XML 67 R33.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.2

COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND GUARANTEES | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND GUARANTEES | COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND GUARANTEES 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 June 30, 2025, loss contingency accruals for legal matters that are probable and estimable were $48 million for Sempra, $9 million for SDG&E and $25 million for SoCalGas. SDG&E City of San Diego Franchise Agreements 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. Pending. In one of the cases, 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. Both sides have appealed the ruling. Resolved. In the second case, judgment was granted in favor of SDG&E and the City of San Diego. The plaintiff’s latest appeal was to the California Supreme Court and was denied, definitively resolving this matter. 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. In 2022, SoCalGas paid $1.79 billion under a settlement agreement that resolved the lawsuits of over 99% of the approximately 36,000 individual plaintiffs with lawsuits then-pending against SoCalGas and Sempra related to the Leak. As of August 4, 2025, there are approximately eight outstanding plaintiffs who have not entered into a settlement agreement. The 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. 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. ▪Pending - 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). The claimant to the adjacent property filed suit to reinitiate an administrative procedure at SEDATU to obtain the property title for the disputed property that 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. ▪Resolved - In addition, a 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. In August 2024, the Federal Collegiate Circuit Court ruled in favor of the ECA Regas Facility. The plaintiff filed an appeal and, in May 2025, the Mexican Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, definitively resolving this matter. 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: ▪Resolved - 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 petitioned the Mexican Supreme Court to resolve the appeal. The Mexican Supreme Court denied the motion to appeal, thereby upholding the federal appellate court’s decision and definitively resolving this matter. ▪Resolved - 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 petitioned the Mexican Supreme Court to resolve the appeal. The Mexican Supreme Court denied the motion to appeal, thereby upholding the federal appellate court’s decision and definitively resolving this matter. ▪Pending - In the third case, a group of residents filed an administrative appeal 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 administrative appeal was denied. The claimants appealed this ruling via a constitutional challenge (an amparo trial) 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 the rulings via the Second Federal Collegiate Court, and the appeal is yet to be resolved. Port Arthur LNG TCEQ Permit - Pending. 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. In February 2025, the Supreme Court of Texas adopted Port Arthur LNG’s interpretation of the standard. Port Arthur LNG continues to litigate this matter before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which we expect will apply the standard adopted by the Supreme Court of Texas. The 2022 Permit is effective during the pending litigation. 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 the pending litigation to materially impact the PA LNG Phase 1 project cost, schedule or expected commercial operations at this stage. Construction Incident - Pending. In April 2025, an incident occurred at the site of the PA LNG Phase 1 project that resulted in the deaths of three Bechtel employees and the injury of two Bechtel employees. We have an EPC contract with Bechtel to construct the PA LNG Phase 1 project. Under the EPC contract, Bechtel has full custody and control of the site during the construction period. OSHA opened inspections with respect to Bechtel and Sempra Infrastructure, but has released the site. Bechtel is continuing construction of the PA LNG Phase 1 project while the cause of the incident remains under investigation. In connection with the incident, as of August 4, 2025, there are two complaints outstanding on behalf of 17 plaintiffs in the 172nd Judicial District Court in Jefferson County, Texas and the 295th Judicial District Court in Harris County, Texas. A complaint filed in the 60th Judicial District Court in Jefferson County, Texas was dismissed without prejudice following the plaintiff’s intervention in the proceeding in the 172nd Judicial District Court in Jefferson County, Texas. The complaints collectively name as defendants Port Arthur LNG, SI Partners, Sempra and/or other Sempra affiliates, Bechtel and/or Bechtel Corporation, among others. The complaints assert negligence and gross negligence and additional causes of action for wrongful death, survival and bystander claims. The complaints seek compensatory and punitive damages, lost wages and attorneys’ fees. Additionally, the plaintiffs in the complaints filed in the 172nd and 295th Judicial District Courts sought TROs, which were granted and denied, respectively. The 172nd Judicial District Court’s TRO was dissolved in June 2025 by agreement of the parties. We believe we are entitled to indemnification from Bechtel under Port Arthur LNG’s EPC contract with Bechtel with respect to this incident. 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 the LIE that included public policy changes, including establishing priority of dispatch for CFE plants over privately owned ones and allowing the CNE to revoke self-supply permits granted under the former electricity law under certain circumstances. In 2024, the Mexican government adopted changes to the Mexican Constitution to reinforce state control over strategic sectors by granting a central role to government entities like the CFE and PEMEX. Following these constitutional reforms, the Mexican government adopted the ESL in March 2025, which repealed the LIE. Prior to the enactment of the ESL, Sempra Infrastructure had initiated three amparo lawsuits challenging the 2021 amendments to the LIE. The first lawsuit addressed the provision allowing revocation of self-supply permits, which lawsuit the Second Collegiate Court definitively dismissed in July 2024. The second lawsuit impacted generation permits for certain Sempra Infrastructure facilities, which lawsuit the Second Chamber of the Mexican Supreme Court definitively dismissed in February 2025. The third lawsuit relating to the 2021 amendments to the LIE impacts Sempra Infrastructure’s power marketing business; this lawsuit remains pending, but Sempra Infrastructure believes it is now moot given the repeal of the LIE. 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 15 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, tugboats, 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 Since December 31, 2024, SDG&E has adjusted the expected commencement dates of four PPAs to: two commencing in 2025, one commencing in 2027 and one commencing in 2028. SDG&E expects the future minimum lease payments to be $18 million in 2025, $36 million in each of 2026 and 2027, $41 million in 2028, $43 million in 2029 and $471 million thereafter (through expiration in 2043). 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 June 30, |  | Six months ended June 30,
| 2025 |  | 2024 |  | 2025 |  | 2024
Sempra – Sales-type leases: |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Interest income | $ | 1 |  |  | $ | 2 |  |  | $ | 2 |  |  | $ | 3 |
Total revenues from sales-type leases(1) | $ | 1 |  |  | $ | 2 |  |  | $ | 2 |  |  | $ | 3 |
Sempra – Operating leases: |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Fixed lease payments | $ | 90 |  |  | $ | 87 |  |  | $ | 176 |  |  | $ | 176 |
Variable lease payments | 6 |  |  | 10 |  |  | 11 |  |  | 20 |
Total revenues from operating leases(1) | $ | 96 |  |  | $ | 97 |  |  | $ | 187 |  |  | $ | 196 |
Depreciation expense | $ | 17 |  |  | $ | 18 |  |  | $ | 35 |  |  | $ | 36 |
(1) Included in Revenues: Energy-Related Businesses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENTS We discuss below significant changes in the first six months of 2025 to contractual commitments discussed in Note 15 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 2025 through 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 June 30, 2025, we expect the commitment amount to decrease by $155 million in 2025, increase by $61 million in 2026 and $21 million in 2027, and decrease by $9 million in 2028 and $6 million in 2029 compared to December 31, 2024, reflecting changes in estimated forward prices since December 31, 2024 and actual transactions for the first six months of 2025. 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 June 30, 2025. 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 $42 million for Sempra, $15 million for SDG&E and $13 million for SoCalGas at June 30, 2025.
Guarantees | SEMPRA – GUARANTEES Sempra Promissory Note for SDSRA Distribution Cameron LNG JV’s debt agreements require Cameron LNG JV to maintain the SDSRA, which is an additional reserve account beyond the Senior Debt Service Accrual Account, where funds accumulate from operations to satisfy senior debt obligations due and payable on the next payment date. Both accounts can be funded with cash or authorized investments. In June 2021, Sempra Infrastructure received a distribution of $165 million based on its proportionate share of the SDSRA, for which Sempra provided a promissory note and letters of credit to secure a proportionate share of Cameron LNG JV’s obligation to fund the SDSRA. Sempra’s maximum exposure to loss is replenishment of the amount withdrawn by Sempra Infrastructure from the SDSRA, or $165 million. We recorded a guarantee liability of $22 million in June 2021, with an associated carrying value of $17 million at June 30, 2025, for the fair value of the promissory note, which is being reduced over the duration of the guarantee through Sempra Infrastructure’s investment in Cameron LNG JV. The guarantee will terminate upon full repayment of Cameron LNG JV’s debt, scheduled to occur in 2039, or replenishment of the amount withdrawn by Sempra Infrastructure from the SDSRA. Sempra Support Agreement for CFIN In July 2020, CFIN entered into a financing arrangement with Cameron LNG JV’s four project owners and received aggregate proceeds of $1.5 billion from two project owners and from external lenders on behalf of the other two project owners (collectively, the affiliate loans), based on their proportionate ownership interest in Cameron LNG JV. CFIN used the proceeds from the affiliate loans to provide a loan to Cameron LNG JV. The affiliate loans mature in 2039. Principal and interest are paid from Cameron LNG JV’s project cash flows from its three-train natural gas liquefaction facility. Cameron LNG JV used the proceeds from its loan to return equity to its project owners. Sempra Infrastructure’s $753 million proportionate share of the affiliate loans, based on SI Partners’ 50.2% ownership interest in Cameron LNG JV, was funded by external lenders comprised of a syndicate of banks (the bank debt) to whom Sempra has provided a guarantee pursuant to a Support Agreement under which: ▪Sempra has severally guaranteed repayment of the bank debt plus accrued and unpaid interest if CFIN fails to pay the external lenders; ▪the external lenders may exercise an option to put the bank debt to Sempra Infrastructure upon the occurrence of certain events, including a failure by CFIN to meet its payment obligations under the bank debt; ▪on March 28, 2028, March 28, 2030 and March 28, 2035, the agent for the external lenders, on behalf of such external lenders, is obligated to put all of the then outstanding bank debt to Sempra Infrastructure, except to the extent any external lender elects not to participate in the put three months prior to the applicable put exercise date; ▪Sempra Infrastructure also has a right to call the bank debt back from, or to refinance the bank debt with, the external lenders at any time; and ▪the Support Agreement will terminate upon full repayment of the bank debt, including repayment following an event in which the bank debt is put to Sempra Infrastructure. In exchange for this guarantee, the external lenders pay a guarantee fee that is based on the credit rating of Sempra’s long-term senior unsecured non-credit enhanced debt rating, which guarantee fee Sempra Infrastructure recognizes as interest income as earned. Sempra’s maximum exposure to loss is the bank debt plus any accrued and unpaid interest and related fees, subject to a liability cap of 130% of the bank debt, or $979 million. We measure the Support Agreement at fair value, net of related guarantee fees, on a recurring basis (see Note 9). At June 30, 2025, the fair value of the Support Agreement was $39 million, of which $8 million is included in Other Current Assets and $31 million is included in Other Long-Term Assets on Sempra’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. SI Partners Credit Support Agreement In February 2025, SI Partners entered into a 15-month credit support agreement with a third-party financial institution related to a customer’s secured borrowing for repayment of its past due account balance owed to SI Partners. At June 30, 2025, SI Partners’ maximum exposure to loss under this off-balance sheet arrangement is $82 million

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/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: 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 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: 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/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: 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 6: 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

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for each guarantee obligation, or each group of similar guarantee obligations, including (a) the nature of the guarantee, including its term, how it arose, and the events or circumstances that would require the guarantor to perform under the guarantee; (b) the maximum potential amount of future payments (undiscounted) the guarantor could be required to make under the guarantee; (c) the current carrying amount of the liability, if any, for the guarantor's obligations under the guarantee; and (d) the nature of any recourse provisions under the guarantee, and any assets held either as collateral or by third parties, and any relevant related party disclosure. Excludes disclosures about product warranties. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 942 -SubTopic 235 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section S99 -Paragraph 2 -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147477314/942-235-S99-2 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 235 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section S50 -Paragraph 4 -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147480738/235-10-S50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 235 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section S99 -Paragraph 3 -Subparagraph (SX 210.12-04(a)) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147480678/235-10-S99-3 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a)(4) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482425/460-10-50-4 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a)(5) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482425/460-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (d) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482425/460-10-50-4 Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (e) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482425/460-10-50-4 Reference 8: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a)(2) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482425/460-10-50-4 Reference 9: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a)(3) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482425/460-10-50-4 Reference 10: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 460 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/460/tableOfContent Reference 11: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (b)(3) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482425/460-10-50-4 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_GuaranteesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration