XML 77 R39.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.22.0.1
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
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 December 31, 2021, loss contingency accruals for legal matters, including associated legal fees and regulatory matters related to the Leak, that are probable and estimable were $2,086 million for Sempra, including $4 million for SDG&E and $2,006 million for SoCalGas. Amounts for Sempra and SoCalGas include $1,980 million for matters related to the Leak, which we discuss below. We discuss our policy regarding accrual of legal fees in Note 1.
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. As described below, numerous lawsuits, investigations and regulatory proceedings have been initiated in response to the Leak, resulting in significant costs, which together with other Leak-related costs are discussed below in “Cost Estimates, Accounting Impact and Insurance.”
Civil Litigation – Litigation Subject to Agreements to Resolve. As of February 18, 2022, approximately 390 lawsuits, including approximately 36,000 plaintiffs (the Individual Plaintiffs) were pending against SoCalGas and Sempra related to the Leak. All these cases are coordinated before a single court in the LA Superior Court for pretrial management.
In November 2017, in the coordinated proceeding, a Third Amended Consolidated Master Case Complaint for Individual Actions was filed on behalf of the Individual Plaintiffs, through which their separate lawsuits are managed for pretrial purposes. The consolidated complaint asserts causes of action for negligence, negligence per se, private and public nuisance (continuing and permanent), trespass, inverse condemnation, strict liability, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent concealment, loss of consortium, wrongful death and violations of Proposition 65 against SoCalGas and Sempra (excluding the Proposition 65 claims, the Individual Plaintiff Litigation). The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages for personal injuries, lost wages and/or lost profits, property damage and diminution in property value, injunctive relief, costs of future medical monitoring, civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees.
In October 2018 and January 2019, complaints were filed on behalf of 51 firefighters stationed near the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility who allege they were injured by exposure to chemicals released during the Leak. The complaints against SoCalGas and Sempra assert causes of actions for negligence, negligence per se, private and public nuisance (continuing and permanent), trespass, inverse condemnation, strict liability, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent concealment and loss of consortium. The complaints seek compensatory and punitive damages for personal injuries, lost wages and/or lost profits, property damage and diminution in property value, and attorneys’ fees. These complaints are included in the coordinated proceeding and the Individual Plaintiff Litigation.
On September 26, 2021, SoCalGas and Sempra entered into an agreement with counsel representing over 80% of the plaintiffs in the Individual Plaintiff Litigation to resolve the claims of all Individual Plaintiffs for a payment of up to $1.8 billion. The agreement is subject to acceptance by no fewer than roughly 97% of all plaintiffs in the Individual Plaintiff Litigation by June 1, 2022, although SoCalGas and Sempra have the right to waive such condition. The agreement, which requires each plaintiff who accepts a settlement to release all such plaintiff’s claims against SoCalGas, Sempra and their respective affiliates related to the Individual Plaintiff Litigation and the Leak, provides that the settlement amount will be reduced based on the number of plaintiffs who do not accept. The LA Superior Court has approved the process to allocate payments among the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs who do not agree to participate in the settlement will be able to continue to pursue their claims. Pursuant to the agreement, the Individual Plaintiff Litigation has been stayed.
In January 2017, two consolidated class action complaints were filed against SoCalGas and Sempra, one on behalf of a putative class of persons and businesses who own or lease real property within a five-mile radius of the well (the Property Class Action), and a second on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities conducting business within five miles of the facility (the Business Class Action). The Property Class Action asserts claims for strict liability for ultra-hazardous activities, negligence, negligence per se, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, trespass, permanent and continuing public and private nuisance, and inverse condemnation. The Business Class Action asserts a claim for violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. Both complaints seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees.
On September 26, 2021, SoCalGas and Sempra entered into an agreement to settle the Property Class Action for a total amount of $40 million. If, following a fairness hearing at which any objections to the settlement will be heard, the LA Superior Court gives final approval of the settlement, the agreement provides for a release of SoCalGas, Sempra and their respective affiliates from all claims related to the Leak by all property class members who do not opt out of the class. Members of the property class who opt out of the settlement will have the right to pursue their claims on an individual basis.
On September 27, 2021, SoCalGas and Sempra entered into an agreement to settle the individual claims of the named plaintiffs in the Business Class Action for a total amount of $100,000 in exchange for a dismissal and release of SoCalGas, Sempra and their respective affiliates from all claims related to the Leak. The complaint was dismissed in January 2022.
The Third Amended Consolidated Master Case Complaint for Individual Actions includes claims for violation of Proposition 65 seeking penalties for alleged violation of requirements to warn about certain chemical exposures as a result of the Leak. On November 4, 2021, SoCalGas entered into an agreement to settle these claims for a payment of approximately $2 million; in addition, SoCalGas agreed to implement certain measures to reduce emissions at the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility and to provide warnings to residents if benzene measured at the facility’s fence line exceeds certain levels. In January 2022, the LA Superior Court entered a consent judgment resolving the Proposition 65 claims.
In October 2018 and October 2020, five property developers (the Developer Plaintiffs) filed complaints against SoCalGas and Sempra alleging causes of action for strict liability, negligence per se, negligence, negligent interference, continuing nuisance, permanent nuisance, inverse condemnation and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and California Public Utilities Code section 2106, as well as claims for negligence against certain directors of SoCalGas. The complaints seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. In October 2021, the claims against the individual SoCalGas directors were dismissed. In January 2022, SoCalGas and Sempra entered into an agreement to settle the claims of one of the Developer Plaintiffs, and its complaint was dismissed.
An adverse ruling in any of the lawsuits in the Individual Plaintiff Litigation filed by plaintiffs who do not agree to settle, any lawsuits filed by property class members who opt out of the Property Class Action settlement or by members of the putative Business Class Action could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra’s results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and/or prospects. In addition, there can be no assurance that the conditions to resolve the Individual Plaintiff Litigation will be satisfied or that the LA Superior Court will approve the settlement for the Property Class Action.
In addition, a federal securities class action alleging violation of the federal securities laws was filed against Sempra and certain of its officers in July 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. In March 2018, the court dismissed the action with prejudice, and in February 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The time for appeal has passed and, as a result, this represents the final judgment in this proceeding.
Civil Litigation – Unresolved Litigation. The claims of four of the Developer Plaintiffs remain pending, and the LA Superior Court has scheduled a trial in October 2022. SoCalGas has engaged in settlement discussions with the Developer Plaintiffs.
Four shareholder derivative actions were filed alleging breach of fiduciary duties against certain officers and certain directors of Sempra and/or SoCalGas. Three of the actions were joined in an Amended Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint, which was dismissed with prejudice in January 2021. The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal. The remaining action was also dismissed but plaintiffs were given leave to amend their complaint.
Regulatory Proceedings. In January 2016, CalGEM and the CPUC directed an independent analysis of the technical root cause of the Leak to be conducted by Blade. In May 2019, Blade released its report, which concluded that the Leak was caused by a failure of the production casing of the well due to corrosion and that attempts to stop the Leak were not effectively conducted, but did not identify any instances of non-compliance by SoCalGas. Blade concluded that SoCalGas’ compliance activities conducted prior to the Leak did not find indications of a casing integrity issue. Blade opined, however, that there were measures, none of which were required by gas storage regulations at the time, that could have been taken to aid in the early identification of corrosion and that, in Blade’s opinion, would have prevented or mitigated the Leak. The report also identified well safety practices and regulations that have since been adopted by CalGEM and implemented by SoCalGas.
In June 2019, the CPUC opened an OII to consider penalties against SoCalGas for the Leak, which it later bifurcated into two phases. The first phase will consider whether SoCalGas violated California Public Utilities Code Section 451 or other laws, CPUC orders or decisions, rules or requirements, whether SoCalGas engaged in unreasonable and/or imprudent practices with respect to its operation and maintenance of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility or its related record-keeping practices, whether SoCalGas cooperated sufficiently with the SED of the CPUC and Blade during the pre-formal investigation, and whether any of the mitigation measures proposed by Blade should be implemented to the extent not already done. The SED, based largely on the Blade report, has alleged a total of 324 violations in the first phase, asserting that SoCalGas violated California Public Utilities Code Section 451 and failed to cooperate in the investigation and to keep proper records. Hearings on a subset of issues began in March 2021. The second phase will consider whether SoCalGas should be sanctioned for the Leak and what damages, fines or other penalties, if any, should be imposed for any violations, unreasonable or imprudent practices, or failure to cooperate sufficiently with the SED as determined by the CPUC in the first phase. In addition, the second phase will determine the amounts of various costs incurred by SoCalGas and other parties in connection with the Leak and the ratemaking treatment or other
disposition of such costs, which could result in little or no recovery of such costs by SoCalGas. SoCalGas has engaged in settlement discussions with the SED in connection with this proceeding.
In February 2017, the CPUC opened a proceeding pursuant to the 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. Phase 2 of the proceeding, which is evaluating the impacts of reducing or eliminating the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility using the established framework and models, began in the first quarter of 2019. In December 2019, the CPUC added a third phase of the proceeding and engaged a consultant who is analyzing alternative means for meeting or avoiding the demand for the facility’s services if it were eliminated in either the 2027 or 2035 timeframe. In July 2021, the CPUC combined Phase 2 and Phase 3 and modified the scope of Phase 3 to also 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 November 2020, the CPUC issued a decision on the interim range of gas inventory levels at the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, setting the interim range between 0 Bcf and 34 Bcf. In November 2021, the CPUC issued a decision approving a new interim range of gas inventory levels of up to 41.16 Bcf. The CPUC may issue future changes to this interim range of authorized gas inventory levels before issuing a final inventory determination within the SB 380 OII proceeding.
At December 31, 2021, the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility had a net book value of $883 million. 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, incur higher than expected operating costs and/or be required to make additional capital expenditures (any or all of which may not be recoverable in rates), and natural gas reliability and electric generation could be jeopardized. Any such outcome could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra’s results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and/or prospects.
Cost Estimate, Accounting Impact and Insurance. SoCalGas has incurred significant costs related to the Leak, primarily for temporary relocation of community residents; to control the well and stop the Leak; to mitigate the natural gas released; to purchase natural gas to replace what was lost through the Leak; to defend against and, in certain cases, settle, civil and criminal litigation arising from the Leak; to pay the costs of the government-ordered response to the Leak, including the costs for Blade to conduct the root cause analysis described above; to respond to various government and agency investigations regarding the Leak; and to comply with increased regulation imposed as a result of the Leak. At December 31, 2021, SoCalGas estimates these costs related to the Leak are $3,221 million (the cost estimate), which includes $1,279 million of costs recovered or probable of recovery from insurance. This cost estimate may increase significantly as more information becomes available. A portion of the cost estimate has been paid, and $1,983 million is accrued as Reserve for Aliso Canyon Costs at December 31, 2021 on SoCalGas’ and Sempra’s Consolidated Balance Sheets.
In 2020, SoCalGas recorded $484 million in costs, inclusive of estimated legal costs, related to settlement discussions in connection with civil litigation and regulatory matters described above. Of this amount, $177 million was recorded in Insurance Receivable for Aliso Canyon Costs on the SoCalGas and Sempra Consolidated Balance Sheets and $307 million ($233 million after tax) was recorded in Aliso Canyon Litigation and Regulatory Matters on the SoCalGas and Sempra Consolidated Statements of Operations.
As a result of entering into the agreements described under “Civil Litigation – Litigation Subject to Agreements to Resolve” above, and other continuing settlement negotiations, SoCalGas recorded total charges of $1.59 billion ($1.15 billion after tax) in 2021 in Aliso Canyon Litigation and Regulatory Matters on the SoCalGas and Sempra Consolidated Statements of Operations. Sempra elected to make an $800 million equity contribution to SoCalGas in September 2021 and may elect to make additional equity contributions in the future that are intended to maintain SoCalGas’ approved capital structure in connection with these accruals.
Except for the amounts paid or estimated to settle certain legal and regulatory matters as described above, the cost estimate does not include (i) any amounts necessary to resolve claims of Individual Plaintiffs who do not agree to participate in the settlement of the Individual Actions or members of the Property Class Action who opt out of that settlement or (ii) the matters that we describe above in “Civil Litigation – Unresolved Litigation” and “Regulatory Proceedings” to the extent it is not possible to predict at this time the outcome of these actions or reasonably estimate the possible costs or a range of possible costs for damages, restitution, civil or administrative fines or penalties, defense, settlement or other costs or remedies that may be imposed or incurred. The cost estimate also does not include certain other costs incurred by Sempra associated with defending against shareholder derivative
lawsuits and other potential costs that we currently do not anticipate incurring or that we cannot reasonably estimate. Further, we are not able to reasonably estimate the possible loss or a range of possible losses in excess of the amounts accrued. These costs or losses not included in the cost estimate 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.
We have received insurance payments for many of the categories of costs included in the cost estimate, including temporary relocation and associated processing costs, control-of-well expenses, costs of the government-ordered response to the Leak, certain legal costs and lost gas. At December 31, 2021, we recorded the expected recovery of the cost estimate related to the Leak of $360 million as Insurance Receivable for Aliso Canyon Costs on SoCalGas’ and Sempra’s Consolidated Balance Sheets. This amount is exclusive of insurance retentions and $919 million of insurance proceeds we received through December 31, 2021. We intend to pursue the full extent of our insurance coverage for the costs we have incurred. Other than insurance for certain future defense costs we may incur as well as directors’ and officers’ liability, we have exhausted all of our insurance in this matter. We continue to pursue other sources of insurance coverage for costs related to this matter, but we may not be successful in obtaining additional insurance recovery for any of these costs. If we are not able to secure additional insurance recovery, if any costs we have recorded as an insurance receivable are not collected, if there are delays in receiving insurance recoveries, or if the insurance recoveries are subject to income taxes while the associated costs are not tax deductible, such amounts, which could be significant, could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra’s results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and/or prospects.
Sempra Infrastructure
Energía Costa Azul
We describe below certain land and customer disputes and permit challenges affecting our ECA Regas Facility and our proposed ECA LNG liquefaction projects. 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 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:
▪A 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 was previously dismissed. In April 2021, the Agrarian Court ordered that the administrative procedure be restarted.
In addition, four cases involving two adjacent areas of real property on which part of the ECA Regas Facility is situated, each brought by a single plaintiff or her descendants, remain pending against the facility, as follows:
▪The first disputed area is subject to a claim in the federal Agrarian Court that has been ongoing since 2006, in which the plaintiff 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 the ECA Regas Facility and dismissed the appeal.
▪The second disputed area is one parcel adjacent to the ECA Regas Facility that allegedly overlaps with land on which the ECA Regas Facility is situated, which is subject to a claim in the federal Agrarian Court and two claims in Mexican civil courts. The ECA Regas Facility first bought the property from the federal government in 2003; however, to resolve an ownership controversy, in 2008, the ECA Regas Facility reached a financial settlement with the plaintiff to eliminate an adverse claim to our title. Nevertheless, the plaintiff sued in 2013 for the nullity of both titles. The Agrarian Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in May 2021, nullifying the first property title. Sempra Infrastructure appealed the ruling in July 2021, which is pending resolution. The ECA Regas Facility continues to hold the second property title to the land. The two civil court proceedings, which seek to invalidate the contract by which the ECA Regas Facility purchased for the second time the applicable parcel of land on which the ECA Regas Facility is situated on the grounds that the purchase price was allegedly unfair, are progressing at different stages. In the first civil case, initiated in 2013, the court ruled in favor of the ECA Regas Facility, and the final decision was affirmed on a federal appeal. The descendants of the same plaintiff filed the second civil case in 2019, which was dismissed by the court. However, the dismissal has been appealed, which is pending the appellate court’s ruling.
Certain of these land disputes involve land on which portions of the ECA LNG liquefaction facilities, including ECA LNG Phase 1 currently under construction, are proposed to be situated or on which portions of the ECA Regas Facility that would be necessary for the operation of the proposed ECA LNG liquefaction facilities are situated.
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 in relation to 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 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 canceling the injunction, but was not successful. The claimant’s underlying challenge to the permits remains pending.
▪In the second case, the initial request for a provisional injunction 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, meaning that the natural gas liquefaction activities have not been affected. The claimants may appeal this ruling.
▪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 and the claimants have appealed, which is pending the appellate court’s ruling.
Customer Dispute. In May 2020, the two third-party capacity customers at the ECA Regas Facility, Shell Mexico and Gazprom, asserted that a 2019 update of the general terms and conditions for service at the facility, as approved by the CRE, resulted in a breach of contract by Sempra Infrastructure and a force majeure event. Citing these circumstances, the customers subsequently stopped making payments of amounts due under their respective LNG storage and regasification agreements. Sempra Infrastructure has rejected the customers’ assertions and has drawn on the customers’ letters of credit provided as payment security. The parties engaged in discussions under the applicable contractual dispute resolution procedures without coming to a mutually acceptable resolution. In July 2020, Shell Mexico submitted a request for arbitration of the dispute and although Gazprom has joined the proceeding, Gazprom has since replenished the amounts drawn on its letter of credit and has resumed making regular monthly payments under its LNG storage and regasification agreement. As a consequence, Sempra Infrastructure is not currently drawing on Gazprom’s letter of credit but expects to continue to draw on Shell Mexico’s letter of credit. Sempra Infrastructure intends to avail itself of its available claims, defenses, rights and remedies in the arbitration proceeding, including seeking dismissal of the customers’ claims. In addition to the arbitration proceeding, Shell Mexico also filed a constitutional challenge to the CRE’s approval of the update to the general terms and conditions and an additional constitutional claim against the issuance of the liquefaction permit. Shell Mexico’s request to stay the CRE’s approval of the general terms and conditions was denied and upheld on appeal. The claim regarding the liquefaction permit issuance was denied and is currently on appeal. A hearing on the merits of the arbitration case was held in October 2021.
Sonora Pipeline
Guaymas-El Oro Segment. Sempra Infrastructure’s Sonora natural gas pipeline consists of two segments, the Sasabe-Puerto Libertad-Guaymas segment and the Guaymas-El Oro segment. Each segment has its own service agreement with the CFE. In 2015, the Yaqui tribe, with the exception of some members living in the Bácum community, granted its consent and a right-of-way easement agreement for the construction of the Guaymas-El Oro segment of the Sonora natural gas pipeline that crosses its territory. Representatives of the Bácum community filed a legal challenge in Mexican federal court demanding the right to withhold consent for the project, the stoppage of work in the Yaqui territory and damages. In 2016, the judge granted a suspension order that prohibited the construction of such segment through the Bácum community territory. Because the pipeline does not pass through the Bácum community, Sempra Infrastructure did not believe the 2016 suspension order prohibited construction in the remainder of the Yaqui territory. Construction of the Guaymas-El Oro segment was completed, and commercial operations began in May 2017.
Following the start of commercial operations of the Guaymas-El Oro segment, Sempra Infrastructure reported damage to the Guaymas-El Oro segment of the Sonora pipeline in the Yaqui territory that has made that section inoperable since August 2017 and, as a result, Sempra Infrastructure declared a force majeure event. In 2017, an appellate court ruled that the scope of the 2016 suspension order encompassed the wider Yaqui territory, which has prevented Sempra Infrastructure from making repairs to put the pipeline back in service. In July 2019, a federal district court ruled in favor of Sempra Infrastructure and held that the Yaqui tribe was properly consulted and that consent from the Yaqui tribe was properly received. Representatives of the Bácum community appealed this decision, causing the suspension order preventing Sempra Infrastructure from repairing the damage to the Guaymas-El Oro segment of the Sonora pipeline in the Yaqui territory to remain in place until the appeals process is exhausted. In December 2021, the court of appeals referred the matter to Mexico’s Supreme Court.
Sempra Infrastructure exercised its rights under the contract, which included seeking force majeure payments for the two-year period such force majeure payments were required to be made, which ended in August 2019.
In July 2019, the CFE filed a request for arbitration generally to nullify certain contract terms that provide for fixed capacity payments in instances of force majeure and made a demand for substantial damages in connection with the force majeure event. In September 2019, the arbitration process ended when Sempra Infrastructure and the CFE reached an agreement to restart natural gas transportation service on the earlier of completion of repair of the damaged pipeline or January 15, 2020, and to modify the tariff structure and extend the term of the contract by 10 years. Subsequently, Sempra Infrastructure and the CFE agreed to extend the service start date multiple times, most recently to March 14, 2022. Under the revised agreement, the CFE will resume making payments only when the damaged section of the Guaymas-El Oro segment of the Sonora pipeline is repaired. If the pipeline is not repaired by March 14, 2022, and the parties do not agree on a new service start date, Sempra Infrastructure retains the right to terminate the contract and seek to recover its reasonable and documented costs and lost profits. Discussions with the CFE regarding the future of the pipeline, including the potential re-routing of a portion of the pipeline, are underway in accordance with a non-binding MOU announced in January 2022 that, among other matters, addresses efforts to restart service on the pipeline. Sempra Infrastructure intends to enter into a definitive agreement with respect to the pipeline in the first quarter of 2022.
At December 31, 2021, Sempra Infrastructure had $432 million in PP&E, net, related to the Guaymas-El Oro segment of the Sonora pipeline, which could be subject to impairment if Sempra Infrastructure is unable to make such repairs (which have not commenced) or re-route a portion of the pipeline (which has not been agreed to by the parties, but is subject to negotiation pursuant to a non-binding MOU, as described above) and resume operations in the Guaymas-El Oro segment of the Sonora pipeline or if Sempra Infrastructure terminates the contract and is unable to obtain recovery, which in each case could have a material adverse effect on Sempra’s business, results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and/or prospects.
Sasabe-Puerto Libertad-Guaymas Segment. In June 2014, Sempra Infrastructure and a landowner agreed to enter into a voluntary right-of-way easement agreement for the construction and operation of a seven-mile section of the 314-mile Sasabe-Puerto Libertad-Guaymas segment of the Sonora natural gas pipeline on the landowner’s property. However, in 2015, the landowner filed a complaint demanding the easement agreement be nullified. In September 2021, a definitive and non-appealable judgment was issued declaring the easement agreement nullified and ordering the removal of the pipeline from the landowner’s property. The execution of the judgment is suspended as a result of an amparo lawsuit filed by the CFE as an interested third party that did not participate in the litigation. Sempra Infrastructure filed a special judicial action asking the civil court to acknowledge the existence of the easement and to determine the consideration the landowner should receive in exchange for the easement. The failure to stay this judgment pending the resolution of Sempra Infrastructure’s planned special judicial action or prevail in preserving the easement in the special judicial action could require us to modify the route of the pipeline and could require a temporary shutdown of this portion of the pipeline, which could have a material adverse effect on Sempra’s business, results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and/or prospects.
Regulatory and Other Actions by the Mexican Government
We describe below certain actions by the Mexican government that could have a material impact on the energy sector in Mexico. Sempra Infrastructure and other parties affected by these resolutions, orders, decrees, regulations and proposed amendments to Mexican law have challenged them by filing amparo and other claims, some of which have been granted injunctive relief. The court-ordered injunctions or suspensions provide temporary relief until Mexico’s federal district court or Supreme Court ultimately resolves the amparo and other claims. If passed in its current form, the proposed constitutional reform described below introduces significant changes to the legal and economic principles underlying the country’s energy reform of 2013, generating imminent risks for private investments in this sector. An unfavorable decision on one or more of these amparo or other challenges, the potential for extended disputes, or if passed in its current form, the proposed constitutional reform may impact our ability to operate our facilities at existing levels or at all, may result in increased costs for Sempra Infrastructure and its customers, may adversely affect our ability to develop new projects, and may negatively impact our ability to recover the carrying values of our investments in Mexico, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and/or prospects.
Transmission Rates for Legacy Generation Facilities. In May 2020, the CRE approved an update to the transmission rates included in legacy renewable and cogeneration energy contracts based on the claim that the legacy transmission rates did not reflect fair and proportional costs for providing the applicable services and, therefore, created inequitable competitive conditions. Three of Sempra Infrastructure’s renewable energy facilities (Don Diego Solar, Border Solar and Ventika) are currently holders of contracts with such legacy rates, and under the terms of these contracts any increases in the transmission rates would be passed through directly to their customers. These renewable energy facilities have obtained injunctive relief but are required to guarantee the difference in tariffs, which could be material, until the claims are definitively resolved by the courts. The three facilities obtained favorable resolutions from a lower court and the CRE has appealed one of these decisions.
Offtakers of Legacy Generation Permits. In October 2020, the CRE approved a resolution to amend the rules for the inclusion of new offtakers of legacy generation and self-supply permits (the Offtaker Resolution), which became effective immediately. The Offtaker Resolution prohibits self-supply permit holders from adding new offtakers that were not included in the original development or expansion plans, making modifications to the amount of energy allocated to the named offtakers, and including load centers that have entered into a supply arrangement under Mexico’s Electricity Industry Law. Don Diego Solar, Border Solar and Ventika are holders of self-supply permits and are impacted by the Offtaker Resolution. In January 2022, Don Diego Solar and Border Solar obtained a favorable resolution from a Mexican federal district court that we expect the CRE will appeal. If Sempra Infrastructure is not able to obtain legal protection for these impacted facilities, Sempra Infrastructure expects it will sell Border Solar’s capacity and a portion of Don Diego Solar’s capacity affected by the Offtaker Resolution into the spot market. Currently, prices in the spot market are significantly lower than the fixed prices in the PPAs that were entered into through self-supply permits. At December 31, 2021, Sempra Infrastructure had $14 million in other intangible assets, net, related to these self-supply permits previously granted by the CRE and impacted by the Offtaker Resolution that could be subject to impairment if Sempra Infrastructure is unable to obtain adequate legal protection. Sempra Infrastructure has filed lawsuits against the Offtaker Resolution and received injunctive relief pending final resolution.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. According to the decree, these amendments were to become effective on March 10, 2021, and SENER, the CRE and CENACE 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. However, a Mexican court issued a suspension of the amendments on March 19, 2021, and it is expected that Mexico’s Supreme Court will ultimately settle the matter. If the proposed amendments are affirmed by the Supreme Court, the CRE may be required to revoke self-supply permits granted under the former electricity law, which were grandfathered when the new Electricity Industry Law was enacted, under a legal standard that is ambiguous and not well defined under the law.Amendments to Mexico’s Hydrocarbons Law. In May 2021, amendments to Mexico’s Hydrocarbons Law were published and became effective. The amendments grant SENER and the CRE additional powers to suspend and revoke permits related to the midstream and downstream sectors. Suspension of permits will be determined by SENER or the CRE when a danger to national security, energy security, or to the national economy is foreseen. Likewise, new grounds for the revocation of permits are in place if the permit holder (i) carries out its activity with illegally imported products; (ii) fails, on more than one occasion, to comply with the provisions applicable to quantity, quality and measurement of the products; or (iii) modifies the technical conditions of its infrastructure without authorization. Additionally, in the case of existing permits, authorities will revoke those permits that fail to comply with the minimum storage requirements established by SENER or fail to comply with requirements or violate provisions established by the amended Hydrocarbons Law. All of Sempra Infrastructure’s facilities participating in the hydrocarbons sector filed lawsuits against the initiative to reform the Hydrocarbons Law and received injunctive relief pending a final resolution by the courts. In May 2021, a Mexican district court ordered the suspension of several of the provisions of the amendments with general application across the sector. In 2021, district courts issued judgments that the amendments do not affect the interests of the companies at this time and, as a result, dismissed the amparo lawsuits filed by several companies in the market, including three of the five lawsuits filed by Sempra Infrastructure. These judgments have been appealed and the granted suspensions will remain valid until the lawsuits are definitively resolved.Amendments to Mexico’s General Foreign Trade Rules. In June 2021, amendments to Mexico’s General Foreign Trade Rules went into effect, which establish that only state-owned companies may import and export hydrocarbons, refined products, petrochemicals, and biofuels through channels other than those authorized (LDA authorization). These amendments prevent non-state-owned companies from (i) obtaining LDA authorizations, which affect new projects that have not obtained such approval, and (ii) renewing existing LDA authorizations, which affect operational projects and those under construction. The ECA Regas Facility and the Veracruz terminal have LDA authorizations that are valid through 2023 and, as a preventive measure, have filed amparo claims to challenge the newly introduced barrier to renewing their existing LDA authorizations. In order to start operations at terminals currently under construction or in development in the vicinity of Topolobampo, Manzanillo and Ensenada, including the proposed ECA LNG liquefaction projects, Sempra Infrastructure filed amparo claims to challenge such amendments that prevent them from obtaining LDA authorizations in the future. In October and November of 2021, the Mexican government published new General Foreign Trade Rules in which private companies are allowed to obtain LDA authorizations and, as a consequence, the amparo claims filed by the ECA Regas Facility and the Veracruz terminal have been dismissed by the courts, while the appropriate court is being determined to hear the amparo claim for future LDA authorizations. There can be no assurance that new or renewed LDA authorizations will be obtained in a timely manner or at all.
Proposed Constitutional Reform in Mexico. In September 2021, the President of Mexico presented a constitutional reform initiative with the stated goal of preserving energy security and self-sufficiency, and a continuous supply of electricity to the country’s population, as a condition for guaranteeing national security and the human right to a decent life. The CRE and the National Commission of Hydrocarbons would be dissolved, and their functions would be carried out by SENER. CENACE would be reinstated to the CFE, and the CFE would be responsible for generating, conducting, transforming, distributing and supplying electricity, and would be the only entity allowed to commercialize electric energy in Mexico. Electricity generation permits and contracts for the sale of electricity and RECs to the CFE, including permits at all of Sempra Infrastructure’s operational power generation facilities, would be canceled. The public electricity supply service would be provided exclusively by the CFE, which may acquire up to 46% of required energy from the private sector. Only certain private power plants would be permitted to continue generating electricity and compete to offer the CFE the lowest production costs.
The initiative must first be submitted to a vote and approved in the respective plenary sessions of the Chamber of Deputies and the Chamber of Senators in Mexico. Additionally, the initiative must be approved by a two-thirds vote of Mexico’s Federal Congress and by the majority of the legislatures of the Mexican States and published in the Federal Official Gazette to be in force. Sempra Infrastructure is following this legislative procedure while assessing alternatives for its project companies. If passed in its current form, the initiative could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and/or prospects, our ability to recover the carrying values of our investments in Mexico, and our ability to operate existing facilities and develop new energy projects in the country.
Other Litigation
RBS Sempra Commodities
Sempra holds an equity method investment in RBS Sempra Commodities, a limited liability partnership in the process of being liquidated. RBS, now NatWest Markets plc, our partner in the JV, paid an assessment of £86 million (approximately $138 million in U.S. dollars) in October 2014 to HMRC for denied VAT refund claims filed in connection with the purchase of carbon credit allowances by RBS SEE, a subsidiary of RBS Sempra Commodities. RBS SEE was subsequently sold to J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and later to Mercuria Energy Group, Ltd. HMRC asserted that RBS was not entitled to reduce its VAT liability by VAT paid on certain carbon credit purchases 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 July 2021, RBS entered into a settlement with HMRC that resolved this matter.
In 2015, liquidators filed a claim in the High Court of Justice against RBS 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 SEE. The claim alleges 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 are liable to provide for equitable compensation due to dishonest assistance and for compensation under the U.K. Insolvency Act of 1986. Trial on the matter was held in June and July of 2018. In March 2020, the High Court of Justice rendered its judgment mostly in favor of the Liquidating Companies and awarded damages of approximately £45 million
(approximately $61 million in U.S. dollars at December 31, 2021), plus costs and interest. In October 2020, the High Court of Justice issued assessed costs and interest to be approximately £21 million (approximately $28 million in U.S. dollars at December 31, 2021) as of that date, with interest continuing to accrue. The Defendants appealed and, in May 2021, the Court of Appeal set aside the High Court of Justice’s decision and ordered a retrial. The Liquidating Companies in the High Court of Justice case have applied to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. has notified us that Mercuria Energy Group, Ltd. has sought indemnity for the claim, and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. has in turn sought indemnity from Sempra and RBS.
We recorded $100 million in equity losses from our investment in RBS Sempra Commodities in Equity Earnings on Sempra’s Consolidated Statement of Operations in 2020, which represented an estimate of our obligations to settle pending VAT matters and related legal costs. In 2021, we reduced this estimate by $50 million based on the settlement with HMRC on the First-Tier Tribunal case and revised assumptions on the High Court of Justice case. The final outcome of the High Court of Justice case remains uncertain.
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 February 18, 2022, no lawsuits are pending. Additionally, in connection with the EFH bankruptcy proceeding, approximately 28,000 proofs of claim were filed on behalf of persons who allege exposure to asbestos under similar circumstances and assert the right to file such lawsuits in the future. None of these claims or lawsuits were discharged in the EFH bankruptcy proceeding. The costs to defend or resolve these lawsuits and the amount of damages that may be imposed or 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
A lease exists when a contract conveys the right to control the use of an identified asset for a period of time in exchange for consideration. We determine if an arrangement is or contains a lease at inception of the contract.
Some of our lease agreements contain nonlease components, which represent activities that transfer a separate good or service to the lessee. As the lessee for both operating and finance leases, we have elected to combine lease and nonlease components as a single lease component for real estate, fleet vehicles, power generating facilities, and pipelines, whereby fixed or in-substance fixed payments allocable to the nonlease component are accounted for as part of the related lease liability and ROU asset. As the lessor, we have elected to combine lease and nonlease components as a single lease component for real estate, power generating facilities and liquid fuels terminals if the timing and pattern of transfer of the lease and nonlease components are the same and the lease component would be classified as an operating lease if accounted for separately.
Lessee Accounting
We have operating and finance leases for real and personal property (including office space, land, fleet vehicles, machinery and equipment, warehouses and other operational facilities) and PPAs with renewable energy, energy storage and peaker plant facilities.
Some of our leases include options to extend the lease terms for up to 20 years, or to terminate the lease within one year. Our lease liabilities and ROU assets are based on lease terms that may include such options when it is reasonably certain that we will exercise the option.
Certain of our contracts are short-term leases, which have a lease term of 12 months or less at lease commencement. We do not recognize a lease liability or ROU asset arising from short-term leases for all existing classes of underlying assets. In such cases, we recognize short-term lease costs on a straight-line basis over the lease term. Our short-term lease costs for the period reasonably reflect our short-term lease commitments.
Certain of our leases contain escalation clauses requiring annual increases in rent ranging from 2% to 5% or based on the Consumer Price Index. The rentals payable under these leases may increase by a fixed amount each year or by a percentage of a base year. Variable lease payments that are based on an index or rate are included in the initial measurement of our lease liability and ROU asset based on the index or rate at lease commencement and are not remeasured because of changes to the index or rate. Rather, changes to the index or rate are treated as variable lease payments and recognized in the period in which the obligation for those payments is incurred.
Similarly, PPAs for the purchase of renewable energy at SDG&E require lease payments based on a stated rate per MWh produced by the facilities, and we are required to purchase substantially all the output from the facilities. SDG&E is required to pay additional amounts for capacity charges and actual purchases of energy that exceed the minimum energy commitments. Under these contracts, we do not recognize a lease liability or ROU asset for leases for which there are no fixed lease payments. Rather, these variable lease payments are recognized separately as variable lease costs. SDG&E estimates these variable lease payments to be $297 million in 2022, $296 million in 2023, $297 million in 2024, $296 million in 2025, $290 million in 2026 and $2,779 million thereafter.
As of the lease commencement date, we recognize a lease liability for our obligation to make future lease payments, which we initially measure at present value using our incremental borrowing rate at the date of lease commencement, unless the rate implicit in the lease is readily determinable. We determine our incremental borrowing rate based on the rate of interest that we would have to pay to borrow, on a collateralized basis over a similar term, an amount equal to the lease payments in a similar economic environment. We also record a corresponding ROU asset, initially equal to the lease liability and adjusted for lease payments made at or before lease commencement, lease incentives, and any initial direct costs. We test ROU assets for recoverability whenever events or changes in circumstances have occurred that may affect the recoverability or the estimated useful lives of the ROU assets.
For our operating leases, our non-regulated entities recognize a single lease cost on a straight-line basis over the lease term in operating expenses. SDG&E and SoCalGas recognize this single lease cost on a basis that is consistent with the recovery of such costs in accordance with U.S. GAAP governing rate-regulated operations.
For our finance leases, the interest expense on the lease liability and amortization of the ROU asset are accounted for separately. Our non-regulated entities use the effective interest rate method to account for the imputed interest on the lease liability and amortize the ROU asset on a straight-line basis over the lease term. SDG&E and SoCalGas recognize amortization of the ROU asset on a basis that is consistent with the recovery of such costs in accordance with U.S. GAAP governing rate-regulated operations.
Our leases do not contain any material residual value guarantees, restrictions or covenants.
Classification of ROU assets and lease liabilities and the weighted-average remaining lease term and discount rate associated with operating and finance leases are summarized in the table below.
LESSEE INFORMATION ON THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Dollars in millions)
SempraSDG&ESoCalGas
December 31,
202120202019202120202019202120202019
ROU assets:
Operating leases:
ROU assets$594 $543 $591 $185 $102 $130 $57 $74 $94 
Finance leases:
PP&E1,473 1,429 1,353 1,381 1,356 1,326 92 73 27 
Accumulated depreciation(138)(99)(64)(107)(80)(57)(31)(19)(7)
PP&E, net1,335 1,330 1,289 1,274 1,276 1,269 61 54 20 
Total ROU assets$1,929 $1,873 $1,880 $1,459 $1,378 $1,399 $118 $128 $114 
Lease liabilities:
Operating leases:
Other current liabilities
$49 $52 $52 $26 $27 $27 $15 $18 $18 
Deferred credits and other
470 407 445 159 73 102 41 56 75 
519 459 497 185 100 129 56 74 93 
Finance leases:
Current portion of long-term debt and finance leases
43 36 26 32 26 20 11 10 6 
Long-term debt and finance leases
1,292 1,294 1,263 1,242 1,250 1,250 50 44 13 
1,335 1,330 1,289 1,274 1,276 1,270 61 54 19 
Total lease liabilities$1,854 $1,789 $1,786 $1,459 $1,376 $1,399 $117 $128 $112 
Weighted-average remaining lease term (in years):
Operating leases
1413131166456
Finance leases
171819171920776
Weighted-average discount
rate:
Operating leases5.45 %5.81 %6.01 %3.22 %3.62 %3.55 %1.98 %2.03 %3.73 %
Finance leases
14.25 %14.45 %14.76 %14.48 %14.65 %14.83 %2.91 %2.83 %3.23 %
The components of lease costs were as follows:
LESSEE INFORMATION ON THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS(1)
(Dollars in millions)
SempraSDG&ESoCalGas
Years ended December 31,
202120202019202120202019202120202019
Operating lease costs$89 $92 $96 $32 $31 $33 $20 $24 $27 
Finance lease costs:
Amortization of ROU assets(2)
39 35 24 27 23 18 12 12 6 
Interest on lease liabilities
186 188 173 184 186 173 2 2 — 
Total finance lease costs
225 223 197 211 209 191 14 14 6 
Short-term lease costs(3)
7 7 6 1 3 2 — — — 
Variable lease costs(3)
432 477 482 422 467 471 10 10 10 
Total lease costs
$753 $799 $781 $666 $710 $697 $44 $48 $43 
(1)    Includes costs capitalized in PP&E.
(2)    Included in O&M, except for $22 at Sempra, $21 at SDG&E and $1 at SoCalGas in 2021, $18 at Sempra and SDG&E in 2020, and $15 at Sempra and SDG&E in 2019, which is included in Depreciation and Amortization Expense.
(3)    Short-term leases with variable lease costs are recorded and presented as variable lease costs.

Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of lease liabilities and supplemental noncash information were as follows:
LESSEE INFORMATION ON THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Dollars in millions)
SempraSDG&ESoCalGas
Years ended December 31
202120202019202120202019202120202019
Operating activities:
Cash paid for operating leases
$78 $79 $101 $32 $31 $33 $20 $24 $27 
Cash paid for finance leases
171 173 173 169 171 173 2 2 — 
Financing activities:
Cash paid for finance leases
39 35 24 27 23 18 12 12 6 
Increase (decrease) in operating lease obligations for ROU assets
116 20 585 112 (1)158 1 1 118 
Increase in finance lease obligations for investment in PP&E43 77 38 24 30 16 19 47 22 

The table below presents the maturity analysis of our lease liabilities and reconciliation to the present value of lease liabilities:
LESSEE MATURITY ANALYSIS OF LIABILITIES
(Dollars in millions)
December 31, 2021
SempraSDG&ESoCalGas
Operating leases(1)
Finance leases(2)
Operating leases(1)
Finance leases(2)
Operating leasesFinance leases
2022$73 $209 $30 $197 $17 $12 
202366 208 27 197 13 11 
202462 203 25 192 11 11 
202550 199 16 188 10 11 
202648 196 15 188 8 8 
Thereafter493 2,292 105 2,279 — 13 
Total undiscounted lease payments
792 3,307 218 3,241 59 66 
Less: imputed interest(273)(1,972)(33)(1,967)(3)(5)
Total lease liabilities
519 1,335 185 1,274 56 61 
Less: current lease liabilities(49)(43)(26)(32)(15)(11)
Long-term lease liabilities
$470 $1,292 $159 $1,242 $41 $50 
(1)    Includes $9 in each of 2022 through 2026 and $87 thereafter related to purchased-power contracts.
(2)     Substantially all amounts are related to purchased-power contracts.
Leases That Have Not Yet Commenced
SDG&E has entered into three energy storage tolling agreements, of which SDG&E expects two will commence in the third quarter of 2022 and one will commence in the second quarter of 2023. SDG&E expects to account for these agreements as operating leases upon commencement and expects the future minimum lease payments to be $8 million in 2022, $17 million in 2023, $18 million in each of 2024 through 2026 and $101 million thereafter until expiration at various dates from 2032 through 2033.
SoCalGas has entered into a fleet vehicle agreement, which SoCalGas expects will commence in May 2022. SoCalGas expects to account for the agreement as a finance lease upon commencement and expects the future minimum lease payments to be $1 million in 2022 and $2 million in each of 2023 through 2026 and $6 million thereafter until expiration in 2029.
Lessor Accounting
Sempra Infrastructure is a lessor for certain of its natural gas and ethane pipelines, compressor stations, LPG storage facilities, a rail facility and liquid fuels terminals, which we account for as operating or sales-type leases. These leases expire at various dates from 2022 through 2041.
Over the lease term, we monitor the underlying assets in operating leases for impairment, and we evaluate the net investment in sales-type leases for expected credit losses. Sempra Infrastructure expects to continue to derive value from the underlying assets associated with its pipelines following the end of their respective lease terms based on the expected remaining useful life, expected market conditions and plans to re-market and re-contract the underlying assets.
Generally, we recognize operating lease income on a straight-line basis over the lease term, and sales-type lease income based on the effective interest method over the lease term. Certain of our leases contain rate adjustments or are based on foreign currency exchange rates that may result in lease payments received that vary in amount from one period to the next.
In July 2021, a rail facility agreement commenced, which Sempra Infrastructure is accounting for as a sales-type lease. The rail facility is being used by the lessee to transport liquid fuels out of the Veracruz terminal. The lessee has the right to direct the use of the rail facility and will obtain substantially all of the economic benefits of the rail facility. At lease commencement, Sempra Infrastructure derecognized the $44 million carrying value of the rail facility from PP&E and recognized a net investment in sales-type lease asset of $62 million and a selling profit of $18 million. The agreement expires in 2041 and will automatically renew for successive five-year terms unless written notice is provided by Sempra Infrastructure or the lessee. Fixed lease payments are payable in the first five years of the agreement, which the lessee is required to pay even in the event of lease termination.
LESSOR INFORMATION – SEMPRA
(Dollars in millions)
December 31,
202120202019
Assets subject to operating leases:
Property, plant and equipment(1)
$1,499 $1,092 $1,038 
Accumulated depreciation(276)(228)(179)
Property, plant and equipment, net
$1,223 $864 $859 
December 31, 2021
Maturity analysis of lease payments:Operating leasesSales-type leases
2022$272 $16 
2023272 16 
2024273 17 
2025272 17 
2026272 9 
Thereafter3,031 — 
Total undiscounted cash flows
$4,392 75 
Present value of lease payments (recognized as lease receivable)(2)
55 
Difference between undiscounted cash flows and discounted cash flows
$20 
(1)     Included in Machinery and Equipment — Pipelines and Storage within the major functional categories of PP&E.
(2)     Includes $9 in Other Current Assets and $46 in Other Long-Term Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.

LESSOR INFORMATION ON THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS – SEMPRA
(Dollars in millions)
Years ended December 31,
202120202019
Sales-type leases:
Income recognized at lease commencement$18 $1 $— 
Interest income4 1 — 
Total revenues from sales-type leases(1)
$22 $2 — 
Operating leases:
Fixed lease payments$256 $195 $200 
Variable lease payments10 1 6 
Total revenues from operating leases(1)
$266 $196 $206 
Depreciation expense$48 $39 $38 
(1)     Included in Revenues: Energy-Related Businesses on the Consolidated Statements of Operations.
CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENTS
Natural Gas Contracts
SoCalGas has responsibility for procuring natural gas for both SDG&E’s and SoCalGas’ core customers in a combined portfolio. SoCalGas buys natural gas under short-term and long-term contracts for this portfolio from various producing regions in the southwestern U.S., U.S. Rockies and Canada. At December 31, 2021, SoCalGas’ natural gas purchase commitments under long-term contracts are negligible.
SoCalGas transports natural gas primarily under long-term firm interstate pipeline capacity agreements that provide for annual reservation charges, which are recovered in rates. SoCalGas has commitments with interstate pipeline companies for firm pipeline capacity under contracts that expire at various dates through 2032.
Sempra Infrastructure has various capacity agreements for natural gas storage and transportation that expire at various dates through 2059. Transportation costs on these agreements vary based on pipeline capacity.
Payments on our natural gas contracts could exceed the minimum commitment based on portfolio needs. At December 31, 2021, the future minimum payments under existing natural gas contracts and natural gas storage and transportation contracts are as follows:
FUTURE MINIMUM PAYMENTS
(Dollars in millions)
SempraSoCalGas
 Storage and
transportation
Natural gas(1)
Total(1)
Transportation
2022$214 $20 $234 $134 
2023204 39 243 132 
2024181 15 196 114 
2025141 7 148 77 
2026137 — 137 75 
Thereafter903 — 903 310 
Total minimum payments$1,780 $81 $1,861 $842 
(1)    Excludes amounts related to the LNG purchase agreement discussed below.
Total payments under natural gas contracts and natural gas storage and transportation contracts as well as payments to meet additional portfolio needs at Sempra and SoCalGas were as follows:
PAYMENTS UNDER NATURAL GAS CONTRACTS
(Dollars in millions)   
 Years ended December 31,
 202120202019
Sempra $1,691 $989 $1,326 
SoCalGas1,590 935 1,181 
LNG Purchase Agreement
Sempra Infrastructure has a sale and purchase agreement 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 2022 to 2029. Although this agreement specifies a number of cargoes to be delivered, under its terms, the customer may divert certain cargoes, which would reduce amounts paid under the agreement by Sempra Infrastructure.
At December 31, 2021, the following LNG commitment amounts are based on the assumption that all LNG cargoes, less those already confirmed to be diverted, under the agreement are delivered:
LNG COMMITMENT AMOUNTS
(Dollars in millions)
Sempra:
2022$435 
2023553 
2024516 
2025518 
2026519 
Thereafter1,381 
Total$3,922 

Actual LNG purchases were approximately $27 million in 2021, $16 million in 2020 and $17 million in 2019 due to the customer electing to divert cargoes as allowed by the agreement.
Purchased-Power Contracts
For 2022, SDG&E expects to meet its customer power requirements from the following resource types:
▪Long-term contracts: 60% (of which 57% is provided by renewable energy contracts expiring on various dates through 2042)
▪Other SDG&E-owned generation and tolling contracts expiring on various dates through 2039: 46%
▪Spot market sales: (6)%
Payments on our purchased-power contracts could exceed the minimum commitments based on energy needs. At December 31, 2021, the future minimum payments under long-term purchased-power contracts for Sempra and SDG&E are as follows:
FUTURE MINIMUM PAYMENTS – PURCHASED-POWER CONTRACTS
(Dollars in millions)
2022$218 
2023188 
2024162 
2025105 
2026100 
Thereafter817 
Total minimum payments(1)
$1,590 
(1)    Excludes purchase agreements accounted for as operating leases and finance leases.

Payments on these contracts represent capacity charges and minimum energy and transmission purchases that exceed the minimum commitment. SDG&E is required to pay additional amounts for actual purchases of energy that exceed the minimum energy commitments. SDG&E estimates these variable payments to be $63 million in each of 2022 through 2026 and $430 million thereafter. Total payments under purchased-power contracts for Sempra and SDG&E were $495 million in 2021, $534 million in 2020 and $744 million in 2019.
Construction and Development Projects
Sempra has various capital projects in progress in the U.S. and Mexico. Our total contractual commitments at December 31, 2021 under these projects are approximately $389 million, requiring future payments of $223 million in 2022, $22 million in 2023, $18 million in each of 2024 and 2025, $5 million in 2026 and $103 million thereafter. The following is a summary by segment of contractual commitments and contingencies related to such projects.
SDG&E
At December 31, 2021, SDG&E has commitments to make future payments of $27 million for construction projects that include:
▪$4 million for infrastructure improvements for electric and natural gas transmission and distribution systems; and
▪$23 million related to spent fuel management at SONGS.
SDG&E expects future payments under these contractual commitments to be $3 million in each of 2022 and 2023, $1 million in each of 2024 through 2026 and $18 million thereafter.
Sempra Infrastructure
At December 31, 2021, Sempra Infrastructure has commitments to make future payments of $362 million for construction and development projects that include:
▪$43 million for liquid fuels terminals;
▪$296 million for natural gas pipelines and ongoing maintenance services; and
▪$23 million for renewables projects.
Sempra Infrastructure expects future payments under these contractual commitments to be $220 million in 2022, $19 million in 2023, $17 million in each of 2024 and 2025, $4 million in 2026 and $85 million thereafter.
OTHER COMMITMENTS
SDG&E
We discuss nuclear insurance and nuclear fuel disposal related to SONGS in Note 15.
Fire Mitigation Fund
In connection with the completion of the Sunrise Powerlink project in 2012, the CPUC required that SDG&E establish a fire mitigation fund to minimize the risk of fire as well as reduce the potential wildfire impact on residences and structures near the Sunrise Powerlink. The future payments for these contractual commitments, for which a liability has been recorded, are expected
to be $4 million per year in 2022 through 2026 and $275 million thereafter, subject to escalation of 2% per year, for a remaining 48-year period. At December 31, 2021, the present value of these future payments of $122 million has been recorded as a regulatory asset as the amounts represent a cost that we expect will be recovered from customers in the future.
Franchise Agreements
In December 2020, the City of San Diego and SDG&E agreed to extend SDG&E’s natural gas and electric franchises for the city to June 1, 2021. After completing a competitive bid process, on June 8, 2021, the City of San Diego approved ordinances granting to SDG&E the natural gas and electric franchises for the city. These franchise agreements provide SDG&E the opportunity to serve the City of San Diego for the next 20 years, consisting of 10-year agreements that will automatically renew for an additional 10 years unless the City Council voids the automatic renewal with a supermajority vote. The agreements went into effect in July 2021. Over the 20-year term of the agreements, SDG&E will make principal payments of $110 million and interest payments of $13 million as consideration for the natural gas and electric franchise agreements. The consideration paid will not be recovered from customers and will be amortized over 20 years. SDG&E paid $11 million to the City of San Diego in 2021. At December 31, 2021, SDG&E has commitments to make future payments of $14 million per year in 2022 through 2024, $15 million in 2025, $4 million in 2026 and $51 million thereafter.
Two lawsuits have been filed in the California Superior Court challenging the City’s process for its award of the natural gas and electric franchises and seeking to declare the franchise agreements null and void.
Sempra Infrastructure
Additional consideration for a 2006 comprehensive legal settlement with the State of California to resolve the Continental Forge litigation included an agreement that, for a period of 18 years beginning in 2011, Sempra Infrastructure would sell to SDG&E and SoCalGas, subject to annual CPUC approval, up to 500 MMcf per day of regasified LNG from Sempra Infrastructure’s ECA Regas Facility that is not delivered or sold in Mexico at the price indexed to the California border minus $0.02 per MMBtu. There are no specified minimums required, and to date, Sempra Infrastructure has not been required to deliver any natural gas pursuant to this agreement.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Our operations are subject to federal, state and local environmental laws. We also are subject to regulations related to hazardous wastes, air and water quality, land use, solid waste disposal and the protection of wildlife. These laws and regulations require that we investigate and correct the effects of the release or disposal of materials at sites associated with our past and our present operations. These sites include those at which we have been identified as a PRP under the federal Superfund laws and similar state laws.
In addition, we are required to obtain numerous governmental permits, licenses and other approvals to construct facilities and operate our businesses. The related costs of environmental monitoring, pollution control equipment, cleanup costs, and emissions fees are significant. Increasing national and international concerns regarding global warming and mercury, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions could result in requirements for additional pollution control equipment or significant emissions fees or taxes that could adversely affect Sempra Infrastructure. SDG&E’s and SoCalGas’ costs to operate their facilities in compliance with these laws and regulations generally have been recovered in customer rates.
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 $44 million for Sempra, $14 million for SDG&E and $16 million for SoCalGas at December 31, 2021.
We discuss environmental matters related to the natural gas leak at SoCalGas’ Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility above in “Legal Proceedings – SoCalGas – Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Storage Facility Gas Leak.”
Other Environmental Issues
We generally capitalize the significant costs we incur to mitigate or prevent future environmental contamination or extend the life, increase the capacity, or improve the safety or efficiency of property used in current operations. The following table shows our capital expenditures (including construction work in progress) in order to comply with environmental laws and regulations:
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
(Dollars in millions)
 Years ended December 31,
 202120202019
Sempra$95 $76 $80 
SDG&E32 39 39 
SoCalGas63 37 41 

We have not identified any significant environmental issues outside the U.S.
At SDG&E and SoCalGas, costs that relate to current operations or an existing condition caused by past operations are generally recorded as a regulatory asset due to the probability that these costs will be recovered in rates.
The environmental issues currently facing us, except for those related to the Leak as we discuss above or resolved during the last three years, include (1) investigation and remediation of SDG&E’s and SoCalGas’ manufactured-gas sites, (2) cleanup of third-party waste-disposal sites used by SDG&E and SoCalGas at which we have been identified as a PRP and (3) mitigation of damage to the marine environment caused by the cooling-water discharge from SONGS.
The table below shows the status at December 31, 2021 of SDG&E’s and SoCalGas’ manufactured-gas sites and the third-party waste-disposal sites for which we have been identified as a PRP:
STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL SITES
 
# Sites
complete(1)
# Sites
in process
SDG&E:  
Manufactured-gas sites3 — 
Third-party waste-disposal sites2 1 
SoCalGas:
Manufactured-gas sites39 3 
Third-party waste-disposal sites5 2 
(1)    There may be ongoing compliance obligations for completed sites, such as regular inspections, adherence to land use covenants and water quality monitoring.

We record environmental liabilities when our liability is probable and the costs can be reasonably estimated. In many cases, however, investigations are not yet at a stage where we can determine whether we are liable or, if the liability is probable, to reasonably estimate the amount or range of amounts of the costs. Estimates of our liability are further subject to uncertainties such as the nature and extent of site contamination, evolving cleanup standards and imprecise engineering evaluations. We review our accruals periodically and, as investigations and cleanups proceed, we make adjustments as necessary.
The following table shows our accrued liabilities for environmental matters at December 31, 2021. Of the total liability, $9 million at SoCalGas is recorded on a discounted basis, with a discount rate of 1.5%.
ACCRUED LIABILITIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS
(Dollars in millions)
 Manufactured-
gas sites
Waste
disposal
sites (PRP)(1)
Other
hazardous
waste sites
Total(2)
SDG&E(3)
$— $6 $12 $18 
SoCalGas(4)
34 3 1 38 
Other— 1 — 1 
Total Sempra$34 $10 $13 $57 
(1)    Sites for which we have been identified as a PRP.
(2)    Includes $5, $2 and $3 classified as current liabilities, and $52, $16 and $35 classified as noncurrent liabilities on Sempra’s, SDG&E’s and SoCalGas’ Consolidated Balance Sheets, respectively.
(3)    Does not include SDG&E’s liability for SONGS marine environment mitigation.
(4)    Does not include SoCalGas’ liability for environmental matters for the Leak. We discuss matters related to the Leak above in “Legal Proceedings – SoCalGas – Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Storage Facility Gas Leak.”

In connection with the issuance of operating permits, SDG&E and the other owners of SONGS previously reached an agreement with the CCC to mitigate the damage to the marine environment caused by the cooling-water discharge from SONGS during its operation. SONGS’ early retirement, described in Note 15, does not reduce SDG&E’s mitigation obligation. SDG&E’s share of the estimated mitigation costs is $97 million, of which $53 million has been incurred through December 31, 2021 and $44 million is accrued for remaining costs through 2053, which is recoverable in rates and included in noncurrent Regulatory Assets on Sempra’s and SDG&E’s Consolidated Balance Sheets.
We expect future payments related to our environmental liabilities on an undiscounted basis to be $6 million in 2022, $13 million in 2023, $9 million in 2024, $4 million in 2025, $17 million in 2026 and $53 million thereafter.