v3.2.0.727

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2015
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | NOTE 11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES LEGAL PROCEEDINGS We accrue losses for a legal proceeding when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. However, the uncertainties inherent in legal proceedings make it difficult to estimate with reasonable certainty the costs and effects of resolving these matters. Accordingly, actual costs incurred may differ materially from amounts accrued, may exceed applicable insurance coverage and could material ly 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, 2015, Sempra Energy’s acc rued liabilities for material legal proceedings, including associated legal fees and costs of litigation, on a consolidated basis, were $62 million. At June 30, 2015, accrued liabilities for material legal proceedings for SDG&E and SoCalGas were $39 millio n and $15 million, respectively. 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.” A September 2008 staff repor t issued by the CPUC’s Consumer Protection and Safety Division, now known as the Safety and Enforcement Division, reached substantially the same conclusions as the Cal Fire reports, but also contended that the power lines involved in the Witch and Rice fir es 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 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. They asserted various bases for recovery, including inverse condemnatio n 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. SDG&E has resolved almost all of these lawsuits. One case remains subject to a damages-only trial, where the value of any compensatory damages resulting from the fires will be determined. Two plaintiffs have filed appeals after judgment in the trial cour t. 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 party contractors and Cox. 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 agreed to pay 57.5 percent of the approximately $1.6 billion paid or reserved for payment by the insurers to their policyholder s and received an assignment of the insurers’ claims against other parties potentially responsible for the fires. Through June 30, 2015, SDG&E has expended $494 million in excess of amounts covered by insurance and amounts recovered from third parties to p ay for the settlement of wildfire claims and related costs. The wildfire litigation also includes claims of non-insurer plaintiffs for damage to uninsured and underinsured structures, business interruption, evacuation expenses, agricultural damage, emotion al harm, personal injuries and other losses. SDG&E has now resolved almost all of these claims of the approximately 6,500 plaintiffs for a total of approximately $1.3 billion. SDG&E does not expect additional plaintiffs to file lawsuits given the applicabl e statutes of limitation, but could receive additional settlement demands and damage estimates from the remaining plaintiff until the case is resolved. SDG&E has established reserves for the wildfire litigation as we discuss below. SDG&E has concluded tha t it is probable that it will be permitted to recover in rates a substantial portion of the costs incurred to resolve wildfire claims in excess of its liability insurance coverage and the amounts recovered from third parties. Accordingly, although such rec overy will require future regulatory approval, at June 30, 2015, Sempra Energy and SDG&E have recorded assets of $373 million in Other Regulatory Assets (long-term) on their Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, including $367 million related to CPUC-regu lated operations, which represents the amount substantially equal to the aggregate amount it has paid and 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 continue to gather information to evaluate and assess the remaining wildfire claim and the likelihood, amount and timing of related recoveries in rates and will make appropriate adjustments to wildfire reserves and the related r egulatory assets as additional information becomes available. 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 o f regulatory assets related to CPUC-regulated operations was no longer probable or was less than currently estimated at June 30, 2015, the resulting after-tax charge against earnings would have been up to approximately $218 million. Recovery of these costs 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 results of op erations and cash flows. We provide additional information about excess wildfire claims cost recovery and related CPUC actions in Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Annual Report 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. Sunrise Powerlink Electric Transmission Line In February 2011, opponents of the Sunrise Powerlink, a 500-kV electric transmission line between the Imperial V alley and the San Diego region that was energized and placed in service in June 2012, 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 appealed. On May 19, 2015 the California Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision and, on June 16, 2015, denied plaintiffs’ request for rehearing. Plainti ffs did not seek review by the California Supreme Court within the prescribed time, so the Court of Appeals decision is final. 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 the SONGS nuclear power plant. The lawsuit asserts a number of causes of action, including fraud, based on the repr esentations 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 and on August 8, 2013, MHI moved to stay the proceeding pending resolution of the dispute resolution process involving MHI and Edison arisin g from their contract for the purchase and sale of the steam generators. On October 16, 2013, Edison initiated an arbitration proceeding against MHI seeking damages stemming from the failure of the replacement steam generators. In late December 2013, MHI answered and filed a counter claim against Edison. On March 14, 2014, MHI’s motion to stay the United States District Court proceeding was granted with instructions that require the parties to allow SDG&E to participate in the ongoing Edison/MHI arbitration. As a result, SDG&E is now participating in the arbitration as a claimant and respondent. Investment in Wind Farm In 2011, the CPUC and FERC approved SDG&E’s estimated $285 million tax equity investment in a wind farm project and its purchase of renewable energy credits from that project. SDG&E’s contractual obligations to both invest in the Rim Rock wind farm and to purchase renewable energy credits from the wind farm under the power purchase agreement are subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions which, if not achieved, would allow SD G&E to terminate the power purchase agreement and not make the investment. In December 2013, SDG&E received a closing notice from the project developer indicating that all such conditions had been met. SDG&E responded to the closing notice asserting that t he contractual conditions had not been satisfied. On December 19, 2013, SDG&E filed a complaint against the project developer in San Diego Superior Court, asking that the court determine that SDG&E is entitled to terminate both the investment contract and the power purchase agreement due to the project developer’s failure to satisfy certain conditions. The project developer filed a separate complaint against SDG&E in Montana state court asking that court to determine that SDG&E breached the investment contr act and the power purchase agreement, and asking for several categories of relief, including requiring SDG&E to invest in the project, requiring SDG&E to continue performing under the power purchase agreement, and payment of damages. On January 27, 2014, the Montana court ordered SDG&E to continue making payments under the power purchase agreement pending a hearing on the project developer’s preliminary injunction motion. On March 14, 2014, SDG&E notified the project developer that the investment agreement expired by its own terms because a closing had not occurred by that date. The project developer is disputing SDG&E’s position. On March 28, 2014, SDG&E filed an amended complaint against the project developer in San Diego seeking damages and declaratory r elief that SDG&E was entitled to terminate the power purchase agreement and to permit the investment agreement to expire. On April 25, 2014, the Montana court granted the project developer’s preliminary injunction motion to prevent SDG&E from terminating t he power purchase agreement on the grounds that the project developer would be irreparably harmed if the payments were not made while the parties’ respective rights were being determined in the litigation. The court did not rule on the merits of the partie s’ claims. On July 18, 2014, the Montana Supreme Court determined that the parties’ contractual agreement to resolve any disputes in San Diego was mandatory, and ordered that the Montana action be dismissed. The San Diego court has scheduled a trial in Ja nuary 2016. 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 dev elop cancer and other serious illnesses. Plaintiffs assert various bases for recovery, including negligence and products liability. SoCalGas has settled five of the seven lawsuits for an amount that is not significant. Sempra Mexico Permit Challenges and Property Disputes 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. Ownership of the adjacent property is not required by any of the environmental or other regulatory permits issued for the operation of the terminal. A claimant to the adjacent property has nonetheless asserte d that his health and safety are endangered by the operation of the facility, and filed an action in the Federal Court challenging the permits. In February 2011, based on a complaint by the claimant, the municipality of Ensenada opened an administrative pr oceeding and sought 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. In the second quarter of 2014, the municipality of Ensenada dismissed the administrative proceeding, this proceeding was appealed and in the second quarter of 2015, the Administrative Court of Baja California confirmed the municipality of Ensenada’s ruling and dismissed the proceeding. Sempra Mexico expects additional Mexican court proceedings and governmental actions regarding the claiman t’s assertions as to whether the terminal’s permits should be modified or revoked in any manner. The claimant also filed complaints in the federal Agrarian Court challenging the refusal of the Secretaría de la Reforma Agraria (now the Secretaría de Desarr ollo Agrario, Territorial y Urbano, or SEDATU) in 2006 to issue a title to him for the disputed property. In November 2013, the Agrarian Court ordered that SEDATU issue the requested title and cause it to be registered. Both SEDATU and Sempra Mexico have c hallenged the rulings. Sempra Mexico expects additional proceedings regarding the claims, although such proceedings are not related to the permit challenges referenced above. 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. Sempra Energy has disputed the claims and allegations in this lawsuit. Additionally, several administrative challenges are pending in Mexico before the Mexican environmental pro tection agency (SEMARNAT) and the Federal Ta x 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 t hat the activities of the terminal are consistent with regional development guidelines. The Mexican Supreme Court decided to exercise jurisdiction over one such case, and in March 2014, issued a resolution denying the relief sought by the plaintiff on the grounds its action was not timely presented. A similar administrative challenge seeking to revoke the port concession for our marine operations at our Energía Costa Azul LNG terminal was filed with and rejected by the Mexican Communicatio ns and Transportation Ministry. In April 2015, the Federal court confirmed the Mexican Communications and Transportation Ministry’s ruling denying the request to revoke the port concession and decided in favor of Energía Costa Azul. Two real property cases have been filed 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 an d to obtain possession of different parcels that allegedly sit in the same place; one of th ese cases was dismissed in September 2013 at the direction of the state appellate court. A third complaint was served in April 2013 seeking to invalidate the contract by which Energía Costa Azul purchased another of the terminal parcels, on the grounds the purchase price was unfair. Sempra Mexico expects further proceedings on the remaining two matters. 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. Since April 2012, a total of 1 3 lawsu its have been filed against Mobile Gas in Mobile County Circuit Court alleging that in the first half of 2008 Mobile Gas spilled tert-butyl mercaptan, an odorant added to natural gas for safety reasons, in Eight Mile, Alabama. Six of the lawsuits have been settled. The remaining seven lawsuits, which include more than 1,000 individual plaintiffs, allege nuisance and negligence causes of action, and seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. An initial trial involving approximately ten plaintiffs is expected to be scheduled for January 2016. Other Litigation Sempra Energy holds a noncontrolling interest in RBS Sempra Commodities LLP (RBS Sempra Commodities), a limited liability partnership in the process of being liquidated. The Royal Bank of Scotland plc (RBS), our partner in the joint venture, was notified by the United Kingdom’s Revenue and Customs Department (HMRC) that it was investigating value-added tax (VAT) refund claims made by various businesses in connection with the purchase and sale of carbon credit allowances. HMRC advised RBS that it had determined that it had grounds to deny such claims by RBS related to transactions by RBS Sempra Energy Europe (RBS SEE), a former indirect subsidiary of RBS Sempra Commodities that was sold to JP Morgan. HMRC asserted that RBS was not entit led to reduce its VAT liability by VAT paid during 2009 because RBS 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 a protective assessment of £86 million for the VAT p aid in connection with these transactions. In October 2014, RBS filed a Notice of Appeal of the September 2012 assessment with the First-tier Tribunal. As a condition of the appeal, RBS was required to pay the assessed amount. The payment also stops the ac crual of interest that could arise should it ultimately be determined that RBS has a liability for some of the tax. In June 2015, liquidators for three companies that engaged in carbon credit trading via chains that included a company that RBS SEE traded w ith directly filed a claim in the High Court of Justice against RBS and RBS Sempra Commodities alleging that RBS S empra Commodities’ and RBS SEE’s participation in transactions involving the sale and purchase of carbon credit transactions resulted in the co mpanies’ incurring VAT liability they were unable to pay. Our remaining balance in RBS Sempra Commodities is accounted for under the equity method. The investment balance of $71 million at June 30, 2015 reflects remaining distributions expected to be recei ved from the partnership as it is liquidated. The timing and amount of distributions may be impacted by these matters. We discuss RBS Sempra Commodities further in Note 4 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Annual Report. In August 200 7, 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 January 2000 to June 2001 ti me 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 resolved all issues with regard to sales between the California Department of Water Resources 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 re mand. 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 agreeme nt 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 Sempr a Commodities. We are also defendants in ordinary routine litigation incidental to our businesses, including personal injury, employment litigation, product liability, property damage and other claims. Juries have demonstrated an increasing willingness to grant large awards, including punitive d amages, in these types of cases. CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENTS We discuss below significant changes in the first six months of 2015 to contractual commitments discussed in Note 1 5 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 $79 million since December 31, 2014, primarily due to fulfillment of payment obligations and changes to forward natural gas prices in the first six months of 2015. Net future payments are expected to decrease by $77 million in 2015, and $2 million thereafter compared to December 31, 2014. Sempra Natural Gas’ natural gas purchase and transportation commitments ha ve decreased by $227 million since December 31, 2014, primarily due to payments on existing contracts and changes to forward natural gas prices in the first six months of 2015. Net future payments are expected to decrease by $156 million in 2015, $21 million in 2016, $20 million in 2017, $15 million in 2018, and $15 million in 2020 a nd thereafter compared to December 31, 2014. LNG Purchase Agreement Sempra Natural Gas has a purchase agreement for the supply of LNG to the Energía Costa Azul terminal. The agreement is priced using a predetermined formula based on natural gas market indi ces. Although this contract specifies a number of cargoes to be delivered, under its terms, the customer may divert certain cargoes, which would reduce amounts paid under the contracts by Sempra Natural Gas. Sempra Natural Gas’ commitment under the LNG pur chase agreement, reflecting changes in forward prices since December 31, 2014 and actual transactions for the first six months of 2015, are expected to decrease by $212 million in 2015, $65 million in 2016, $97 million in 2017, $121 million in 2018, $123 m illion in 2019, and $997 million thereafter (through contract termination in 2029) compared to December 31, 2014. These amounts are based on forward prices of the index applicable to the contract from 2015 to 2024 and an estimated one percent escalation pe r year beyond 2024. The LNG commitment amounts above are based on the requirement for Sempra Natural Gas to accept the maximum possible delivery of cargoes under the agreement. Actual LNG purchases in the current and prior years have been significantly low er than the maximum amounts possible due to the customer electing to divert cargoes as allowed by the agreement. Purchased-Power Contracts SDG&E’s commitments under purchased-power contracts have decreased by $385 million since December 31, 2014. Net futur e payments are therefore expected to decrease by $15 million in 2015, increase by $2 million in 2016, decrease by $12 million each year in 2017 and 2018, $18 million in 2019 and $330 million thereafter compared to December 31, 2014. Operating Leases Sempra Renewables’ commitments under operating leases have increased by $47 million since December 31, 2014. The increase is primarily due to land leases associated with renewable energy development projects. Net future payments are expected to decrease by $1 mi llion in 2015, and increase by $1 million in 2016, $2 million each year in 2017 through 2019 and $41 million thereafter compared to December 31, 2014. Capital Leases – Power Purchase Agreements In the first quarter of 2015, SDG&E entered into a CPUC-approv ed 25-year power purchase agreement with a peaker plant facility that is under construction. Beginning with the initial delivery of the contracted power, scheduled in June 2017, the power purchase agreement will be accounted for as a capital lease. Future minimum lease payments under the new power purchase agreement are as follows:
FUTURE MINIMUM PAYMENTS – POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT
(Dollars in millions)
2015 |  | $ | ―
2016 |  |  | ―
2017 |  |  | 38
2018 |  |  | 65
2019 |  |  | 65
Thereafter |  | 1,460
Total minimum lease payments(1) |  | 1,628
Less: estimated executory costs |  | (392)
Less: interest(2) |  | (736)
Present value of net minimum lease payments | $ | 500
(1) | This amount will be recorded over the life of the lease as Cost of Electric Fuel and Purchased Power on Sempra Energy’s and SDG&E’s Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. This expense will receive ratemaking treatment consistent with purchased-power costs, which are recovered in rates.
(2) | Amount necessary to reduce net minimum lease payments to estimated present value at the inception of the lease.
Construction and Development Projects In the first six months of 2015, significant net decreases to contract ual commitments at SDG&E were $64 million primarily due to fulfillment of payment obligations, partially offset by an increase in commitments. Net future payments under these contractual commitment s are expected to decrease by $125 million in 2015, increase by $35 million in 2016, decrease by $5 million in 2017, and increase by $2 million in 2018, $25 million in 2019 and $4 million thereafter co mpared to December 31, 2014. In the first six months of 2015, significant net decreases to contractual commitments at SoCalGas were $108 million primarily due to payments on existing contracts, partially offset by an increase in commitments in the first si x months of 2015. Net future payments under these contractual commitments are expected to decrease by $127 mi llion in 2015, and increase by $12 million in 2016 and $7 million in 2017, compared to December 31, 2014. In the first six months of 2015, signific ant increases to contractual commitments at Sempra Mexico were $99 million, primarily related to pipeline projects. Net future payments under th ese contractual commitments are expected to increase by $42 million in 2015, $56 million in 2016, and $1 million thereafter compared to December 31, 2014. In the first six months of 2015, significant increases to contractual commitments at Sempra Renewables were $275 million for contracts related to the construction of renewable energy projects. The future payments under these contractual commitments are expected to be $41 million in 2015 and $234 million in 2016. In the first six months of 2015, significant increases to contractual commitments at Sempra Natural Gas were $38 million, primarily for natural gas transpo rtation projects. The future payments under these contractual commitments are all expected to be made in 2015. other commitments Sempra Natural Gas’ other commitments have decreased by $31 million since December 31, 2014. The decrease is due to a long-term operations and maintenance agreement that was assumed by the purchaser of the remaining 625-MW block of the Mesquite Power plant. We provide additional information about the agreement in Notes 3 and 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Annual Report. Guarantees We discuss guarantees related to Sempra Energy in Note 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Annual Report. NUCLEAR INSURANCE SDG&E and the 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 $13.2 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 req uired to contribute to the SFP. SDG&E’s contribution could be up to $50.93 million. This amount is subject to an annual maximum of $7.6 million, unless a default occurs by any other SONGS owner. If the SFP is insufficient to cover the liability loss, SDG&E could be subject to an additional assessment. The SONGS owners, including SDG&E, also have $2.75 billion of nuclear property, decontamination, and debris removal insurance, subject to a $2.5 million deductible for “each and every loss.” This insurance co verage is provided through Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL). The NEIL policies have specific exclusions and limitations that can result in reduced or eliminated coverage. Insured members as a group are subject to retrospective premium assessments to cover losses sustained by NEIL under all issued policies. SDG&E could be assessed up to $9.7 million of retrospective premiums based on overall member claims. Edison, on behalf of itself and the minority owners of SONGS (including SDG&E), has placed NEI L on notice of claims under both the property damage and outage insurance policies as a result of SONGS’ Units 2 and 3 outages in early 2012 and the resultant plant closure in June 2013. The nuclear property insurance program includes an industry aggrega te 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. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) NUCLEAR FUEL DISPOSAL The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 made the DOE responsible for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. However, it is uncertain when the DOE will begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from SONGS. This delay will lead to increased costs for spent fuel storage. SDG&E will seek recovery for these costs from the appropriate sources, including, but not limited to, SDG&E’s Nuclear Decommissioning Trust. SDG&E will also continue to support Edison in its pursui t of legal claims on behalf of the SONGS co-owners against the DOE for its failure to timely accept the spent nuclear fuel. We provide additional information about SONGS in Note 9

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | sre_NotesToConsolidatedFinancialStatementsAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | sre_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51674963&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration