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.

In 2021, two lawsuits were filed in the California Superior Court challenging various aspects of the natural gas and electric franchise agreements granted by the City of San Diego to SDG&E. Both lawsuits ultimately sought to void the franchise agreements. In one of the cases, judgment was granted in favor of SDG&E and the City of San Diego. In November 2024, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court judgment in favor of SDG&E and the City of San Diego. The plaintiff in that case has further appealed. In the second case, the court ruled in favor of SDG&E and the City of San Diego, upholding all terms of the franchise agreements, except for the two-thirds City Council vote requirement for termination if the City decides to terminate under certain circumstances. Under the court’s ruling, the City can instead terminate on a majority vote, so long as it satisfies repayment provisions under the franchise agreements. Both sides have appealed the ruling.

In September 2021, SoCalGas and Sempra entered into an agreement with counsel to resolve approximately 390 lawsuits including approximately 36,000 plaintiffs (the Individual Plaintiffs) then pending against SoCalGas and Sempra related to the Leak for a payment of up to $1.8 billion. Over 99% of the Individual Plaintiffs participated and submitted valid releases, and SoCalGas paid $1.79 billion in 2022 under the agreement. The Individual Plaintiffs who did not participate in the settlement (the Non-Settling Individual Plaintiffs) are able to continue to pursue their claims. As of February 19, 2025, there are approximately 520 plaintiffs who are either new plaintiffs or Non-Settling Individual Plaintiffs.

The new plaintiffs’ cases and Non-Settling Individual 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.

In February 2017, the CPUC opened proceeding SB 380 OII to determine the feasibility of minimizing or eliminating the use of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility while still maintaining energy and electric reliability for the region, but excluding issues with respect to air quality, public health, causation, culpability or cost responsibility regarding the Leak. The first phase of the proceeding established a framework for the hydraulic, production cost and economic modeling assumptions for the potential reduction in usage or elimination of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, as well as evaluating the impacts of reducing or eliminating the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility using the established framework and models. The next phase of the proceeding included engaging a consultant to analyze alternative means for meeting or avoiding the demand for the facility’s services if it were eliminated in either the 2027 or 2035 timeframe, and to address potential implementation of alternatives to the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility if the CPUC determines that the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility should be permanently closed. The CPUC also added all California IOUs as parties to the proceeding and encouraged all load-serving entities in the Los Angeles Basin to join the proceeding.

In December 2024, the CPUC approved an FD in the SB 380 OII finding that the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility is currently necessary for natural gas and electric reliability and affordable rates and closed the OII. Among other things, and subject to future CPUC biennial reviews and potential additional proceedings, the FD authorizes the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility to continue operating and sets the maximum working natural gas storage level at 68.6 bcf.

We describe below certain land disputes and permit challenges affecting our ECA Regas Facility. Certain of these land disputes involve land on which portions of the ECA LNG liquefaction facilities under construction and in development are expected to be situated or on which portions of the ECA Regas Facility that would be necessary for the operation of such ECA LNG liquefaction facilities are situated. One or more unfavorable final decisions on these disputes or challenges could materially adversely affect our existing natural gas regasification operations and proposed natural gas liquefaction projects at the site of the ECA Regas Facility and have a material adverse effect on Sempra’s business, results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and/or prospects.

Land Disputes. Sempra Infrastructure has been engaged in a long-running land dispute with a claimant relating to property adjacent to its ECA Regas Facility that allegedly overlaps with land owned by the ECA Regas Facility (the facility, however, is not situated on the land that is the subject of this dispute), as follows:

▪The claimant to the adjacent property filed complaints in the federal Agrarian Court challenging the refusal of SEDATU in 2006 to issue title to him for the disputed property. In November 2013, the federal Agrarian Court ordered that SEDATU issue the requested title to the claimant and cause it to be registered. Both SEDATU and Sempra Infrastructure challenged the ruling due to lack of notification of the underlying process. In May 2019, a federal court in Mexico reversed the ruling and ordered a retrial. In November 2024, the plaintiff withdrew the lawsuit and the case was dismissed, definitively resolving this matter.

▪In a separate proceeding, the claimant filed suit to reinitiate an administrative procedure at SEDATU to obtain the property title that, as described above, had previously been issued in a ruling by the federal Agrarian Court and subsequently reversed by a federal court in Mexico. In April 2021, the proceeding in the Agrarian Court concluded with the court ordering that the administrative procedure be restarted. The administrative procedure at SEDATU may continue if SEDATU decides to reopen the matter.

In addition, 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. In November 2024, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the Mexican Supreme Court.

Environmental and Social Impact Permits. Several administrative challenges are pending before Mexico’s Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (the Mexican environmental protection agency) and Federal Tax and Administrative Courts, seeking revocation of the environmental impact authorization issued to the ECA Regas Facility in 2003. These cases generally allege that the conditions and mitigation measures in the environmental impact authorization are inadequate and challenge findings that the activities of the terminal are consistent with regional development guidelines.

In 2018 and 2021, three related claimants filed separate challenges in the federal district court in Ensenada, Baja California seeking revocation of the environmental and social impact permits issued by each of ASEA and SENER to ECA LNG authorizing natural gas liquefaction activities at the ECA Regas Facility, as follows:

▪In the first case, the court issued a provisional injunction against the permits in September 2018. In December 2018, ASEA approved modifications to the environmental permit that facilitate the development of the proposed natural gas liquefaction facility in two phases. In May 2019, the court canceled the provisional injunction. The claimant appealed the court’s decision to cancel the injunction but was not successful. The lower court’s ruling was favorable to the ECA Regas Facility, as the court determined that no harm has been caused to the plaintiff and dismissed the lawsuit. The claimant appealed and the appellate court’s ruling is pending.

▪In the second case, the initial request for a provisional injunction against the permits was denied. That decision was reversed on appeal in January 2020, resulting in the issuance of a new injunction against the permits that were issued by ASEA and SENER. This injunction has uncertain application absent clarification by the court. The claimants petitioned the court to rule that construction of natural gas liquefaction facilities violated the injunction and, in February 2022, the court ruled in favor of the ECA Regas Facility, holding that the natural gas liquefaction construction activities did not violate the injunction. The claimants appealed this ruling but were not successful. The lower court’s ruling was favorable to the ECA Regas Facility, as the court determined that no harm has been caused to the plaintiffs and dismissed the lawsuit. The claimants appealed and the appellate court’s ruling is pending.

▪In the third case, a group of residents filed a complaint in June 2021 against various federal and state authorities alleging deficiencies in the public consultation process for the issuance of the permits. The request for an initial injunction was denied. The claimants appealed this ruling but were not successful. The lower court’s ruling was favorable to the ECA Regas Facility, as the court determined that no harm has been caused to the plaintiffs and dismissed the lawsuit. The claimants appealed and the appellate court’s ruling is pending.

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 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.

Amendments to Mexico’s Electricity Industry Law. In March 2021, the Mexican government published a decree with amendments to Mexico’s Electricity Industry Law that include some public policy changes, including establishing priority of dispatch for CFE plants over privately owned plants. The decree further purports to permit the CRE to revoke self-supply permits granted under the former electricity law, which were grandfathered when the new Electricity Industry Law was enacted, if it considers them to have been obtained improperly. According to the decree, these amendments were to become effective in March 2021, and SENER, the CRE and Centro Nacional de Control de Energía (Mexico’s National Center for Energy Control) were to have 180 calendar days to modify, as necessary, all resolutions, policies, criteria, manuals and other regulations applicable to the power industry to conform with this decree. Numerous legal actions were taken against the decree, which resulted in Mexican courts issuing a suspension of the decree later in March 2021.

In April 2022, the Mexican Supreme Court resolved an action of unconstitutionality filed by a group of senators against the amended Electricity Industry Law. The super majority needed to find the amendment unconstitutional was not reached and the proceeding was therefore dismissed, leaving the amended Electricity Industry Law in place. However, the Court nevertheless found certain of the amendments, including the priority of dispatch for the CFE and other provisions that granted preference to the CFE over private companies, were invalid.

In January 2024, the Second Chamber of the Mexican Supreme Court definitively resolved an amparo in a separate case brought by a third party and ruled that certain provisions of the amendments of the Electricity Industry Law are unconstitutional, including the priority of dispatch for the CFE and other provisions that granted preference to the CFE over private companies. The Court also dismissed an amparo relating to the provision of the decree applicable to self-supply permits granted under the former electricity law, and established that its decision applies generally over all participants.

Sempra Infrastructure filed three lawsuits challenging the amendments to the Electricity Industry Law, including one concerning the provision permitting revocation of self-supply permits deemed improperly obtained. In each of them, Sempra Infrastructure obtained a favorable judgment in the lower court, all of which were challenged by the CRE. Following the criteria established by the Mexican Supreme Court, in July 2024, the Second Collegiate Court reversed the lower court’s decision and definitively dismissed one of the lawsuits filed by Sempra Infrastructure regarding the provision permitting revocation of self-supply permits. Consequently, the CRE may be required to seek to revoke such self-supply permits, under a legal standard that is ambiguous and not well defined under the law. Sempra Infrastructure supplies power pursuant to self-supply permits, and would be permitted to file amparos challenging the constitutionality of any such action. If such self-supply permits are revoked, it may result in increased costs for Sempra Infrastructure and for its power consumers, adversely affect our ability to develop new projects, result in decreased revenues and cash flows, and negatively impact our ability to recover the carrying values of our investments in Mexico, any of which could have a material adverse effect on Sempra’s business, results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and/or prospects. Final resolution regarding the two remaining lawsuits is still pending.

As we discuss in Note 5, Sempra held an equity method investment in RBS Sempra Commodities LLP, a limited liability partnership that was substantially liquidated in 2024. In 2015, liquidators filed a claim in the High Court of Justice against The Royal Bank of Scotland plc (now NatWest Markets plc, our partner in the JV) and Mercuria Energy Europe Trading Limited (the Defendants) on behalf of 10 companies (the Liquidating Companies) that engaged in carbon credit trading via chains that included a company that traded directly with RBS Sempra Energy Europe, a subsidiary of RBS Sempra Commodities LLP. The claim alleged that the Defendants’ participation in the purchase and sale of carbon credits resulted in the Liquidating Companies’ carbon credit trading transactions creating a VAT liability they were unable to pay, and that the Defendants were liable to provide for equitable compensation due to dishonest assistance and compensation under the U.K. Insolvency Act of 1986. Trial on the matter was held in 2018. In March 2020, the High Court of Justice rendered its judgment mostly in favor of the Liquidating Companies. The Defendants appealed and, in May 2021, the Court of Appeal set aside the High Court of Justice’s decision and ordered a retrial. In July 2022, the Supreme Court of the U.K. denied the Liquidating Companies application for permission to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision. In January 2024, the parties settled the Liquidating Companies’ claim against the Defendants, which fully resolved these matters.

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.

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, aircraft, 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 refined products 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.

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.

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.


LESSEE INFORMATION ON THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Dollars in millions)
	Sempra						SDG&E						SoCalGas
	December 31,
	2024			2023			2024			2023			2024			2023
ROU assets:
Operating leases:
ROU assets	$	1,177		$	723		$	795		$	368		$	18		$	29

Finance leases:
PP&E	1,626			1,585			1,426			1,412			200			173
Accumulated depreciation	(311)			(246)			(221)			(179)			(90)			(66)
PP&E, net	1,315			1,339			1,205			1,233			110			107
Total ROU assets	$	2,492		$	2,062		$	2,000		$	1,601		$	128		$	136

Lease liabilities:
Operating leases:
Other current liabilities(1)	$	91		$	70		$	68		$	50		$	8		$	10
Deferred credits and other(2)	1,019			599			734			325			9			18
	1,110			669			802			375			17			28
Finance leases:
Current portion of long-term debt and finance leases	65			64			42			41			23			23
Long-term debt and finance leases	1,250			1,276			1,163			1,192			87			84
	1,315			1,340			1,205			1,233			110			107
Total lease liabilities	$	2,425		$	2,009		$	2,007		$	1,608		$	127		$	135

Weighted-average remaining lease term (in years):
Operating leases	13			13			12			10			2			3
Finance leases	14			15			15			16			6			6
Weighted-average discount rate:
Operating leases(3)	6.10		%	6.64		%	5.06		%	4.52		%	4.70		%	4.54		%
Finance leases	13.71		%	13.80		%	14.11		%	14.18		%	5.35		%	4.94		%

(3) Weighted-average discount rate related to PPAs at December 31, 2024 and 2023 is 5.04% and 4.19%, respectively, at both Sempra and SDG&E. Weighted-average discount rate related to all other operating leases at December 31, 2024 and 2023 is 7.41% and 7.57%, respectively, at Sempra and 5.23% and 5.06%, respectively, at SDG&E.


LESSEE INFORMATION ON THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS(1)
(Dollars in millions)
	Sempra						SDG&E						SoCalGas
	Years ended December 31,
	2024		2023		2022		2024		2023		2022		2024		2023		2022

Operating lease costs(2)	$	118	$	99	$	83	$	71	$	53	$	45	$	12	$	13	$	18

Finance lease costs:
Amortization of ROU assets(3)	65		60		48		42		40		33		23		20		15
Interest on lease liabilities	178		182		184		173		177		181		6		5		2
Total finance lease costs	243		242		232		215		217		214		29		25		17

Short-term lease costs(4)	9		9		3		8		8		2		—		—		—
Variable lease costs(4)	472		458		411		460		447		399		10		10		11
Total lease costs	$	842	$	808	$	729	$	754	$	725	$	660	$	51	$	48	$	46


LESSEE INFORMATION ON THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Dollars in millions)
	Sempra						SDG&E						SoCalGas
	Years ended December 31,
	2024		2023		2022		2024		2023		2022		2024		2023		2022
Operating activities:
Cash paid for operating leases	$	112	$	85	$	88	$	70	$	46	$	45	$	12	$	13	$	18
Cash paid for finance leases	163		167		169		158		162		166		6		5		2
Financing activities:
Cash paid for finance leases	66		60		48		42		40		33		24		20		15
Increase in operating lease obligations for ROU assets	520		143		142		474		134		134		—		—		1
Increase in finance lease obligations for investment in PP&E	41		57		57		14		17		16		27		40		41


LESSEE MATURITY ANALYSIS OF LIABILITIES
(Dollars in millions)
	Sempra				SDG&E				SoCalGas
	Operating leases(1)		Finance leases		Operating leases(1)		Finance leases(2)		Operating leases		Finance leases
2025	$	142	$	224	$	97	$	196	$	10	$	28
2026	142		220		98		195		7		25
2027	134		218		97		194		—		24
2028	128		212		92		193		—		19
2029	124		204		89		190		—		14
Thereafter	966		1,745		571		1,727		—		18
Total undiscounted lease payments	1,636		2,823		1,044		2,695		17		128
Less: imputed interest	(526)		(1,508)		(242)		(1,490)		—		(18)
Total lease liabilities	1,110		1,315		802		1,205		17		110
Less: current lease liabilities	(91)		(65)		(68)		(42)		(8)		(23)
Long-term lease liabilities	$	1,019	$	1,250	$	734	$	1,163	$	9	$	87

SoCalGas has entered into a lease agreement for a new headquarters office space in Los Angeles that it expects will commence in 2026. In 2024, SoCalGas prepaid $1 million and expects the future minimum lease payments to be $8 million in 2028, $9 million in 2029 and $134 million thereafter (through expiration in 2041).

Sempra Infrastructure has entered into a lease agreement for tugboat services for the PA LNG Phase 1 project that it expects will commence in 2027. Sempra Infrastructure expects the future minimum lease payments to be $10 million in 2027, $12 million, in each of 2028 and 2029 and $198 million thereafter (through expiration in 2047, exclusive of certain renewal options) and total future minimum fixed payments for operation and maintenance services to be $184 million.

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 addition to minimum fixed payments, our refined products terminals receive variable lease payments for barrels delivered that exceed minimum delivery requirements.


LESSOR INFORMATION
(Dollars in millions)
	December 31,
	2024		2023
Sempra – Assets subject to operating leases:
Property, plant and equipment:
Pipelines and storage	$	1,313	$	1,304
Refined products terminals	623		621
Other	77		77
Total	2,013		2,002
Accumulated depreciation	(605)		(539)
Property, plant and equipment, net	$	1,408	$	1,463

	December 31, 2024
Sempra – Maturity analysis of lease payments:	Operating leases		Sales-type leases
2025	$	318	$	17
2026	272		9
2027	269		—
2028	268		—
2029	246		—
Thereafter	2,324		—
Total undiscounted cash flows	$	3,697	26
Less: present value of lease payments (recognized as lease receivable)(1)			(23)
Difference between undiscounted cash flows and discounted cash flows			$	3


LESSOR INFORMATION ON THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(Dollars in millions)
	Years ended December 31,
	2024		2023		2022
Sempra – Sales-type leases:
Interest income	$	5	$	6	$	8
Total revenues from sales-type leases(1)	$	5	$	6	$	8

Sempra – Operating leases:
Fixed lease payments	$	340	$	321	$	290
Variable lease payments	38		34		10
Total revenues from operating leases(1)	$	378	$	355	$	300

Depreciation expense	$	73	$	62	$	54

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.


FUTURE MINIMUM PAYMENTS
(Dollars in millions)
	Sempra						SoCalGas
	Storage and transportation		Natural gas(1)		Total(1)		Transportation		Natural gas		Total
2025	$	229	$	65	$	294	$	130	$	61	$	191
2026	225		175		400		125		108		233
2027	203		271		474		104		124		228
2028	155		242		397		71		83		154
2029	140		152		292		59		—		59
Thereafter	1,283		212		1,495		118		—		118
Total minimum payments	$	2,235	$	1,117	$	3,352	$	607	$	376	$	983

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 to 2029. Although this agreement specifies a number of cargoes to be delivered, under its terms, the supplier may divert certain cargoes, which would reduce amounts paid under the agreement by Sempra Infrastructure.

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 $79 million in each of 2025 and 2026, $80 million in each of 2027 through 2029 and $440 million thereafter. Total fixed and variable payments under PPAs not accounted for as leases for Sempra and SDG&E were $326 million in 2024, $325 million in 2023 and $297 million in 2022.

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 2025 through 2029 and $264 million thereafter, subject to escalation of 2% per year, ending in 2069. At December 31, 2024, the present value of these future payments of $124 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.

In July 2021, SDG&E’s natural gas and electric franchise agreements for the City of San Diego went into effect. These franchise agreements provide SDG&E the opportunity to serve the City of San Diego for a period of 20 years, consisting of 10-year agreements that will automatically renew for an additional 10 years unless the City Council voids the automatic renewals. At December 31, 2024, SDG&E has commitments to make future principal and interest payments as consideration for the franchise agreements of $14 million in 2025, $4 million in 2026, $2 million in each of 2027 through 2029 and $45 million thereafter. The consideration paid will not be recovered from customers and will be amortized over 20 years.

Additional consideration for a 2006 comprehensive legal settlement with 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.

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 $53 million for Sempra, $13 million for SDG&E and $16 million for SoCalGas at December 31, 2024.

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:

The environmental issues currently facing us, except for those 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.

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.