XML 63 R32.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.1.u1

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES LEGAL PROCEEDINGS We accrue losses for a legal proceeding when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. However, the uncertainties inherent in legal proceedings make it difficult to reasonably estimate the costs and effects of resolving these matters. Accordingly, actual costs incurred may differ materially from amounts accrued, may exceed, and in some cases have exceeded, applicable insurance coverage and could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and/or prospects. Unless otherwise indicated, we are unable to reasonably estimate possible losses or a range of losses in excess of any amounts accrued. At March 31, 2024, loss contingency accruals for legal matters that are probable and estimable were $57 million for Sempra, including $31 million for SoCalGas. SDG&E City of San Diego Franchise Agreement In 2021, two lawsuits were filed in the California Superior Court challenging various aspects of the natural gas and electric franchise agreements granted by the City of San Diego to SDG&E. Both lawsuits ultimately sought to void the franchise agreements. In one of the cases, judgment was granted in favor of SDG&E and the City of San Diego, and the plaintiff in that case has appealed. In the second case, the court ruled in favor of SDG&E and the City of San Diego, upholding all terms of the franchise agreements, except for the two-thirds City Council vote requirement for termination if the City decides to terminate under certain circumstances. Under the court’s ruling, the City can instead terminate on a majority vote, so long as it satisfies repayment provisions under the franchise agreements. This matter is subject to an appeal and a motion for reconsideration. SoCalGas Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Storage Facility Gas Leak From October 23, 2015 through February 11, 2016, SoCalGas experienced a natural gas leak from one of the injection-and-withdrawal wells, SS25, at its Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility in Los Angeles County. Litigation. In September 2021, SoCalGas and Sempra entered into an agreement with counsel to resolve approximately 390 lawsuits including approximately 36,000 plaintiffs (the Individual Plaintiffs) then pending against SoCalGas and Sempra related to the Leak for a payment of up to $1.8 billion. Over 99% of the Individual Plaintiffs participated and submitted valid releases, and SoCalGas paid $1.79 billion in 2022 under the agreement. The Individual Plaintiffs who did not participate in the settlement (the Non-Settling Individual Plaintiffs) are able to continue to pursue their claims. As of April 30, 2024, there are approximately 96 Non-Settling Individual Plaintiffs remaining. In addition, as of April 30, 2024, new lawsuits related to the Leak on behalf of approximately 436 new plaintiffs have been filed against SoCalGas and Sempra since the September 2021 settlement. The Non-Settling Individual Plaintiffs’ cases and new plaintiffs’ cases are coordinated before a single court in the Los Angeles County Superior Court for pretrial management under a consolidated master complaint filed in November 2017, with one plaintiff’s case proceeding under a separate complaint. Both the consolidated master complaint and the separate complaint assert negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress and fraudulent concealment. The consolidated master complaint asserts additional causes of action for private and public nuisance (continuing and permanent), trespass, inverse condemnation, loss of consortium and wrongful death against SoCalGas and Sempra. The separate complaint asserts an additional cause of action for assault and battery. Both complaints seek compensatory and punitive damages for personal injuries, lost wages and/or lost profits, costs of future medical monitoring, and attorneys’ fees. The consolidated master complaint also seeks property damage and diminution in property value, injunctive relief and civil penalties. Regulatory Proceeding. In February 2017, the CPUC opened proceeding SB 380 OII to determine the feasibility of minimizing or eliminating the use of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility while still maintaining energy and electric reliability for the region, but excluding issues with respect to air quality, public health, causation, culpability or cost responsibility regarding the Leak. The first phase of the proceeding established a framework for the hydraulic, production cost and economic modeling assumptions for the potential reduction in usage or elimination of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, as well as evaluating the impacts of reducing or eliminating the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility using the established framework and models. The next phase of the proceeding included engaging a consultant to analyze alternative means for meeting or avoiding the demand for the facility’s services if it were eliminated in either the 2027 or 2035 timeframe, and to address potential implementation of alternatives to the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility if the CPUC determines that the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility should be permanently closed. The CPUC also added all California IOUs as parties to the proceeding and encouraged all load serving entities in the Los Angeles Basin to join the proceeding. In August 2023, the CPUC issued a decision on the interim range of gas inventory levels at the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, setting an interim range of gas inventory levels of up to 68.6 Bcf. The CPUC may issue future changes to this interim range of authorized gas inventory levels before issuing a final decision within the SB 380 OII proceeding. At March 31, 2024, the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility had a net book value of $1.0 billion. If the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility were to be permanently closed or if future cash flows from its operation were otherwise insufficient to recover its carrying value, we may record an impairment of the facility, which could be material, and natural gas reliability and electric generation could be jeopardized. Accounting and Other Impacts. At March 31, 2024, $29 million is accrued in Other Current Liabilities and $2 million is accrued in Deferred Credits and Other on SoCalGas’ and Sempra’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These accruals do not include any amounts in excess of what has been reasonably estimated to resolve certain matters that we describe in “Litigation” above, nor any amounts that may be necessary to resolve threatened litigation, other potential litigation or other costs. We are not able to reasonably estimate the possible loss or a range of possible losses in excess of the amounts accrued, which could be significant and could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra’s results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and/or prospects. Other Sempra Energía Costa Azul We describe below certain land disputes and permit challenges affecting our ECA Regas Facility. Certain of these land disputes involve land on which portions of the ECA LNG liquefaction facilities under construction and in development are expected to be situated or on which portions of the ECA Regas Facility that would be necessary for the operation of such ECA LNG liquefaction facilities are situated. One or more unfavorable final decisions on these disputes or challenges could materially adversely affect our existing natural gas regasification operations and proposed natural gas liquefaction projects at the site of the ECA Regas Facility and have a material adverse effect on Sempra’s business, results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and/or prospects. Land Disputes. Sempra Infrastructure has been engaged in a long-running land dispute with a claimant relating to property adjacent to its ECA Regas Facility that allegedly overlaps with land owned by the ECA Regas Facility (the facility, however, is not situated on the land that is the subject of this dispute), as follows: ▪The claimant to the adjacent property filed complaints in the federal Agrarian Court challenging the refusal of SEDATU in 2006 to issue title to him for the disputed property. In November 2013, the federal Agrarian Court ordered that SEDATU issue the requested title to the claimant and cause it to be registered. Both SEDATU and Sempra Infrastructure challenged the ruling due to lack of notification of the underlying process. In May 2019, a federal court in Mexico reversed the ruling and ordered a retrial, which is pending resolution. ▪In a separate proceeding, the claimant filed suit to reinitiate an administrative procedure at SEDATU to obtain the property title that, as described above, had previously been issued in a ruling by the federal Agrarian Court and subsequently reversed by a federal court in Mexico. In April 2021, the proceeding in the Agrarian Court concluded with the court ordering that the administrative procedure be restarted. The administrative procedure at SEDATU may continue if SEDATU decides to reopen the matter. In addition, the plaintiff filed a claim in the federal Agrarian Court that seeks to annul the property title for a portion of the land on which the ECA Regas Facility is situated and to obtain possession of a different parcel that allegedly overlaps with the site of the ECA Regas Facility. The proceeding, which seeks an order that SEDATU annul the ECA Regas Facility’s competing property title, was initiated in 2006 and, in July 2021, a decision was issued in favor of the ECA Regas Facility. The plaintiff appealed and, in February 2022, the appellate court confirmed the ruling in favor of the ECA Regas Facility and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff filed a federal appeal against the appellate court ruling. A ruling from the Federal Collegiate Circuit Court is pending. Environmental and Social Impact Permits. Several administrative challenges are pending before Mexico’s Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (the Mexican environmental protection agency) and Federal Tax and Administrative Courts, seeking revocation of the environmental impact authorization issued to the ECA Regas Facility in 2003. These cases generally allege that the conditions and mitigation measures in the environmental impact authorization are inadequate and challenge findings that the activities of the terminal are consistent with regional development guidelines. In 2018 and 2021, three related claimants filed separate challenges in the federal district court in Ensenada, Baja California seeking revocation of the environmental and social impact permits issued by each of ASEA and SENER to ECA LNG authorizing natural gas liquefaction activities at the ECA Regas Facility, as follows: ▪In the first case, the court issued a provisional injunction against the permits in September 2018. In December 2018, ASEA approved modifications to the environmental permit that facilitate the development of the proposed natural gas liquefaction facility in two phases. In May 2019, the court canceled the provisional injunction. The claimant appealed the court’s decision to cancel the injunction but was not successful. The lower court’s ruling was favorable to the ECA Regas Facility, as the court determined that no harm has been caused to the plaintiff and dismissed the lawsuit. The claimant appealed and the appellate court’s ruling is pending. ▪In the second case, the initial request for a provisional injunction against the permits was denied. That decision was reversed on appeal in January 2020, resulting in the issuance of a new injunction against the permits that were issued by ASEA and SENER. This injunction has uncertain application absent clarification by the court. The claimants petitioned the court to rule that construction of natural gas liquefaction facilities violated the injunction and, in February 2022, the court ruled in favor of the ECA Regas Facility, holding that the natural gas liquefaction construction activities did not violate the injunction. The claimants appealed this ruling but were not successful. The lower court’s ruling was favorable to the ECA Regas Facility, as the court determined that no harm has been caused to the plaintiffs and dismissed the lawsuit. The claimants appealed and the appellate court’s ruling is pending. ▪In the third case, a group of residents filed a complaint in June 2021 against various federal and state authorities alleging deficiencies in the public consultation process for the issuance of the permits. The request for an initial injunction was denied. The claimants appealed this ruling but were not successful. The lower court’s ruling was favorable to the ECA Regas Facility, as the court determined that no harm has been caused to the plaintiffs and dismissed the lawsuit. The claimants appealed and the appellate court’s ruling is pending. Port Arthur LNG The PA LNG Phase 1 project holds two Clean Air Act, Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits issued by the TCEQ, which we refer to as the “2016 Permit” and the “2022 Permit.” The 2022 Permit also governs emissions for the proposed PA LNG Phase 2 project. In November 2023, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision to vacate and remand the 2022 Permit to the TCEQ for additional explanation of the agency’s permit decision. In February 2024, the court withdrew its opinion and referred the case to the Supreme Court of Texas to resolve the question of the appropriate standard to be applied by the TCEQ. The 2022 Permit is effective during the Texas Supreme Court’s review. The 2016 Permit was not the subject of, and is unaffected by, the pending litigation of the 2022 Permit. Construction of the PA LNG Phase 1 project is proceeding uninterrupted under existing permits, and we do not currently anticipate material impacts to the PA LNG Phase 1 project cost, schedule or expected commercial operations at this stage. Litigation Related to Regulatory and Other Actions by the Mexican Government Amendments to Mexico’s Electricity Industry Law. In March 2021, the Mexican government published a decree with amendments to Mexico’s Electricity Industry Law that include some public policy changes, including establishing priority of dispatch for CFE plants over privately owned plants. The decree further purports to permit the CRE to revoke self-supply permits granted under the former electricity law, which were grandfathered when the new Electricity Industry Law was enacted, if it considers them to have been obtained improperly. According to the decree, these amendments were to become effective in March 2021, and SENER, the CRE and Centro Nacional de Control de Energía (Mexico’s National Center for Energy Control) were to have 180 calendar days to modify, as necessary, all resolutions, policies, criteria, manuals and other regulations applicable to the power industry to conform with this decree. Numerous legal actions were taken against the decree, which resulted in Mexican courts issuing a suspension of the decree later in March 2021, pending resolution of such actions. In April 2022, the Mexican Supreme Court resolved an action of unconstitutionality filed by a group of senators against the amended Electricity Industry Law. The super majority needed to find the amendment unconstitutional was not reached and the proceeding was therefore dismissed, leaving the amended Electricity Industry Law in place. However, the Court nevertheless found certain of the amendments, including the priority of dispatch for the CFE and other provisions that granted preference to the CFE over private companies, were invalid. In January 2024, the Second Chamber of the Mexican Supreme Court definitively resolved an amparo in a separate case brought by a third party and ruled that certain provisions of the amendments of the Electricity Industry Law are unconstitutional, including the priority of dispatch for the CFE and other provisions that granted preference to the CFE over private companies. The Court also dismissed an amparo relating to the provision of the decree applicable to self-supply permits granted under the former electricity law, and established that its decision applies generally over all participants. Sempra Infrastructure filed three lawsuits challenging the amendments to the Electricity Industry Law, including one concerning the provision permitting revocation of self-supply permits deemed improperly obtained. In each of them, Sempra Infrastructure obtained a favorable judgment in the lower court, all of which were challenged by the CRE. Final resolution is pending in the Second Collegiate Court. That court must follow the criteria established by the Mexican Supreme Court in January 2024, which would require dismissal of the lawsuit challenging the provision permitting revocation of self-supply permits. In such case, the CRE may be required to seek to revoke such self-supply permits, under a legal standard that is ambiguous and not well defined under the law. Sempra Infrastructure supplies power pursuant to self-supply permits, and would be permitted to file amparos challenging the constitutionality of any such action. If such self-supply permits are revoked, it may result in increased costs for Sempra Infrastructure and for its power consumers, adversely affect our ability to develop new projects, result in decreased revenues and cash flows, and negatively impact our ability to recover the carrying values of our investments in Mexico, any of which could have a material adverse effect on Sempra’s business, results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and/or prospects. RBS Sempra Commodities – Resolved Sempra holds an equity method investment in RBS Sempra Commodities, a limited liability partnership in the process of being liquidated. In 2015, liquidators filed a claim in the High Court of Justice against The Royal Bank of Scotland plc (now NatWest Markets plc, our partner in the JV) and Mercuria Energy Europe Trading Limited (the Defendants) on behalf of 10 companies (the Liquidating Companies) that engaged in carbon credit trading via chains that included a company that traded directly with RBS Sempra Energy Europe, a subsidiary of RBS Sempra Commodities. The claim alleged that the Defendants’ participation in the purchase and sale of carbon credits resulted in the Liquidating Companies’ carbon credit trading transactions creating a VAT liability they were unable to pay, and that the Defendants were liable to provide for equitable compensation due to dishonest assistance and compensation under the U.K. Insolvency Act of 1986. In January 2024, the parties settled the Liquidating Companies’ claim against the Defendants to fully resolve the matter; our share of such settlement was approximately £7.9 million (approximately $10 million in U.S. dollars at December 31, 2023). For the year ended December 31, 2023, we recorded $40 million in equity earnings from our investment in RBS Sempra Commodities to reduce our estimate of our obligations to settle these VAT matters and related legal costs based on the settlement reached with the Liquidating Companies in January 2024. Asbestos Claims Against EFH Subsidiaries Certain EFH subsidiaries that we acquired as part of the merger of EFH with an indirect subsidiary of Sempra were defendants in personal injury lawsuits brought in state courts throughout the U.S. These cases alleged illness or death as a result of exposure to asbestos in power plants designed and/or built by companies whose assets were purchased by predecessor entities to the EFH subsidiaries, and generally assert claims for product defects, negligence, strict liability and wrongful death. They sought compensatory and punitive damages. As of April 30, 2024, no lawsuits are pending. Additionally, approximately 28,000 proofs of claim were filed, but not discharged, in advance of a December 2015 deadline to file a proof of claim in the EFH bankruptcy proceeding on behalf of persons who allege exposure to asbestos under similar circumstances and assert the right to file such lawsuits in the future. The costs to defend or resolve such claims and the amount of damages that may be incurred could have a material adverse effect on Sempra’s results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and/or prospects. Ordinary Course Litigation We are also defendants in ordinary routine litigation incidental to our businesses, including personal injury, employment litigation, product liability, property damage and other claims. Juries have demonstrated an increasing willingness to grant large awards, including punitive damages, in these types of cases. LEASES We discuss leases further in Note 16 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Annual Report. Lessee Accounting We have operating and finance leases for real and personal property (including office space, land, fleet vehicles, aircraft, machinery and equipment, warehouses and other operational facilities) and PPAs with renewable energy, energy storage and peaker plant facilities. Leases That Have Not Yet Commenced SDG&E has entered into six PPAs, of which SDG&E expects two will commence in 2024, three will commence in 2025, and one will commence in 2026. SDG&E expects the future minimum lease payments to be $27 million in 2024, $59 million in 2025, $80 million in 2026, $82 million in both 2027 and 2028 and $834 million thereafter (through expiration in 2041). Lessor Accounting Sempra Infrastructure is a lessor for certain of its natural gas and ethane pipelines, compressor stations, liquid petroleum gas storage facilities, a rail facility and refined products terminals, which we account for as operating or sales-type leases. We provide information below for leases for which we are the lessor.
LESSOR INFORMATION ON THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(Dollars in millions)
|  |  | Three months ended March 31,
|  |  |  |  | 2024 |  | 2023
Sempra – Sales-type leases: |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Interest income |  |  |  |  | $ | 1 |  |  | $ | 2 |
Total revenues from sales-type leases(1) |  |  |  |  | $ | 1 |  |  | $ | 2 |
Sempra – Operating leases: |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Fixed lease payments |  |  |  |  | $ | 89 |  |  | $ | 80 |
Variable lease payments |  |  |  |  | 10 |  |  | 2 |
Total revenues from operating leases(1) |  |  |  |  | $ | 99 |  |  | $ | 82 |
Depreciation expense |  |  |  |  | $ | 18 |  |  | $ | 15 |
(1) Included in Revenues: Energy-Related Businesses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENTS We discuss below significant changes in the first three months of 2024 to contractual commitments discussed in Note 16 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Annual Report. LNG Purchase Agreement Sempra Infrastructure has an SPA for the supply of LNG to the ECA Regas Facility. The commitment amount is calculated using a predetermined formula based on estimated forward prices of the index applicable from 2024 to 2029. Although this agreement specifies a number of cargoes to be delivered, under its terms, the supplier may divert certain cargoes, which would reduce amounts paid under the agreement by Sempra Infrastructure. At March 31, 2024, we expect the commitment amount to decrease by $144 million in 2024, increase by $22 million in 2025, $13 million in 2026, $5 million in 2027, decrease by $4 million in 2028 and $2 million thereafter (through contract termination in 2029) compared to December 31, 2023, reflecting changes in estimated forward prices since December 31, 2023 and actual transactions for the first three months of 2024. These LNG commitment amounts are based on the assumption that all LNG cargoes under the agreement are delivered, less those already confirmed to be diverted as of March 31, 2024. Actual LNG purchases in the current and prior years have been significantly lower than the maximum amount provided under the agreement due to the supplier electing to divert cargoes as allowed by the agreement. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES We disclose any proceeding under environmental laws to which a government authority is a party when the potential monetary sanctions, exclusive of interest and costs, exceed the lesser of $1 million or 1% of current assets, which was $56 million for Sempra, $20 million for SDG&E and $25 million for SoCalGas at March 31, 2024.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
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/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//450/tableOfContent Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147480327/954-440-50-1 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 5: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration