stand, subject to any successful appeal by the CPUC. In connection with this proceeding, the CPUC filed an appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal of an earlier decision by the FERC denying the CPUC’s request to postpone the FERC proceeding pending CPUC action on cost recovery of the excess wildfire costs. The FERC has sought dismissal of the CPUC’s appeal on procedural grounds. The Court of Appeal has not yet ruled on the merits.

SDG&E intends to pursue recovery of the costs it has incurred for settlement activities associated with the 2007 wildfire claims allocated to SDG&E’s CPUC-regulated operations in a future application with the CPUC. SDG&E will continue to assess the potential for recovery of these costs in rates. We discuss the impact should SDG&E conclude that recovery in rates is no longer probable in “Legal Proceedings — SDG&E — 2007 Wildfire Litigation” in Note 11. We 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.

We provide additional information about 2007 wildfire litigation costs and their recovery in Note 11.

SOCALGAS MATTER

Advanced Metering Infrastructure

In November 2011, the ORA (formerly the Division of Ratepayer Advocates or DRA) and TURN filed a joint petition requesting that the CPUC reconsider its prior approval of SoCalGas’ advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) project and stay AMI deployment while the CPUC considered the request. In June 2014, the CPUC denied the ORA/TURN petition, and SoCalGas is continuing its deployment of AMI pursuant to the April 2010 CPUC decision approving the project.