SRE, §1A diff (2016 → 2017)

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS When evaluating our company and its subsidiaries, you should consider carefully the following risk factors and all other information contained in this report. These risk factors could materially adversely affect our actual results and cause such results to differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements made by us or on our behalf. We may also be materially harmed by risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial. If any of the following occurs, our businesses, cash flows, results of operations, financial condition and/or prospects could be materially negatively impacted. In addition, the trading prices of our securities and those of our subsidiaries could substantially decline due to the occurrence of any of these risks. These risk factors should be read in conjunction with the other detailed information concerning our company set forth in, or attached as an exhibit to, this annual report on Form 10-K, including, without limitation, the information set forth in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and in “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” In this section, when we state that a risk or uncertainty may, could or will have a “material adverse effect” on us, or may, could or will “materially adversely affect” us, we mean that the risk or uncertainty may, could or will, as the case may be, have a material adverse effect on our businesses, cash flows, results of operations, financial condition, prospects and/or the trading prices of our securities or those of our subsidiaries. Risks Related to Sempra Energy Sempra Energy’s cash flows, ability to pay dividends and ability to meet its debt obligations largely depend on the performance of its subsidiaries and joint ventures and the ability to utilize the cash flows from those subsidiaries and joint ventures. We are a holding company and substantially all of our assets are owned by our subsidiaries. Our ability to pay dividends and to meet our debt and other obligations depends almost entirely on cash flows from our subsidiaries and joint ventures and other entities in which we have invested and, in the short term, our ability to raise capital from external sources. In the long term, cash flows from our subsidiaries and joint ventures and other entities in which we have invested depend on their ability to generate operating cash flows in excess of their own expenditures, common and preferred stock dividends, and debt or other obligations. In addition, the subsidiaries are separate and distinct legal entities that are not obligated to pay dividends or make loans or distributions to us, whether to enable us to pay principal and interest on our debt securities, our other obligations or dividends on our common stock or our preferred stock, and could be precluded from paying any such dividends or making any such loans or distributions under certain circumstances, including, without limitation, as a result of legislation, regulation, court order, contractual restrictions or in times of financial distress. A significant portion of our worldwide cash reserves are generated by, and therefore held in, foreign jurisdictions. As a result of the TCJA enacted in December 2017, the cumulative undistributed earnings of our foreign entities were deemed repatriated and subjected to a one-time U.S. federal income tax. Based on current assumptions, when we repatriate these foreign earnings to the U.S. in 2018 or later, they will not be subject to additional U.S. federal income taxes. However, some foreign jurisdictions and U.S. states impose taxes on dividends repatriated to their U.S. parent, which will reduce the cash available to us. The TCJA may materially adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, the value of investments in our common stock, preferred stock and debt securities, and our credit ratings. The TCJA has significantly changed the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, including taxation of U.S. corporations by, among other things, reducing the U.S. corporate income tax rate, altering the expensing of capital expenditures, limiting interest deductions, adopting elements of a territorial tax system, assessing a one-time deemed repatriation tax on cumulative undistributed earnings of U.S.-owned foreign entities at the time of enactment, and introducing certain anti-base erosion provisions. The legislation is unclear in certain respects and will require interpretations and implementing regulations by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, as well as state tax authorities, and the legislation could be subject to potential amendments and technical corrections, any of which could lessen or increase certain adverse impacts of the legislation. In addition, the regulatory treatment of the impacts of this legislation will be subject to the discretion of the FERC and state public utility commissions. We recorded a noncash income tax expense of $870 million in the fourth quarter of 2017 for the effects of the enactment of the TCJA. We recorded the effects using our best estimates and the information available to us through the date the financial statements were issued. However, our analysis of this legislation is ongoing, and the effects recorded are provisional. As permitted by and in accordance with guidance issued by the SEC, we may adjust our provisional estimates in reporting periods throughout 2018 as we complete our analysis and as more information becomes available, which could result in a material change in our provisional estimates. We discuss the events and information that may result in adjustments to our provisional estimates in Note 6 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and in “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Results of Operations.” Although it is unclear when or how capital markets, credit rating agencies, the FERC or state public utility commissions may respond to the TCJA, we do expect that certain financial metrics used by credit rating agencies, such as our funds from operations-to-debt percentage, will be negatively impacted as a result of an anticipated decrease in required income tax reimbursement payments to us from our domestic utility subsidiaries due to the decrease in the U.S. statutory corporate income tax rate. Certain provisions of the TCJA, such as 100-percent expensing of capital expenditures and impacts on utilization of our NOLs, may influence how we fund capital expenditures, the timing of capital expenditures and possible redeployment of capital through sales or monetization of assets, the timing of repatriation of foreign earnings and the use of equity financing to reduce our future use of debt, although there can be no assurance that these strategies will reduce any potential adverse impact from these provisions of the TCJA. In addition, although we are not currently expecting the deductibility of our interest costs to affect future earnings based on our method of allocation across our businesses, the interest deduction limitation under the TCJA is subject to potential additional guidance or interpretation from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and there can be no assurance that any such additional guidance will not impact our current assessment. It is also uncertain how credit rating agencies will treat the impacts of this legislation in their credit rating metrics, and whether additional avenues will evolve for companies to manage the adverse aspects of this legislation. We believe that these strategies, to the extent available and if successfully applied, could lessen the negative impacts on certain credit metrics, such as our funds from operations-to-debt percentage, although there can be no assurance in this regard. If we are unable to successfully take actions to manage the potentially adverse impacts of the TCJA, or if additional interpretations, regulations, amendments or technical corrections exacerbate any adverse impacts of the legislation, it could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows and on the value of investments in our common stock, preferred stock and debt securities, and could result in credit rating agencies placing our credit ratings on negative outlook or downgrading our credit ratings. Any such actions by credit rating agencies may make it more difficult and costly for us to issue debt securities and certain other types of financing and could increase borrowing costs under our credit facilities. We discuss the effects of the TCJA further in Note 6 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and in “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Results of Operations.” Certain credit rating agencies may downgrade our credit ratings or place those ratings on negative outlook, which may adversely affect the market price of our common stock, preferred stock and debt securities. On December 20, 2017, Moody’s placed Sempra Energy’s credit ratings on negative outlook. Moody’s indicated that this action was triggered by us having entered into a comprehensive stipulation with the Staff of the PUCT and other key stakeholders with respect to our Joint Application with Oncor to the PUCT for regulatory approval of the Merger, which Moody’s described as a significant milestone in our attaining regulatory approval for the Merger. In addition, Moody’s indicated that a downgrade of our credit ratings over the 12 to 18 months after December 20, 2017 is likely if they anticipate that our consolidated credit metrics will remain weak, relative to our current credit rating, beyond 2019, specifically if our consolidated ratio of cash flow from operations before changes in working capital to debt remains below 18 percent (assuming successful completion of the Merger) for an extended period of time. Moody’s also indicated that a downgrade could also be considered if there is a further delay in the completion of our Cameron LNG project. S&P has indicated that it could downgrade its rating of Sempra Energy’s senior unsecured debt securities within 12 months following October 9, 2017 if we do not complete the Merger or if the aggregate indebtedness of our subsidiaries continues to exceed 50 percent of our consolidated debt. Moody’s also issued a public comment on December 20, 2017 regarding recent wildfires in northern California and Ventura County, California indicating that the December 6, 2017 decision issued by the CPUC denying SDG&E’s request to recover approximately $379 million of pretax costs associated with the 2007 wildfires (based on the CPUC’s finding that SDG&E did not reasonably operate the facilities involved in the wildfires) is credit negative for SDG&E, for Sempra Energy and for other California utilities seeking to recover costs from wildfires. We discuss the 2007 wildfires further in Note 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. Moody’s further indicated that it may reassess its view of the California regulatory framework if it determines that the credit supportiveness of California’s regulatory environment has weakened (including as a result of the CPUC’s discretion in denying recovery of wildfire costs), which would also be credit negative and could lead to a downgrade of the credit ratings of California IOUs, including SDG&E, or those ratings being placed on negative outlook. Also, as described in the preceding risk factor, the TCJA could materially adversely affect our credit ratings. The negative outlook by Moody’s, any downgrade of our credit ratings by S&P, Fitch Ratings or Moody’s, or any additional negative outlook on our credit ratings may adversely affect the market price of our common stock, preferred stock and debt securities, and could make it more costly for us to issue debt securities, to borrow under our credit facilities and to raise certain other types of financing. As a result, any additional negative outlook on Sempra Energy, or any downgrade of Sempra Energy’s credit ratings by S&P, Fitch Ratings or Moody’s could be a credit negative for SDG&E or SoCalGas, or both, and result in a downgrade of the credit ratings of SDG&E or SoCalGas, or both. The negative outlook or downgrade of Sempra Energy’s credit ratings by S&P, Fitch Ratings or Moody’s, or any additional negative outlook on Sempra Energy’s credit ratings may adversely affect the market price of SoCalGas’ preferred stock, and both SDG&E’s and SoCalGas’ debt securities, and could make it more costly for SDG&E and SoCalGas to issue debt securities, to borrow under their credit facilities and to raise other types of financing. Conditions in the financial markets and economic conditions generally may materially adversely affect us. Our businesses are capital intensive and we rely significantly on long-term debt to fund a portion of our capital expenditures and repay outstanding debt, and on short-term borrowings to fund a portion of day-to-day business operations. Limitations on the availability of credit and increases in interest rates or credit spreads may materially adversely affect our businesses, cash flows, results of operations, financial condition and/or prospects, as well as our ability to meet contractual and other commitments. In difficult credit market environments, we may find it necessary to fund our operations and capital expenditures at a higher cost or we may be unable to raise as much funding as we need to support new or ongoing business activities. This could cause us to reduce capital expenditures and could increase our cost of servicing debt, both of which could significantly reduce our short-term and long-term profitability. The availability and cost of credit for our businesses may be greatly affected by credit ratings. If SoCalGas or SDG&E were to have their credit ratings downgraded, their cash flows, results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected, and any downgrades of Sempra Energy’s credit ratings could materially adversely affect the cash flows and results of operations of Sempra Energy. If the credit ratings of Sempra Energy or any of its subsidiaries were downgraded, especially below investment grade, financing costs and the principal amount of borrowings would likely increase due to the additional risk of our debt and because certain counterparties may require collateral in the form of cash, a letter of credit or other forms of security for new and existing transactions. Such amounts may be material and could adversely affect our cash flows, results of operations and financial condition. We discuss our credit ratings further in “Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk” and also above under “- Certain credit rating agencies may downgrade our credit ratings or place those ratings on negative outlook, which may adversely affect the market price of our common stock, preferred stock and debt securities.” Sempra Energy has substantial investments in Mexico and South America which expose us to foreign currency, inflation, legal, tax, economic, geo-political and management oversight risk. We have significant foreign operations in Mexico and South America. Our foreign operations pose complex management, foreign currency, inflation, legal, tax and economic risks. Certain of these risks differ from and potentially may be greater than those associated with our domestic businesses. All of our international businesses are sensitive to geo-political uncertainties, and our non-utility international businesses are sensitive to changes in the priorities and budgets of international customers, all of which may be driven by changes in their environments and potentially volatile worldwide economic conditions, and various regional and local economic and political factors, risks and uncertainties, as well as U.S. foreign policy. Foreign currency exchange and inflation rates and fluctuations in those rates may have an impact on our revenue, costs or cash flows from our international operations, which could materially adversely affect our financial performance. Our currency exposures are to the Mexican, Peruvian and Chilean currencies. Our Mexican subsidiaries have U.S. dollar-denominated monetary assets and liabilities that give rise to Mexican currency exchange rate movements for Mexican income tax purposes. They also have deferred income tax assets and liabilities, which are significant, denominated in the Mexican peso that must be translated to U.S. dollars for financial reporting purposes. In addition, monetary assets and liabilities and certain nonmonetary assets and liabilities are adjusted for Mexican inflation for Mexican income tax purposes. Our primary objective in reducing foreign currency risk is to preserve the economic value of our foreign investments and to reduce earnings volatility that would otherwise occur due to exchange rate fluctuations. We may attempt to offset material cross-currency transactions and earnings exposure through various means, including financial instruments and short-term investments. Because we generally do not hedge our net investments in foreign countries, we are susceptible to volatility in OCI caused by exchange rate fluctuations, primarily related to our South American subsidiaries, whose functional currency is not the U.S. dollar. We generally do not hedge our deferred income tax assets and liabilities, which makes us susceptible to volatility in income tax expense. We discuss our foreign currency exposure at our Mexican subsidiaries in “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and “Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.” Mexico developed a legal framework for the regulation of the hydrocarbons and electric power sectors based on a package of constitutional amendments approved by the Mexican Congress in December 2013 and implementing legislation enacted in 2014 and the issuance of new regulations thereunder. We have made significant investments in Mexico based on this legal framework and should the legal framework be modified or withdrawn, it may significantly reduce the value of our existing investments, reduce investment opportunities, and impact our decision to make further investments in Mexico. The current U.S. administration indicated its intention to renegotiate trade agreements, such as NAFTA, and implement U.S. immigration policy changes by reviewing various options, including tariffs, for funding new Mexico-U.S. border security infrastructure. Such actions could result in changes in the Mexican, U.S. and other markets. In addition, if this occurs, the Mexican government could implement retaliatory actions, such as the imposition of restrictions or import fees on Mexican imports of natural gas from the U.S. or imports and exports of electricity to and from the U.S. Any of these actions by either or both governments could adversely affect imports and exports between Mexico and the U.S. and negatively impact the U.S. and Mexican economies and the companies with whom we conduct business in Mexico, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, or prospects. Risks Related to All Sempra Energy Subsidiaries Severe weather conditions, natural disasters, accidents, equipment failures, explosions or acts of terrorism could materially adversely affect our businesses, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and/or prospects. Like other major industrial facilities, ours may be damaged by severe weather conditions, natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, floods, mudslides and fires, accidents, equipment failures, explosions or acts of terrorism. Because we are in the business of using, storing, transporting and disposing of highly flammable and explosive materials, as well as radioactive materials, and operating highly energized equipment, the risks such incidents may pose to our facilities and infrastructure, as well as the risks to the surrounding communities, are substantially greater than the risks such incidents may pose to a typical business. The facilities and infrastructure that we own or in which we have interests that may be subject to such incidents include, but are not limited to: ▪ natural gas, propane and ethane pipelines, storage and compressor facilities; ▪ electric transmission and distribution; ▪ power generation plants, including renewable energy and natural gas-fired generation; ▪ marine and inland liquid fuels, LNG and LPG terminals and storage; ▪ nuclear fuel and nuclear waste storage facilities; and ▪ nuclear power facilities (currently being decommissioned). Such incidents could result in severe business disruptions, prolonged power outages, property damage, injuries or loss of life, significant decreases in revenues and earnings, and/or significant additional costs to us. Such incidents that do not directly affect our facilities may impact our business partners, supply chains and transportation, which could negatively impact construction projects and our ability to provide natural gas and electricity to our customers. Any such incident could have a material adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and/or prospects. Depending on the nature and location of the facilities and infrastructure affected, any such incident also could cause catastrophic fires; natural gas, natural gas odorant, propane or ethane leaks; releases of other greenhouse gases; radioactive releases; explosions, spills or other significant damage to natural resources or property belonging to third parties; personal injuries, health impacts or fatalities; or present a nuisance to impacted communities. Any of these consequences could lead to significant claims against us. In some cases, we may be liable for damages even though we are not at fault, such as in cases where the doctrine of inverse condemnation applies. We discuss how the application of this doctrine in California has impacted SDG&E’s ability to recover certain costs associated with the 2007 wildfires in SDG&E’s territory and the proceedings related thereto in “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Factors Influencing Future Performance,” in Note 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and below under “Risks Related to the California Utilities - Insurance coverage for future wildfires may be unobtainable, prohibitively expensive, or insufficient to cover losses we may incur, and we may be unable to recover costs in excess of insurance through regulatory mechanisms.” Insurance coverage may significantly increase in cost or become prohibitively expensive, may be disputed by the insurers, or may become unavailable for certain of these risks or at sufficient levels, and any insurance proceeds we receive may be insufficient to cover our losses or liabilities due to the existence of limitations, exclusions, high deductibles, failure to comply with procedural requirements, and other factors, which could materially adversely affect our businesses, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and/or prospects. In addition, any inability to recover uninsured costs associated with wildfires, or the perception that such costs may not be recoverable, could materially adversely affect the trading prices of our common stock, preferred stock and debt securities. Severe weather conditions may also impact our businesses, including our international operations. Frequent drought conditions and unseasonably warm temperatures have increased the degree and prevalence of wildfires in California including in SDG&E’s and SoCalGas’ service territories, which could place third party property and our electric and natural gas infrastructure in jeopardy and reduce the availability of hydroelectric generators, which could result in temporary power shortages in SDG&E’s and SoCalGas’ service territories. In addition, severe weather conditions could result in delays and/or cost increases to our capital projects. Additionally, severe rainstorms and associated high winds, as well as flooding and mudslides where vegetation has been destroyed as result of human modification or wildfires, along the coastal areas in our service territories could damage our electric and natural gas infrastructure, resulting in increased expenses, including higher maintenance and repair costs, and interruptions in electricity and natural gas delivery services. As a result, these events can have significant financial consequences, including regulatory penalties and disallowances if the California Utilities or our utilities in Mexico or South America encounter difficulties in restoring service to their customers on a timely basis. Further, the cost of storm restoration efforts may not be fully recoverable through the regulatory process. Any such events could have a material adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Our businesses are subject to complex government regulations and tax requirements and may be materially adversely affected by changes in these regulations or requirements or in their interpretation or implementation. In recent years, the regulatory environment that applies to the electric power and natural gas industries has undergone significant changes, on the federal, state and local levels. These changes have affected the nature of these industries and the manner in which their participants conduct their businesses. These changes are ongoing, and we cannot predict the future course of changes in this regulatory environment or the ultimate effect that this changing regulatory environment will have on our businesses. Moreover, existing regulations, laws and tariffs may be revised or reinterpreted, and new regulations, laws and tariffs may be adopted or become applicable to us and our facilities. Special tariffs may also be imposed on components used in our businesses that could increase costs. Our businesses are subject to increasingly complex accounting and tax requirements, and the regulations, laws and tariffs that affect us may change in response to economic or political conditions. Compliance with these requirements could increase our operating costs. In addition to the TCJA described above, any new tax legislation, regulations or other interpretations in the U.S. and other countries in which we operate could materially adversely affect our tax expense and/or tax balances, and changes in tax policies could materially adversely impact our business. Changes in regulations, laws and tariffs and how they are implemented and interpreted may have a material adverse effect on our businesses, cash flows, financial condition, results of operations and/or prospects. Our operations are subject to rules relating to transactions among the California Utilities and other Sempra Energy businesses. These rules are commonly referred to as “affiliate rules,” which primarily impact commodity and commodity-related transactions. These businesses could be materially adversely affected by changes in these rules or to their interpretations, or by additional CPUC or FERC rules that further restrict our ability to sell electricity or natural gas to, or to trade with, the California Utilities and with each other. Affiliate rules also restrict these businesses from entering into any such transactions with the California Utilities. Any such restrictions on or approval requirements for transactions among affiliates could materially adversely affect the LNG terminals, natural gas pipelines, electric generation facilities, or other operations of our subsidiaries, which could have a material adverse effect on our businesses, results of operations and/or prospects. Our businesses require numerous permits, licenses, franchise agreements, and other governmental approvals from various federal, state, local and foreign governmental agencies; any failure to obtain or maintain required permits, licenses or approvals could cause our sales to materially decline and/or our costs to materially increase, and otherwise materially adversely affect our businesses, cash flows, financial condition, results of operations and/or prospects. All of our existing and planned development projects require multiple approvals. The acquisition, construction, ownership and operation of marine and inland liquid fuels, LNG and LPG terminals and storage; natural gas pipelines and distribution and storage facilities; electric generation, transmission and distribution facilities; and propane and ethane systems require numerous permits, licenses, franchise agreements, certificates and other approvals from federal, state, local and foreign governmental agencies. Once received, approvals may be subject to litigation, and projects may be delayed or approvals reversed or modified in litigation. In addition, permits, licenses, franchise agreements, certificates, and other approvals may be modified, rescinded or fail to be extended by one or more of the governmental agencies and authorities that oversee our businesses. SoCalGas’ franchise agreements with Los Angeles County and the City of Los Angeles, where the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility is located, are due to expire in 2018 and 2019, respectively. If there is a delay in obtaining required regulatory approvals or failure to obtain or maintain required approvals or to comply with applicable laws or regulations, we may be precluded from constructing or operating facilities, or we may be forced to incur additional costs. Further, accidents beyond our control may cause us to violate the terms of conditional use permits, causing delays in projects. Any such delay or failure to obtain or maintain necessary permits, licenses, certificates and other approvals could cause our sales to materially decline, and/or our costs to materially increase, and otherwise materially adversely affect our businesses, cash flows, financial condition, results of operations and/or prospects. Our businesses have significant environmental compliance costs, and future environmental compliance costs could have a material adverse effect on our cash flows and results of operations. Our businesses are subject to extensive federal, state, local and foreign statutes, rules and regulations and mandates relating to environmental protection, including, air quality, water quality and usage, wastewater discharge, solid waste management, hazardous waste disposal and remediation, conservation of natural resources, wetlands and wildlife, renewable energy resources, climate change and GHG emissions. We are required to obtain numerous governmental permits, licenses, certificates and other approvals to construct and operate our businesses. Additionally, to comply with these legal requirements, we must spend significant amounts on environmental monitoring, pollution control equipment, mitigation costs and emissions fees. The California Utilities may be materially adversely affected if these additional costs for projects are not recoverable in rates. In addition, we may be ultimately responsible for all on-site liabilities associated with the environmental condition of our marine and inland liquid fuels, LNG and LPG terminals and storage; natural gas transmission, distribution and storage facilities; electric generation, transmission and distribution facilities; and other energy projects and properties; regardless of when the liabilities arose and whether they are known or unknown, which exposes us to risks arising from contamination at our former or existing facilities or with respect to offsite waste disposal sites that have been used in our operations. In the case of our California and other regulated utilities, some of these costs may not be recoverable in rates. Our facilities, including those in our joint ventures, are subject to laws and regulations protecting migratory birds, which have been the subject of increased enforcement activity with respect to wind farms. Failure to comply with applicable environmental laws, regulations and permits may subject our businesses to substantial penalties and fines and/or significant curtailments of our operations, which could materially adversely affect our cash flows and/or results of operations. Increasing international, national, regional and state-level environmental concerns as well as related new or proposed legislation and regulation may have substantial negative effects on our operations, operating costs, and the scope and economics of proposed expansions, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows and/or prospects. In particular, state-level laws and regulations, as well as proposed state, national and international legislation and regulation relating to the control and reduction of GHG emissions, may materially limit or otherwise materially adversely affect our operations. The implementation of recent and proposed California legislation and regulation may materially adversely affect our non-utility businesses by imposing, among other things, additional costs associated with emission limits, controls and the possible requirement of carbon taxes or the purchase of emissions credits. Similarly, California SB 350 requires all load-serving entities, including SDG&E, to file integrated resource plans that will ultimately enable the electric sector to achieve reductions in GHG emissions of 40 percent compared to 1990 levels by 2030. Our California Utilities may be materially adversely affected if these additional costs are not recoverable in rates. Even if recoverable, the effects of existing and proposed GHG emission reduction standards may cause rates to increase to levels that substantially reduce customer demand and growth and may have a material adverse effect on the California Utilities’ cash flows. SDG&E may also be subject to significant penalties and fines if certain mandated renewable energy goals are not met. In addition, existing and future laws, orders and regulations regarding mercury, nitrogen and sulfur oxides, particulates, methane or other emissions could result in requirements for additional monitoring, pollution monitoring and control equipment, safety practices or emission fees, taxes or penalties that could materially adversely affect our results of operations and/or cash flows. Moreover, existing rules and regulations may be interpreted or revised in ways that may materially adversely affect our results of operations and/or cash flows. We provide further discussion of these matters in “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and in Note 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. Our businesses, results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows may be materially adversely affected by the outcome of litigation against us. Sempra Energy and its subsidiaries are defendants in numerous lawsuits and arbitration proceedings. We have spent, and continue to spend, substantial amounts of money and time defending these lawsuits and proceedings, and in related investigations and regulatory proceedings. We discuss pending proceedings in Note 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and in “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” The uncertainties inherent in lawsuits, arbitrations and other legal proceedings make it difficult to estimate with any degree of certainty the costs and effects of resolving these matters. In addition, juries have demonstrated a willingness to grant large awards, including punitive damages, in personal injury, product liability, property damage and other claims. Accordingly, actual costs incurred may differ materially from insured or reserved amounts and may not be recoverable in whole or in part by insurance or in rates from our customers, which in each case could materially adversely affect our businesses, cash flows, results of operations and/or financial condition. We cannot and do not attempt to fully hedge our assets or contract positions against changes in commodity prices. In addition, for those contract positions that are hedged, our hedging procedures may not mitigate our risk as planned. To reduce financial exposure related to commodity price fluctuations, we may enter into contracts to hedge our known or anticipated purchase and sale commitments, inventories of natural gas and LNG, natural gas storage and pipeline capacity and electric generation capacity. As part of this strategy, we may use forward contracts, physical purchase and sales contracts, futures, financial swaps, and options. We do not hedge the entire exposure to market price volatility of our assets or our contract positions, and the coverage will vary over time. To the extent we have unhedged positions, or if our hedging strategies do not work as planned, fluctuating commodity prices could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows and/or financial condition. Certain of the contracts we use for hedging purposes are subject to fair value accounting. Such accounting may result in gains or losses in earnings for those contracts. In certain cases, these gains or losses may not reflect the associated losses or gains of the underlying position being hedged. Risk management procedures may not prevent losses. Although we have in place risk management and control systems that use advanced methodologies to quantify and manage risk, these systems may not prevent material losses. Risk management procedures may not always be followed as intended by our businesses or may not work as planned. In addition, daily value-at-risk and loss limits are based on historic price movements. If prices significantly or persistently deviate from historic prices, the limits may not protect us from significant losses. As a result of these and other factors, there is no assurance that our risk management procedures will prevent losses that would materially adversely affect our results of operations, cash flows and/or financial condition. The operation of our facilities depends on good labor relations with our employees. Several of our businesses have entered into and have in place collective bargaining agreements with different labor unions. Our collective bargaining agreements are generally negotiated on a company-by-company basis. Any failure to reach an agreement on new labor contracts or to negotiate these labor contracts might result in strikes, boycotts or other labor disruptions. Labor disruptions, strikes or significant negotiated wage and benefit increases, whether due to union activities, employee turnover or otherwise, could have a material adverse effect on our businesses, results of operations and/or cash flows. New business technologies implemented by us or developed by others present a risk for increased attacks on our information systems and the integrity of our energy grid and our natural gas pipeline and storage infrastructure. In addition to general information and cyber risks that all Fortune 500 corporations face (e.g. malware, malicious intent by insiders and inadvertent disclosure of sensitive information), the utility industry faces evolving cybersecurity risks associated with protecting sensitive and confidential customer information, Smart Grid infrastructure, and natural gas pipeline and storage infrastructure. Deployment of new business technologies represents a new and large-scale opportunity for attacks on our information systems and confidential customer information, as well as on the integrity of the energy grid and the natural gas infrastructure. While our computer systems have been, and will likely continue to be, subjected to computer viruses or other malware, unauthorized access attempts, and cyber- or phishing-attacks, to date we have not detected a material breach of cybersecurity. Addressing these risks is the subject of significant ongoing activities across Sempra Energy’s businesses, but we cannot assure that a successful attack has not occurred and will not occur. An attack on our information systems, the integrity of the energy grid, our natural gas, ethane, or propane pipeline and storage infrastructure or one of our facilities, or unauthorized access to confidential customer information, could result in energy delivery service failures, financial loss, violations of privacy laws, customer dissatisfaction and litigation, any of which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our businesses, cash flows, financial condition, results of operations and/or prospects. In the ordinary course of business, Sempra Energy and its subsidiaries collect and retain sensitive information, including personal identification information about customers and employees, customer energy usage and other information. The theft, damage or improper disclosure of sensitive electronic data can subject us to penalties for violation of applicable privacy laws, subject us to claims from third parties, require compliance with notification and monitoring regulations, and harm our reputation. Further, as seen with recent cyber-attacks around the world, the goal of a cyber-attack may be primarily to inflict large-scale harm on a company and the places where it operates. Any such cyber-attack could cause widespread disruptions to our operating, financial and administrative systems, including the destruction of critical information and programming that could materially adversely affect our business operations and the integrity of the power grid, negatively impact our ability to produce accurate and timely financial statements or comply with ongoing disclosure obligations or other regulatory requirements, and/or release confidential information about our company and our customers, employees and other constituents, any of which could lead to sanctions or negatively affect the general perception of our business in the financial markets and which could have a material adverse effect on our businesses, cash flows, financial condition, results of operations and/or prospects. Our businesses will need to continue to adapt to technological change which may cause us to incur significant expenditures to adapt to these changes and which efforts may not be successful or such expenditures may not be recovered. Emerging technologies may be superior to, or may not be compatible with, some of our existing technologies, investments and infrastructure, and may require us to make significant expenditures to remain competitive, or may result in the obsolescence of certain of our operating assets or the operating assets of our investees. Our future success will depend, in part, on our ability and our investment partners’ abilities to anticipate and successfully adapt to technological changes, to offer services that meet customer demands and evolving industry standards and to recover all, or a significant portion of, any unrecovered investment in obsolete assets. If we incur significant expenditures in adapting to technological changes, fail to adapt to significant technological changes, fail to obtain access to important new technologies, fail to recover a significant portion of any remaining investment in obsolete assets, or if implemented technology fails to operate as intended, our businesses, operating results and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected. Examples of technological changes that could negatively impact our businesses include ▪ Sempra Utilities - Technologies that could change the utilization of natural gas distribution and electric generation, transmission and distribution assets, including: ◦ the expanded cost-effective utilization of distributed generation (e.g., rooftop solar and community solar projects), and ◦ energy storage technology. ▪ Sempra Infrastructure ◦ At Sempra Renewables, technological advances in distributed and local power generation and energy storage could reduce the demand for large-scale renewable electricity generation. Sempra Renewables’ customers’ ability to perform under long-term agreements could be impacted by changes in utility rate structures and advances in distributed and local power generation. ◦ At Sempra LNG & Midstream, technological advances could reduce the demand for natural gas. These technologies include cost-effective batteries for renewable electricity generation, economic improvements to gas-to-liquids conversion processes, and advances in alternative fuels and other alternative energy sources. Risks Related to the California Utilities The California Utilities are subject to extensive regulation by state, federal and local legislative and regulatory authorities, which may materially adversely affect us. The CPUC regulates the California Utilities’ rates, except SDG&E’s electric transmission rates which are regulated by the FERC. The CPUC also regulates the California Utilities’: ▪ conditions of service; ▪ capital structure; ▪ rates of return; ▪ rates of depreciation; ▪ long-term resource procurement; and ▪ sales of securities. The CPUC conducts various reviews and audits of utility performance, safety standards and practices, compliance with CPUC regulations and standards, affiliate relationships and other matters. These reviews and audits may result in disallowances, fines and penalties that could materially adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows. SoCalGas and SDG&E may be subject to penalties or fines related to their operation of natural gas pipelines and storage and, for SDG&E, electric operations, under regulations concerning natural gas pipeline safety and citation programs concerning both gas and electric safety, which could have a material adverse effect on their results of operations, financial condition and/or cash flows. We discuss various CPUC proceedings relating to the California Utilities’ rates, costs, incentive mechanisms, and performance-based regulation in Notes 13, 14 and 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and in “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” The CPUC periodically approves the California Utilities’ rates based on authorized capital expenditures, operating costs, including income taxes, and an authorized rate of return on investment. Delays by the CPUC on decisions authorizing recovery, after-the-fact reasonableness reviews with unclear standards or authorizations for less than full recovery may adversely affect the working capital, cash flows and financial condition of each of the California Utilities. If the California Utilities receive an adverse CPUC decision and/or actual capital expenditures and/or operating costs were to exceed the amounts approved by the CPUC, our results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and/or prospects could be materially adversely affected. Reductions in key benchmark interest rates may trigger automatic adjustment mechanisms which would reduce the California Utilities’ authorized rates of return, changes in which could materially adversely affect their results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and/or prospects. SoCalGas and SDG&E have significantly invested and continue to invest in major programs, such as PSEP, under an approved CPUC decision tree framework. However, the total investment to date is substantially subject to CPUC reasonableness review. Although we believe these costs have been prudently incurred, the standards applied by the CPUC could result in the disallowance of certain of these historical costs, which could adversely affect SDG&E’s, SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. The CPUC now incorporates a risk-based decision-making framework in its review of GRC applications for major natural gas and electric utilities in California. We cannot estimate whether its application in the 2019 GRC or future GRC applications will result in full recovery of costs. We discuss this further in Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. In California, there are laws that establish rules governing, among other subjects, communications between CPUC officials, CPUC staff and regulated utilities. Rules and processes around ex parte communications could result in delayed decisions, increased investigations, enforcement actions and penalties. In addition, the CPUC or other parties may initiate investigations of past communications between public utilities and CPUC officials and staff that could result in reopening completed proceedings for reconsideration. The FERC regulates electric transmission rates, the transmission and wholesale sales of electricity in interstate commerce, transmission access, the rates of return on investments in electric transmission assets, and other similar matters involving SDG&E. The California Utilities may be materially adversely affected by new legislation, regulations, decisions, orders or interpretations of the CPUC, the FERC or other regulatory bodies. In addition, existing legislation or regulations may be revised or reinterpreted. New, revised or reinterpreted legislation, regulations, decisions, orders or interpretations could change how the California Utilities operate, could affect their ability to recover various costs through rates or adjustment mechanisms, or could require them to incur substantial additional expenses. The construction and expansion of the California Utilities’ natural gas pipelines, SoCalGas’ storage facilities, and SDG&E’s electric transmission and distribution facilities require numerous permits, licenses, rights-of-way and other approvals from federal, state and local governmental agencies, including approvals and renewals of rights-of-way over Native American tribal land held in trust by the federal government. Successfully maintaining or renewing any or all of these approvals could result in higher costs or, in the event one or more of these approvals were to expire, could require us to remove the associated assets from service, construct new assets intended to bypass the impacted area, or both, and our ability to recover higher costs associated with these events cannot be assured. If there are delays in obtaining these approvals, failure to obtain or maintain these approvals, difficulties in renewing rights-of-way and other property rights, or failure to comply with applicable laws or regulations, the California Utilities’ businesses, cash flows, results of operations, financial condition and/or prospects could be adversely affected. Successfully coordinating and completing expansion and construction projects requires good execution from our employees and contractors, cooperation of third parties and the absence of litigation and regulatory delay. In the event that one or more of these projects is delayed or experiences significant cost overruns, this could have a material adverse effect on the California Utilities. The California Utilities may invest a significant amount of money in a major capital project prior to receiving regulatory approval. If the project does not receive regulatory approval, if the regulatory approval is conditioned on major changes, or if management decides not to proceed with the project, they may be unable to recover any or all amounts invested in that project, which could materially adversely affect their financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and/or prospects. Our California Utilities are also affected by the activities of organizations such as TURN, Utility Consumers’ Action Network, Sierra Club and other stakeholder, advocacy and activist groups. Operations that may be influenced by these groups include ▪ the rates charged to our customers; ▪ our ability to site and construct new facilities; ▪ our ability to purchase or construct generating facilities; ▪ our ability to shut down power for safety reasons, including potentially dangerous wildfire conditions; ▪ general safety; ▪ accounting and income tax matters, including changes in tax law; ▪ transactions between affiliates; ▪ the installation of environmental emission controls equipment; ▪ our ability to decommission generating and other facilities and recover the remaining carrying value of such facilities and related costs; ▪ our ability to recover costs incurred in connection with nuclear decommissioning activities from trust funds established to pay for such costs; ▪ the amount of certain sources of energy we must use, such as renewable sources; limits on the amount of certain energy sources we can use, such as natural gas; and programs to encourage reductions in energy usage by customers; and ▪ the amount of costs associated with these and other operations that may be recovered from customers. SoCalGas has incurred and may continue to incur significant costs and expenses related to remediating the natural gas leak at its Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility and to mitigate local community and environmental impacts from the leak, some or a substantial portion of which may not be recoverable through insurance, and SoCalGas also may incur significant liabilities for damages, restitution, fines, penalties and other costs, and GHG mitigation activities as a result of this incident, some or a significant portion of which may not be recoverable through insurance. In October 2015, SoCalGas discovered a leak at one of its injection-and-withdrawal wells, SS25, at its Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility (the Leak), located in the northern part of the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County, California. The Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility has been operated by SoCalGas since 1972. SS25 is one of more than 100 injection-and-withdrawal wells at the storage facility. SoCalGas worked closely with several of the world’s leading experts to stop the Leak, and in February 2016, DOGGR confirmed that the well was permanently sealed. Local Community Mitigation Efforts Pursuant to a stipulation and order by the LA Superior Court, SoCalGas provided temporary relocation support to residents in the nearby community who requested it before the well was permanently sealed, at significant cost to SoCalGas. Following the permanent sealing of the well and the completion of the DPH’s indoor testing of certain homes in the Porter Ranch community, which concluded that indoor conditions did not present a long-term health risk and that it was safe for residents to return home, the LA Superior Court issued an order in May 2016 ruling that currently relocated residents be given the choice to request residence cleaning prior to returning home, with such cleaning to be performed according to the DPH’s proposed protocol and at SoCalGas’ expense. SoCalGas completed the cleaning program, and the relocation program ended in July 2016. In May 2016, the DPH also issued a directive that SoCalGas professionally clean (in accordance with the proposed protocol prepared by the DPH) the homes of all residents located within the Porter Ranch Neighborhood Council boundary, or who participated in the relocation program, or who are located within a five-mile radius of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility and have experienced symptoms from the Leak (the Directive). SoCalGas disputes the Directive, contending that it is invalid and unenforceable, and has filed a petition for writ of mandate to set aside the Directive. The costs incurred to remediate and stop the Leak and to mitigate local community impacts have been significant and may increase, and we may be subject to potentially significant damages, restitution, and civil, administrative and criminal fines, penalties and other costs. To the extent any of these costs are not covered by insurance (including any costs in excess of applicable policy limits), or if there were to be significant delays in receiving insurance recoveries, such costs could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial condition and results of operations. Insurance and Estimated Costs Excluding directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, we have four kinds of insurance policies that together provide between $1.2 billion and $1.4 billion in insurance coverage, depending on the nature of the claims. These policies are subject to various policy limits, exclusions and conditions. We intend to pursue the full extent of our insurance coverage for the costs we have incurred or may incur. Through December 31, 2017, we have received $469 million of insurance proceeds for portions of control-of-well expenses, lost gas and temporary relocation costs. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in obtaining additional insurance recovery for costs related to the Leak under the applicable policies, and to the extent we are not successful in obtaining additional recovery or these costs exceed the amount of our coverage, such costs could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial conditions and results of operations. At December 31, 2017, SoCalGas estimates that its costs related to the Leak are $913 million, which includes $887 million of costs recovered or probable of recovery from insurance. This estimate may rise significantly as more information becomes available. In addition, costs not included in the cost estimate of $913 million could be material. As described in “Governmental Investigations and Civil and Criminal Litigation” below, the actions against us seek compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, and civil, administrative and criminal fines, penalties and other costs, which except for the amounts paid or estimated to settle certain actions, are not included in the $913 million cost estimate as it is not possible at this time to predict the outcome of these actions or reasonably estimate the amount of damages, restitution or civil, administrative or criminal fines, penalties or other costs. The recorded amounts above also do not include costs to clean additional homes pursuant to the Directive, future legal costs to defend litigation, and other potential costs that we currently do not anticipate incurring or that we cannot reasonably estimate. Furthermore, the cost estimate of $913 million does not include certain other costs expensed by Sempra Energy through December 31, 2017 associated with defending shareholder derivative lawsuits. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in obtaining insurance coverage for these costs under the applicable policies, and to the extent we are not successful in obtaining coverage or these costs exceed the amount of our coverage, such costs could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial condition and results of operations. Governmental Investigations and Civil and Criminal Litigation Various governmental agencies, including DOGGR, DPH, SCAQMD, CARB, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, CPUC, PHMSA, EPA, Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office and California Attorney General’s Office, have investigated or are investigating this incident. Other federal agencies (e.g., the DOE and U.S. Department of the Interior) investigated the incident as part of a joint interagency task force. In January 2016, DOGGR and the CPUC selected Blade Energy Partners to conduct, under their supervision, an independent analysis of the technical root cause of the Leak, to be funded by SoCalGas. The timing of completion of the root cause analysis is under the control of Blade Energy Partners, DOGGR and the CPUC. As of February 22, 2018, 373 lawsuits, including over 45,000 plaintiffs, are pending in the LA Superior Court against SoCalGas, some of which have also named Sempra Energy. These various lawsuits have been coordinated before a single court and will be managed under a Second Amended Master Complaint for Individual Actions, and two consolidated class action complaints. In addition, a federal securities class action alleging violation of the federal securities laws has been filed against Sempra Energy and certain of its officers and directors in the SDCA. Five shareholder derivative actions alleging breach of fiduciary duties have been filed against certain officers and directors of Sempra Energy and/or SoCalGas, four of which were joined in a Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint in August 2017. Three complaints have also been filed by public entities, including the California Attorney General and the County of Los Angeles. These complaints seek various remedies, including injunctive relief, abatement of the public nuisance, civil penalties, payment of the cost of a longitudinal health study, and money damages, as well as punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. Additional litigation may be filed against us in the future related to the Leak or our responses thereto. For a more detailed description of the governmental investigations and civil and criminal lawsuits brought against us, see Note 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. The costs of defending against the civil and criminal lawsuits, cooperating with the various investigations, and any damages, restitution, and civil, administrative and criminal fines, penalties and other costs, if awarded or imposed, as well as the costs of mitigating the actual natural gas released, could be significant and to the extent not covered by insurance (including any costs in excess of applicable policy limits), or if there were to be significant delays in receiving insurance recoveries, such costs could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial condition and results of operations. Regulatory Proceedings In February 2017, the CPUC opened a proceeding pursuant to SB 380 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. The order establishing the scope of the proceeding expressly excludes issues with respect to air quality, public health, causation, culpability or cost responsibility regarding the Leak. Section 455.5 of the California Public Utilities Code, among other things, directs regulated utilities to notify the CPUC if all or any portion of a major facility has been out of service for nine consecutive months. Although SoCalGas does not believe the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility or any portion of that facility was out of service for nine consecutive months, SoCalGas provided notification out of an abundance of caution to demonstrate its commitment to regulatory compliance and transparency, and because obtaining authorization to resume injection operations at the facility required more time than initially contemplated. In response, and as required by section 455.5, the CPUC issued an OII to address whether the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility or any portion of that facility was out of service for nine consecutive months within the meaning of section 455.5, and if so, whether the CPUC should disallow costs for such period from SoCalGas’ rates. Under section 455.5, hearings on the investigation are to be held, if necessary, in conjunction with SoCalGas’ 2019 GRC proceeding. If the CPUC determines that all or any portion of the facility was out of service for nine consecutive months, the amount of any refund to ratepayers and the inability to earn a return on those assets could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial condition and results of operations. Governmental Orders and Additional Regulation In December 2015, SoCalGas made a commitment to mitigate the actual natural gas released from the Leak and has been working on a plan to accomplish the mitigation. In March 2016, the CARB issued its recommended approach to achieve full mitigation of the emissions from the Leak, which includes recommendations that: ▪ reductions in short-lived climate pollutants and other greenhouse gases be at least equivalent to the amount of the emissions from the Leak, ▪ a 20-year global warming potential be used in deriving the amount of reductions required (rather than the 100-year term the CARB and other state and federal agencies use in regulating emissions), and ▪ all of the mitigation occur in California over the next five to ten years without the use of allowances or offsets. In October 2016, CARB issued its final report concluding that the incident resulted in total emissions from 90,350 to 108,950 metric tons of methane, and asserting that SoCalGas should mitigate 109,000 metric tons of methane to fully mitigate the greenhouse gas impacts of the Leak. Although we have not agreed with CARB’s estimate of methane released, we continue to work with CARB on developing a mitigation plan. PHMSA, DOGGR, SCAQMD, EPA and CARB have each commenced separate rulemaking proceedings to adopt further regulations covering natural gas storage facilities and injection wells. DOGGR has issued new draft regulations for all storage fields in California, and in 2016, the California Legislature enacted four separate bills providing for additional regulation of natural gas storage facilities. Additional hearings in the California Legislature, as well as with various other federal and state regulatory agencies, may be scheduled, and additional laws, orders, rules and regulations may be adopted. Higher operating costs and additional capital expenditures incurred by SoCalGas as a result of new laws, orders, rules and regulations arising out of this incident or our responses thereto could be significant and may not be recoverable through insurance or in customer rates, and SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected by any such new laws, orders, rules and regulations. Natural Gas Storage Operations and Reliability Natural gas withdrawn from storage is important for service reliability during peak demand periods, including peak electric generation needs in the summer and heating needs in the winter. The Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, with a storage capacity of 86 Bcf (which represents 63 percent of SoCalGas’ natural gas storage inventory capacity), is the largest SoCalGas storage facility and an important element of SoCalGas’ delivery system. Beginning October 24, 2015, pursuant to orders by DOGGR and the Governor of the State of California, and SB 380, SoCalGas suspended injection of natural gas into the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility. Limited withdrawals of natural gas from the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility were made in 2017 to augment natural gas supplies during critical demand periods. In July 2017, DOGGR issued an order lifting the prohibition on injection at Aliso Canyon, subject to certain operational requirements, and SoCalGas resumed limited injections. If the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility were to be taken out of service for any meaningful period of time, it could result in an impairment of the facility, significantly higher than expected operating costs and/or additional capital expenditures, and natural gas reliability and electric generation could be jeopardized. At December 31, 2017, the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility has a net book value of $644 million, including $252 million of construction work in progress for the project to construct a new compressor station. Any significant impairment of this asset could have a material adverse effect on SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s results of operations for the period in which it is recorded. Higher operating costs and additional capital expenditures incurred by SoCalGas may not be recoverable in customer rates, and SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s results of operations, cash flows and financial condition may be materially adversely affected. Additional Information We discuss Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility matters further in Note 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and in “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Factors Influencing Future Performance.” Natural gas pipeline safety assessments may not be fully or adequately recovered in rates. Pending the outcome of various regulatory agency evaluations of natural gas pipeline safety regulations, practices and procedures, Sempra Energy, including the California Utilities, may incur incremental expense and capital investment associated with their natural gas pipeline operations and investments. The California Utilities filed implementation plans with the CPUC to test or replace natural gas transmission pipelines located in populated areas that either have not been pressure tested or lack sufficient documentation of a pressure test, to enhance existing valve infrastructure and to retrofit pipelines to allow for the use of in-line inspection technology, referred to as SoCalGas’ and SDG&E’s PSEP. In June 2014, the CPUC issued a final decision approving the utilities’ plan for implementing PSEP, and established criteria to determine the amounts related to PSEP that may be recovered from ratepayers and the processes for recovery of such amounts, including providing that such costs are subject to a reasonableness review. In the future, certain PSEP costs may be subject to recovery as determined by separate regulatory filings with the CPUC, including GRC filings. Various PSEP-related proceedings are regularly pending before the CPUC regarding the California Utilities’ reasonableness review and cost recovery requests, which are often challenged by intervening parties. These proceedings are described in more detail in “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Factors Influencing Future Performance.” In the future, consumer advocacy groups may similarly challenge the California Utilities’ petitions for recovery and recommend disallowances in whole or in part with respect to applications to recover PSEP costs. From 2011 through 2017, SoCalGas and SDG&E have invested approximately $1.3 billion and $355 million, respectively, in PSEP, with substantial additional expenditures planned. As of December 31, 2017, SoCalGas has received approval for recovery of $33 million. If the CPUC denies or significantly delays rate recovery for PSEP and other gas pipeline safety costs incurred by SoCalGas and SDG&E, it could materially adversely affect the respective company’s cash flows, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. The California Utilities are subject to increasingly stringent safety standards and the potential for significant penalties if regulators deem either SDG&E or SoCalGas to be out of compliance. California SB 291 requires the CPUC to develop and maintain a safety enforcement program that includes procedures for monitoring, data tracking and analysis, and investigations, and delegates citation authority to CPUC staff personnel under the direction of the CPUC Executive Director. In exercising this citation authority, the CPUC staff is to take into account voluntary reporting of potential violations, voluntary resolution efforts undertaken, prior history of violations, the gravity of the violation, and the degree of culpability. The CPUC previously implemented both electric and gas safety enforcement programs whereby electric and gas utilities may be cited by CPUC staff for violations of the CPUC’s safety requirements or applicable federal standards. Under each enforcement program, each day of an ongoing violation may be counted as an additional offense. The maximum penalty is $50,000 per offense. CPUC staff has authority to issue citations up to an administrative limit of $8 million per citation under either program and such citations may be appealed to the CPUC. Although citations issued under these enforcement programs do include an administrative limit, penalties issued by the CPUC can exceed this limit, having exceeded $1.5 billion in one instance for an unrelated third party. If the CPUC or its staff determine that either of SDG&E’s or SoCalGas’ operations and practices are not in compliance with applicable safety standards and operating procedures, the corrective or mitigation actions required to be in conformance, if not sufficiently funded in customer rates, and any penalties imposed, could materially adversely affect that company’s cash flows, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. The failure by the CPUC to continue reforms of SDG&E’s rate structure, including the implementation of a more significant fixed charge, could have a material adverse effect on its business, cash flows, financial condition, results of operations and/or prospects. The current electric rate structure in California is primarily based on consumption volume, which places an undue burden on residential customers with higher electric use while subsidizing lower use customers. As higher electric use residential customers switch to self-generation or obtain local off-the-grid sources of power, such as rooftop solar, the burden on the remaining higher electric use customers increases, which in turn encourages more self-generation, further increasing rate pressure on existing customers. In July 2015, the CPUC adopted a decision that establishes comprehensive reform and a framework for rates that are more transparent, fair and sustainable. The decision provides for a minimum monthly bill, fewer rate tiers and a gradual reduction in the differences between the tiered rates, directs the utilities to pursue expanded TOU rates, and implemented a super-user electric surcharge in 2017 for usage that exceeds average customer usage by approximately 400 percent within each climate zone. The decision is being implemented over a five-year period from 2015 to 2020, and should result in significant relief for higher-use customers that do not exceed the super-user threshold and a rate structure that better aligns rates with actual costs to serve customers. The decision also establishes a process for utilities to seek implementation of a fixed charge for residential customers in 2020 (but it also sets certain conditions for the implementation of a fixed charge), after the initial reforms are implemented. The establishment of a fixed charge for residential customers may become more critical to help ensure rates are fair for all customers as distributed energy resources could generally reduce delivered volumes and increase fixed costs. If the CPUC fails to continue to reform SDG&E’s rate structure to maintain reasonable, cost-based electric rates that are competitive with alternative sources of power and adequate to maintain the reliability of the electric transmission and distribution system, such failure could have a material adverse effect on SDG&E’s business, cash flows, financial condition, results of operations and/or prospects. Meaningful NEM reform must continue to progress to ensure that SDG&E is authorized to recover its costs in providing services to NEM customers while minimizing the cost shift (or subsidy) being borne by non-solar customers. Due to current rate structures and state policies, customers who self-generate their own electricity using eligible renewable resources (primarily solar installations) currently do not pay their proportionate cost of maintaining and operating the electric transmission and distribution system, subject to certain limitations, while they still receive electricity from the system when their self-generation is inadequate to meet their electricity needs. The proportionate costs not paid by NEM customers are therefore subsidized by consumers not participating in NEM. In addition, the continuing increase of self-generated solar, other forms of self-generation and other local off-the-grid sources of power adversely impacts the reliability of the electric transmission and distribution system. Appropriate NEM reforms are necessary to help ensure that SDG&E is authorized to recover, from NEM customers, the costs incurred in providing grid and energy services, as well as mandated legislative and regulatory public policy programs. SDG&E believes this design would be preferable to recovering these costs from customers not participating in NEM. If NEM self-generating installations were to increase substantially between 2016 and when more significant reforms take effect in 2019 or later, as described below, the rate structure adopted by the CPUC could have a material adverse effect on SDG&E’s business, cash flows, financial condition, results of operations and/or prospects. In July 2014, the CPUC initiated a rulemaking proceeding to develop a successor tariff to the state’s existing NEM program pursuant to the provisions of AB 327. The NEM program was originally established in 1995 and is an electric billing tariff mechanism designed to promote the installation of on-site renewable generation. Under NEM, qualifying customer-generators receive a full retail rate for the energy they generate that is fed back to the utility’s power grid. This occurs during times when the customer’s generation exceeds their own energy usage. In addition, if a NEM customer generates any electricity over the annual measurement period that exceeds its annual consumption, they receive compensation at a rate equal to a wholesale energy price. In January 2016, the CPUC adopted a decision making modest changes to the NEM program, which require NEM customers to pay some costs that would otherwise be borne by non-NEM customers and moves new NEM customers to TOU rates. Together with a reduction in tiered rate differentials and the potential implementation of a fixed charge component in 2020, these changes to the NEM program begin a process of reducing the cost burden on non-NEM customers, but SDG&E believes that further reforms are necessary and appropriate. SDG&E implemented the adopted successor NEM tariff in July 2016, after reaching the 617-MW cap established for the prior NEM program. The electricity industry is undergoing significant change, including increased deployment of distributed energy resources, technological advancements, and political and regulatory developments. Electric utilities in California are experiencing increasing deployment of distributed energy resources, such as solar, energy storage, energy efficiency and demand response technologies. This growth will eventually require modernization of the electric distribution grid to, among other things, accommodate two-way flows of electricity and increase the grid’s capacity to interconnect distributed energy resources. The CPUC is conducting proceedings to: evaluate various demonstration projects and pilots; implement changes to the planning and operation of the electric distribution grid in order to prepare for higher penetration of distributed energy resources; consider future grid modernization and grid reinforcement investments; evaluate if traditional grid investments can be deferred by distributed energy resources, and if feasible, what, if any, compensation would be appropriate; and clarify the role of the electric distribution grid operator. These proceedings may result in new regulations, policies and/or operational changes that could materially adversely affect SDG&E’s and Sempra Energy’s businesses, cash flows, financial condition, results of operations and/or prospects. SDG&E provides bundled electric procurement service through various resources that are typically procured on a long-term basis. While SDG&E provides such procurement service for most of its customer load, customers do have the ability to receive procurement service from a load serving entity other than SDG&E, through programs such as DA and CCA. DA is currently closed, but utility customers could receive procurement through CCA, if the customer’s local jurisdiction (city) offers such a program. Several local political jurisdictions, including the City of San Diego and a few other municipalities are considering the formation of a CCA, which, if implemented, could result in the departure of more than half of SDG&E’s bundled load. For example, Solana Beach (representing less than one percent of SDG&E’s customer accounts) has elected to begin CCA service in 2018. When customers are served by another load serving entity, SDG&E no longer serves this departing load and the associated costs of the utility’s procured resources could be borne by its remaining bundled procurement customers. State law requires that customers opting to have a CCA procure their electricity must absorb the cost of above-market electricity procurement commitments already made by SDG&E on their behalf, though appropriate mechanisms to ensure that such costs are properly absorbed are not yet in place. If mechanisms to ensure compliance with state law are not in place at the time of these potentially significant reductions in SDG&E’s served load, remaining bundled customers of SDG&E could potentially experience large increases in rates for commodity costs under commitments made on behalf of these CCA customers prior to their departure, which may not be fully recoverable in rates by SDG&E. If legislative, regulatory or legal action were taken to prevent the timely recovery of these procurement costs or if mechanisms are not in place to ensure compliance with state law, the unrecovered costs could have a material adverse effect on SDG&E’s and Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial condition and results of operations. Furthermore, California legislators and stakeholder, advocacy and activist groups have expressed a desire to further limit or eliminate reliance on natural gas as an energy source by advocating increased use of renewable energy and electrification in lieu of the use of natural gas. A substantial reduction or the elimination of natural gas as an energy source in California, could have a material adverse effect on SDG&E’s, SoCalGas’ and Sempra Energy’s cash flows, financial condition and results of operations. Insurance coverage for future wildfires may be unobtainable, prohibitively expensive, or insufficient to cover losses we may incur, and we may be unable to recover costs in excess of insurance through regulatory mechanisms. We have experienced increased costs and difficulties in obtaining insurance coverage for wildfires that could arise from the California Utilities’ operations, particularly SDG&E’s operations. In addition, the insurance that has been obtained for wildfire liabilities may not be sufficient to cover all losses that we may incur. Uninsured losses and increases in the cost of insurance may not be recoverable in customer rates. For example, California courts have invoked the doctrine of inverse condemnation for wildfire damages, whereby if a utility company’s facilities, such as its electric distribution and transmission lines, are determined to be the cause of one or more fires, the utility could be liable for damages, as well as attorneys’ fees, without having been found negligent. As a result of the strict liability standard applied to wildfires, recent losses recorded by insurance companies, and the risk of an increase of wildfires (several catastrophic wildfires occurred in California in late 2017) for reasons such as drought conditions, insurance for wildfire liabilities may not be available or may be available only at rates that are prohibitively expensive. In addition, even if insurance for wildfire liabilities is available, it may not be available in such amounts as are necessary to cover potential losses. A loss which is not fully insured or cannot be recovered in customer rates could materially adversely affect Sempra Energy’s and the affected California Utility’s financial condition, cash flows and results of operations. In addition, we are unable to predict whether we would be allowed to recover in rates the increased costs of insurance or the costs of any uninsured losses. SDG&E incurred CPUC-related costs to resolve 2007 wildfire claims in excess of its liability insurance coverage and amounts recovered from third parties. In December 2012, the CPUC issued a final decision allowing SDG&E to maintain an authorized memorandum account, enabling SDG&E to file applications with the CPUC requesting recovery of amounts properly recorded in the memorandum account, subject to reasonableness review, at a later date. In September 2015, SDG&E filed an application with the CPUC seeking authority to recover such costs in rates over a six- to ten-year period. On December 6, 2017, the CPUC issued a final decision denying SDG&E’s request to recover the 2007 wildfire costs submitted in our application. If SDG&E is unsuccessful in its efforts to reverse the final decision through the rehearing and appeals process, the 2007 wildfire costs or costs associated with any future wildfires may not be recoverable. In addition, pending legislation may prohibit recovery of any uninsured wildfire costs in cases of inverse condemnation where California utilities are strictly liable. The failure to recover for the 2007 wildfires or future wildfires could materially adversely affect Sempra Energy’s and the affected California Utility’s financial condition, cash flows and results of operations. We discuss these cost recovery proceedings in “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Factors Influencing Future Performance” and in Note 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. SDG&E may incur substantial costs and liabilities as a result of its partial ownership of a nuclear facility that is being decommissioned. SDG&E has a 20-percent ownership interest in SONGS, formerly a 2,150-MW nuclear generating facility near San Clemente, California, that is in the process of being decommissioned by Edison, the majority owner of SONGS. SONGS is subject to the jurisdiction of the NRC and the CPUC. On June 6, 2013, Edison notified SDG&E that it had reached a decision to permanently retire SONGS and seek approval from the NRC to start the decommissioning activities for the entire facility. SDG&E, and each of the other owners, holds its undivided interest as a tenant in common in the property, and each owner is responsible for financing its share of expenses and capital expenditures, including decommissioning activities. Although the facility is being decommissioned, SDG&E’s ownership interest in SONGS continues to subject it to the risks of owning a partial interest in a nuclear generation facility, which include ▪ the potential that a natural disaster such as an earthquake or tsunami could cause a catastrophic failure of the safety systems in place that are designed to prevent the release of radioactive material. If such a failure were to occur, a substantial amount of radiation could be released and cause catastrophic harm to human health and the environment; ▪ the potential harmful effects on the environment and human health resulting from the prior operation of nuclear facilities and the storage, handling and disposal of radioactive materials; ▪ limitations on the amounts and types of insurance commercially available to cover losses that might arise in connection with operations and the decommissioning of the facility; and ▪ uncertainties with respect to the technological and financial aspects of decommissioning the facility. In addition, SDG&E maintains nuclear decommissioning trusts for the purpose of providing funds to decommission SONGS. Trust assets have been generally invested in equity and debt securities, which are subject to significant market fluctuations. A decline in the market value of trust assets or an adverse change in the law regarding funding requirements for decommissioning trusts could increase the funding requirements for these trusts, which in each case may not be fully recoverable in rates. Furthermore, CPUC approval is required in order to make withdrawals from these trusts. CPUC approval for certain expenditures may be denied by the CPUC altogether if the CPUC determines that the expenditures are unreasonable. Finally, decommissioning may be materially more expensive than we currently anticipate and therefore decommissioning costs may exceed the amounts in the trust funds. Rate recovery for overruns would require CPUC approval, which may not occur. Interpretations of tax regulations could impact access to nuclear decommissioning trust funds for reimbursement of spent nuclear fuel management costs. Depending on how the IRS or the U.S. Department of Treasury ultimately interprets or alters regulations addressing the taxation of a qualified nuclear decommissioning trust, SDG&E may be restricted from withdrawing amounts from its qualified decommissioning trusts to pay for spent fuel management while Edison and SDG&E are seeking, or plan to seek, recovery of spent fuel management costs in litigation against, or in settlements with, the DOE. In December 2016, the IRS and the U.S. Department of Treasury issued proposed regulations that clarify the definition of “nuclear decommissioning costs,” which are costs that may be paid for or reimbursed from a qualified fund. These proposed regulations will be effective prospectively once they are finalized. SDG&E is waiting for the adoption of, or additional refinement to, the proposed regulations before determining whether the proposed regulations will allow SDG&E to access the NDT funds for reimbursement or payment of the spent fuel management costs that were or will be incurred in 2016 and subsequent years. Until the DOE litigation is resolved, and/or IRS regulations regarding spent fuel management costs are confirmed to apply, SDG&E expects to continue to pay for its share of such spent fuel management costs. If SDG&E is unable to obtain timely access to the trusts for these costs, SDG&E’s cash flows could be negatively impacted. In November 2014, the CPUC approved the Amended Settlement Agreement that resolved the investigation into the steam generator replacement project that ultimately led to the shut-down of SONGS. Various petitions have since been filed to reopen the settlement. In December 2016, the CPUC issued a ruling directing parties to the SONGS OII to determine whether an agreement could be reached to modify the Amended Settlement Agreement previously approved by the CPUC, to resolve allegations that unreported ex parte communications between Edison and the CPUC resulted in an unfair advantage at the time the settlement agreement was negotiated. In October 2017, the CPUC issued a ruling with respect to the proceeding establishing a process to bring the proceeding to a conclusion and in November 2017, the CPUC held a status conference. In January 2018, the CPUC issued a ruling that further clarified the scope of future evidentiary hearings. This ruling establishes a status conference and includes a preliminary schedule for additional testimony, hearings and briefings. On January 30, 2018, SDG&E, Edison, TURN, ORA and other intervenors entered into a Revised Settlement Agreement. On the same date, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Adoption of the Settlement Agreement with the CPUC. If approved by the CPUC, the Revised Settlement Agreement will resolve all issues under consideration in the SONGS OII and will modify the Amended Settlement Agreement. On February 1, 2018, the parties filed a motion to stay the proceedings in the OII pending the CPUC’s consideration of the Revised Settlement Agreement. On February 6, 2018, the CPUC issued a ruling granting the parties’ motion to stay the proceedings and establishing a tentative procedural schedule with public participation hearings in April and July, evidentiary hearings in April and May and briefing in June of 2018. The timing of a decision from the CPUC on the Joint Motion for Adoption of the Settlement Agreement is uncertain. We cannot assure that the Revised Settlement Agreement will be adopted or that the Amended Settlement Agreement will not be modified or set aside as a result of this OII proceeding. In connection with the Revised Settlement Agreement, and in exchange for the release of certain SONGS-related claims, SDG&E and Edison entered into an agreement (the Utility Shareholder Agreement) in which Edison has agreed to pay SDG&E the amounts that SDG&E would have received in rates under the Amended Settlement Agreement, but will not receive upon implementation of the Revised Settlement Agreement. The Utility Shareholder Agreement is not subject to the approval of the CPUC. However, it is not effective unless and until the CPUC approves the Revised Settlement Agreement. We provide additional detail in Note 13 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. The occurrence of any of these events could result in a substantial reduction in our expected recovery and have a material adverse effect on SDG&E’s and Sempra Energy’s businesses, cash flows, financial condition, results of operations and/or prospects. Risks Related to our Sempra South American Utilities and Sempra Infrastructure Businesses Our businesses are exposed to market risks, including fluctuations in commodity prices, and our businesses, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and/or prospects may be materially adversely affected by these risks. Energy-related commodity prices impact LNG liquefaction and regasification, the transport and storage of natural gas, and power generation from renewable and conventional sources, among other businesses that we operate and invest in. We buy energy-related commodities from time to time, for LNG terminals or power plants to satisfy contractual obligations with customers, in regional markets and other competitive markets in which we compete. Our revenues and results of operations could be materially adversely affected if the prevailing market prices for natural gas, LNG, electricity or other commodities that we buy change in a direction or manner not anticipated and for which we had not provided adequately through purchase or sale commitments or other hedging transactions. In particular, North American natural gas prices, when in decline, negatively impact profitability at Sempra LNG & Midstream. Unanticipated changes in market prices for energy-related commodities result from multiple factors, including: ▪ weather conditions ▪ seasonality ▪ changes in supply and demand ▪ transmission or transportation constraints or inefficiencies ▪ availability of competitively priced alternative energy sources ▪ commodity production levels ▪ actions by oil and natural gas producing nations or organizations affecting the global supply of crude oil and natural gas ▪ federal, state and foreign energy and environmental regulation and legislation ▪ natural disasters, wars, embargoes and other catastrophic events ▪ expropriation of assets by foreign countries The FERC has jurisdiction over wholesale power and transmission rates, independent system operators, and other entities that control transmission facilities or that administer wholesale power sales in some of the markets in which we operate. The FERC may impose additional price limitations, bidding rules and other mechanisms, or terminate existing price limitations from time to time. Any such action by the FERC may result in prices for electricity changing in an unanticipated direction or manner and, as a result, may have a material adverse effect on our businesses, cash flows, results of operations and/or prospects. When our businesses enter into fixed-price long-term contracts to provide services or commodities, they are exposed to inflationary pressures such as rising commodity prices and interest rate risks. Sempra Mexico, Sempra Renewables and Sempra LNG & Midstream generally endeavor to secure long-term contracts with customers for services and commodities to optimize the use of their facilities, reduce volatility in earnings, and support the construction of new infrastructure. However, if these contracts are at fixed prices, the profitability of the contract may be materially adversely affected by inflationary pressures, including rising operational costs, costs of labor, materials, equipment and commodities, and rising interest rates that affect financing costs. We may try to mitigate these risks by using variable pricing tied to market indices, anticipating an escalation in costs when bidding on projects, providing for cost escalation, providing for direct pass-through of operating costs or entering into hedges. However, these measures, if implemented, may not ensure that the increase in revenues they provide will fully offset increases in operating expenses and/or financing costs. The failure to fully or substantially offset these increases could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, cash flows and/or results of operations. Business development activities may not be successful and projects under construction may not commence operation as scheduled, be completed within budget or operate at expected levels, which could have a material adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition, cash flows, results of operations and/or prospects. The acquisition, development, construction and expansion of marine and inland liquid fuels, LNG and LPG terminals and storage; natural gas, propane and ethane pipelines and storage facilities; electric generation, transmission and distribution facilities; and other energy infrastructure projects involve numerous risks. We may be required to spend significant sums for preliminary engineering, permitting, fuel supply, resource exploration, legal, and other expenses before we can determine whether a project is feasible, economically attractive, or capable of being built. Success in developing a particular project is contingent upon, among other things: ▪ negotiation of satisfactory EPC agreements ▪ negotiation of supply and natural gas sales agreements or firm capacity service agreements ▪ timely receipt of required governmental permits, licenses, authorizations, and rights-of-way and maintenance or extension of these authorizations ▪ timely implementation and satisfactory completion of construction ▪ obtaining adequate and reasonably priced financing for the project Successful completion of a particular project may be materially adversely affected by, among other factors: ▪ unforeseen engineering problems ▪ construction delays and contractor performance shortfalls ▪ work stoppages ▪ failure to obtain, maintain or extend required governmental permits, licenses, authorizations, and rights-of-way ▪ equipment unavailability or delay and cost increases ▪ adverse weather conditions ▪ environmental and geological conditions ▪ litigation ▪ unsettled property rights If we are unable to complete a development project or if we have substantial delays or cost overruns, this could have a material adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition, cash flows, results of operations and/or prospects. The operation of existing and future facilities also involves many risks, including the breakdown or failure of electric generation, transmission and distribution facilities, or regasification, liquefaction and storage facilities or other equipment or processes, labor disputes, fuel interruption, environmental contamination and operating performance below expected levels. In addition, weather-related incidents and other natural disasters can disrupt generation, regasification, liquefaction, storage, transmission and distribution systems. The occurrence of any of these events could lead to our facilities being idled for an extended period of time or our facilities operating well below expected capacity levels, which may result in lost revenues or increased expenses, including higher maintenance costs and penalties. Such occurrences could materially adversely affect our businesses, financial condition, cash flows, results of operations and/or prospects. The design, development and construction of the Cameron LNG liquefaction facility involves numerous risks and uncertainties. With respect to our project to add LNG export capability at the Cameron LNG facility, Cameron LNG JV is building an LNG export facility consisting of three liquefaction trains designed to a total nameplate capacity of 13.9 Mtpa of LNG with an expected export capability of 12 Mtpa of LNG, or approximately 1.7 Bcf per day. The estimated construction, financing and other project costs for the facility are within the project budget adopted at the time of our final investment decision. If these costs increase above the budget adopted at the time of our final investment decision, we may have to contribute additional cash. The majority of the investment in the liquefaction project is project-financed and the balance provided by the project partners. Any failure by the project partners to make their required investments on a timely basis could result in project delays and could materially adversely affect the development of the project. In addition, Sempra Energy has guaranteed a maximum of up to $3.9 billion related to the project financing and financing-related agreements. These guarantees terminate upon Cameron LNG JV achieving “financial completion” of the initial three-train liquefaction project, including all three trains achieving commercial operation and meeting certain operational performance tests. We anticipate that the guarantees will be terminated approximately nine months after all three trains achieve commercial operation. If, due to the joint venture’s failure to satisfy the financial completion criteria, we are required to repay some or all of the $3.9 billion under our guarantees, any such repayments could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition, and/or prospects. Large-scale construction projects like the design, development and construction of the Cameron LNG JV liquefaction facility involve numerous risks and uncertainties, including among others, the potential for unforeseen engineering challenges, substantial construction delays and increased costs. Cameron LNG JV has a turnkey EPC contract, and if the contractor becomes unwilling or unable to perform according to the terms and timetable of the EPC contract, the project could face substantial construction delays and potentially significantly increased costs. If the contractor’s delays or failures are serious enough to cause the contractor to default under the EPC contract, such default could result in Cameron LNG JV’s engagement of a substitute contractor. In October 2016, the EPC contractor indicated that the Cameron LNG project would not achieve its originally scheduled dates for completion and subsequently provided project schedules reflecting further delays to the Cameron LNG project. The delays will result in the anticipated earnings and associated cash flows from the Cameron LNG JV project coming in later than originally anticipated. In December 2017, Cameron LNG JV entered into a settlement agreement with the EPC contractor to settle the contractor’s claims (including those resulting from Hurricane Harvey) that it was owed additional compensation beyond the original contract price and that it was entitled to schedule extensions under the contract. Based on a number of factors, we continue to believe it is reasonable to expect that all three LNG trains will be producing LNG in 2019, though there can be no assurance that this project will not be further delayed. These factors, among others, include the terms of the settlement agreement, the project schedules received from the EPC contractor, Cameron LNG JV’s own review of the project schedules, the assumptions underlying such schedules, the EPC contractor’s progress to date, the remaining work left to be performed, and the inherent risks in constructing and testing facilities such as Cameron LNG. The inability to complete the project in accordance with the current schedule, cost overruns, and the other risks described above could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition, credit ratings and/or prospects. For additional discussion of the Cameron LNG JV and of these risks and other risks relating to the development of the Cameron LNG JV liquefaction project that could adversely affect our future performance, see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Factors Influencing Future Performance.” We face many challenges to develop and complete our contemplated LNG export facilities. In addition to the three-train Cameron LNG liquefaction facility described above, we are looking at several other LNG export terminal development opportunities, including a greenfield project in Port Arthur, Texas, a brownfield project at our existing ECA regasification facility in Baja California, Mexico and an expansion of up to two additional liquefaction trains to the Cameron liquefaction facility. Each of these contemplated projects faces numerous risks and must overcome significant hurdles before we can proceed with construction. Common to all of these projects is the risk that global oil prices and their associated current and forward projections could reduce the demand for natural gas in some sectors and cause a corresponding reduction in projected global demand for LNG. This could result in increased competition among those working on projects in an environment of declining LNG demand, such as the Sempra Energy-sponsored export initiatives. Such reduction in natural gas demand could also occur from higher penetration of alternative fuels in new power generation, which could also lead to increased competition among the LNG suppliers for the declining LNG demand. At certain moderate levels, oil prices could also make LNG projects in other parts of the world still feasible and competitive with LNG projects from North America, thus increasing supply and the competition for the available LNG demand. A decline in natural gas prices outside the U.S. (which in many foreign countries are based on the price of crude oil) may also materially adversely affect the relative pricing advantage that has existed in recent years in favor of domestic natural gas prices (based on Henry Hub pricing). In February 2018, Sempra LNG & Midstream entered into a project development agreement for the joint development of the proposed Port Arthur LNG liquefaction project with an affiliate of Woodside Petroleum Ltd., which replaced a prior agreement between the parties. The project development agreement specifies how the parties will share costs, and continues a framework for the parties to work jointly on permitting, design, engineering, commercial and marketing activities associated with developing the Port Arthur LNG liquefaction project. In June 2017, Sempra LNG & Midstream, Woodside Petroleum Ltd. and Korea Gas Corporation signed a memorandum of understanding that provides a framework for cooperation and joint discussion by the parties regarding key aspects of the potential development of the Port Arthur LNG project, including engineering and construction work, O&M activities, feed gas sourcing, offtake of LNG and the potential for Korea Gas Corporation to purchase LNG from, and become an equity participant in, the Port Arthur LNG project. The memorandum of understanding does not commit any party to buy or sell LNG or otherwise participate in the Port Arthur liquefaction LNG project. Also, in May 2015, Sempra LNG & Midstream, IEnova and a subsidiary of PEMEX entered into a project development agreement for the joint development of the proposed liquefaction project at IEnova’s existing ECA regasification facility in Mexico. The agreement specifies how the parties share costs, and establishes a framework for the parties to work jointly on permitting, design, engineering, and commercial activities associated with developing the potential liquefaction project. PEMEX’s cost-sharing obligations under this agreement ended on December 31, 2017. Any decisions by the parties to proceed with binding agreements with respect to the formation of these potential joint ventures and the potential development of these projects will require, among other things, obtaining customer commitments to purchase LNG, completion of project assessments and achieving other necessary internal and external approvals of each party. In addition, all of our proposed projects are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including the receipt of a number of permits and approvals; finding suitable partners and customers; obtaining financing and incentives; negotiating and completing suitable commercial agreements, including joint venture agreements, tolling capacity agreements or natural gas supply and LNG sales agreements and construction contracts; and reaching a final investment decision. Expansion of the Cameron LNG liquefaction facility beyond the first three trains is subject to certain restrictions and conditions under the joint venture project financing agreements, including among others, timing restrictions on expansion of the project unless appropriate prior consent is obtained from the project lenders. Under the Cameron LNG JV equity agreements, the expansion of the project requires the unanimous consent of all of the partners, including with respect to the equity investment obligation of each partner. One of the partners indicated to Sempra Energy and the other partners that it does not intend to invest additional capital in Cameron LNG JV with respect to the expansion. As a result, discussions among the partners have occurred, and we are considering a variety of options to attempt to move the expansion project forward. These activities have contributed to delays in developing firm pricing information and securing customer commitments, and there can be no assurance that these issues will be resolved in a timely manner, which could materially and adversely impact the near-term marketing of this project and ability to secure customer commitments. In light of these developments, we are unable to predict whether or when we and/or Cameron LNG JV might be able to move forward on expansion of the Cameron LNG liquefaction facility beyond the first three trains. Furthermore, there are a number of potential new projects under construction or in the process of development by various project developers in North America, in addition to ours, and given the projected global demand for LNG, the vast majority of these projects likely will not be completed. With respect to our Port Arthur, Texas project, this is a greenfield site, and therefore it may not have the advantages often associated with brownfield sites. The ECA facility in Mexico is subject to on-going land disputes that could make project financing difficult as well as finding suitable partners and customers. In addition, while we have completed the regulatory process for an LNG export facility in the U.S., the regulatory process in Mexico and the overlay of U.S. regulations for natural gas exports to an LNG export facility in Mexico are not well developed. There can be no assurance that such a facility could be permitted and constructed without facing significant legal challenges and uncertainties, which in turn could make project financing, as well as finding suitable partners and customers, difficult. Finally, ECA has profitable long-term regasification contracts for 100 percent of the facility, making the decision to pursue a new liquefaction facility dependent in part on whether the investment in a new liquefaction facility would, over the long term, be more beneficial than continuing to supply regasification services under our existing contracts. There can be no assurance that our contemplated LNG export facilities will be completed, and our inability to complete one or more of our contemplated LNG export facilities could have a material adverse effect on our future cash flows, results of operations and prospects. We discuss these projects further in “Item 1. Business” and in “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Factors Influencing Future Performance.” Federal and state legislative and regulatory initiatives relating to hydraulic fracturing could reduce or eliminate LNG export opportunities and demand. Several states have adopted or are considering adopting regulations to impose more stringent permitting, public disclosure or well construction requirements on hydraulic fracturing operations. In addition to state laws, some local municipalities have adopted or are considering adopting land use restrictions, such as city ordinances, that may restrict the performance of or prohibit the well drilling in general and/or hydraulic fracturing in particular. Hydraulic fracturing is typically regulated by state oil and natural gas commissions, but federal agencies, including the EPA and the Bureau of Land Management of the U.S. Department of the Interior, have asserted regulatory authority over certain hydraulic fracturing activities. In addition, the U.S. Congress has from time to time considered legislation to provide for federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act and to require disclosure of the chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process. There are also certain governmental reviews that have been conducted or are underway on deep shale and other formation completion and production practices, including hydraulic fracturing. Depending on the outcome of these studies, federal and state legislatures and agencies may seek to further regulate or even ban such activities. Certain environmental and other groups have also suggested that additional federal, state and local laws and regulations may be needed to more closely regulate the hydraulic fracturing process. We cannot predict whether additional federal, state or local laws or regulations applicable to hydraulic fracturing will be enacted in the future and, if so, what actions any such laws or regulations would require or prohibit. If additional levels of regulation or permitting requirements were imposed on hydraulic fracturing operations, natural gas prices in North America could rise, which in turn could materially adversely affect the relative pricing advantage that has existed in recent years in favor of domestic natural gas prices (based on Henry Hub pricing). Increased regulation or difficulty in permitting of hydraulic fracturing, and any corresponding increase in domestic natural gas prices, could materially adversely affect demand for LNG exports and our ability to develop commercially viable LNG export facilities beyond the three train Cameron LNG facility currently under construction. Increased competition and changes in trade policies could materially adversely affect us. The markets in which we operate are characterized by numerous strong and capable competitors, many of whom have extensive and diversified developmental and/or operating experience (including both domestic and international) and financial resources similar to or greater than ours. Further, in recent years, the natural gas pipeline, storage and LNG market segments have been characterized by strong and increasing competition both with respect to winning new development projects and acquiring existing assets. In Mexico, despite the commissioning of many new energy infrastructure projects by the CFE and other governmental agencies in connection with energy reforms, competition for recent pipeline projects has been intense with numerous bidders competing aggressively for these projects. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in bidding for new development opportunities in the U.S., Mexico or South America. In addition, as noted above, there are a number of potential new LNG liquefaction projects under construction or in the process of being developed by various project developers in North America, including our contemplated new projects, and given the projected global demand for LNG, it is likely that most of these projects will not be completed. Finally, as existing contracts expire at our natural gas storage assets in the Gulf Coast region, we compete with other facilities for storage customers that could continue to support the existing carrying value of these assets, and for anchor customers that could support development of new capacity. These competitive factors could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows and/or prospects. In addition, the current U.S. Administration has indicated its intention to renegotiate trade agreements, such as NAFTA. A shift in U.S. trade policies could materially adversely affect our LNG development opportunities, as well as opportunities for trade between Mexico and the U.S. We may elect not to, or may not be able to, enter into, extend or replace expiring long-term supply and sales agreements or long-term firm capacity agreements for our projects, which would subject our revenues to increased volatility and our businesses to increased competition. Such long-term contracts, once entered into, increase our credit risk if our counterparties fail to perform or become unable to meet their contractual obligations on a timely basis due to bankruptcy, insolvency, or otherwise. The ECA LNG facility has long-term capacity agreements with a limited number of counterparties. Under these agreements, customers pay capacity reservation and usage fees to receive, store and regasify the customers’ LNG. We also may enter into short-term and/or long-term supply agreements to purchase LNG to be received, stored and regasified for sale to other parties. The long-term supply agreement contracts are expected to reduce our exposure to changes in natural gas prices through corresponding natural gas sales agreements or by tying LNG supply prices to prevailing natural gas market price indices. If the counterparties, customers or suppliers to one or more of the key agreements for the ECA LNG facility were to fail to perform or become unable to meet their contractual obligations on a timely basis, it could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows and/or prospects. For the three-train liquefaction facility currently under construction, Cameron LNG JV has 20-year liquefaction and regasification tolling capacity agreements in place with ENGIE S.A. and affiliates of Mitsubishi Corporation and Mitsui & Co. Ltd., that subscribe for the full nameplate capacity of the facility. If the counterparties to these tolling agreements were to fail to perform or become unable to meet their contractual obligations to Cameron LNG JV on a timely basis, it could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows and/or prospects. Sempra Mexico’s and Sempra LNG & Midstream’s ability to enter into or replace existing long-term firm capacity agreements for their natural gas pipeline operations are dependent on demand for and supply of LNG and/or natural gas from their transportation customers, which may include our LNG facilities. A significant sustained decrease in demand for and supply of LNG and/or natural gas from such customers could have a material adverse effect on our businesses, results of operations, cash flows and/or prospects. Our natural gas storage assets include operational and development assets at Bay Gas in Alabama and Mississippi Hub in Mississippi, as well as our development project, LA Storage in Louisiana. LA Storage could be positioned to support LNG export from the Cameron LNG JV terminal and other liquefaction projects, if anticipated cash flows support further investment. However, changes in the U.S. natural gas market could also lead to diminished natural gas storage values. Historically, the value of natural gas storage services has positively correlated with the difference between the seasonal prices of natural gas, among other factors. In general, over the past several years, seasonal differences in natural gas prices have declined, which have contributed to lower prices for storage services. As our legacy (higher rate) sales contracts mature at our Bay Gas and Mississippi Hub facilities, replacement sales contract rates have been and could continue to be lower than has historically been the case. Lower sales revenues may not be offset by cost reductions, which could lead to depressed asset values. Future investment in Bay Gas, Mississippi Hub and LA Storage will depend on market demand and estimates of long-term storage values. Our LA Storage development project construction permit expired in June 2017 and future development will require approval of a new construction permit by the FERC. The LA Storage project also includes an existing 23.3-mile pipeline header system, the LA Storage Pipeline, that is not contracted. Market conditions could result in the need to perform recovery testing of our recorded asset values. In the event such values are not recoverable, we would consider the fair value of these assets relative to their carrying value. To the extent the carrying value is in excess of the fair value, we would record a noncash impairment charge. The carrying value of our long-lived natural gas storage assets at December 31, 2017 was $1.5 billion. A significant impairment charge related to our natural gas storage assets would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which it is recorded. The electric generation and wholesale power sales industries are highly competitive. As more plants are built and competitive pressures increase, wholesale electricity prices may become more volatile. Without the benefit of long-term power sales agreements, our revenues may be subject to increased price volatility, and we may be unable to sell the power that Sempra Renewables’ and Sempra Mexico’s facilities are capable of producing or to sell it at favorable prices, which could materially adversely affect our results of operations, cash flows and/or prospects. We provide information about these matters in “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” Our businesses depend on counterparties, business partners, customers, and suppliers performing in accordance with their agreements. If they fail to perform, we could incur substantial expenses and business disruptions and be exposed to commodity price risk and volatility, which could materially adversely affect our businesses, financial condition, cash flows, results of operations and/or prospects. Our businesses, and the businesses that we invest in, are exposed to the risk that counterparties, business partners, customers, and suppliers that owe money or commodities as a result of market transactions or other long-term agreements or arrangements will not perform their obligations in accordance with such agreements or arrangements. Should they fail to perform, we may be required to enter into alternative arrangements or to honor the underlying commitment at then-current market prices. In such an event, we may incur additional losses to the extent of amounts already paid to such counterparties or suppliers. In addition, many such agreements are important for the conduct and growth of our businesses. The failure of any of the parties to perform in accordance with these agreements could materially adversely affect our businesses, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and/or prospects. Finally, we often extend credit to counterparties and customers. While we perform significant credit analyses prior to extending credit, we are exposed to the risk that we may not be able to collect amounts owed to us. Sempra Mexico’s and Sempra LNG & Midstream’s obligations and those of their suppliers for LNG supplies are contractually subject to (1) suspension or termination for “force majeure” events beyond the control of the parties; and (2) substantial limitations of remedies for other failures to perform, including limitations on damages to amounts that could be substantially less than those necessary to provide full recovery of costs for breach of the agreements, which in either event could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and/or prospects. Our businesses are subject to various legal actions challenging our property rights and permits. We are engaged in disputes regarding our title to the properties adjacent to and properties where our ECA LNG terminal in Mexico is located, as we discuss in Note 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. In the event that we are unable to defend and retain title to the properties on which our ECA LNG terminal is located, we could lose our rights to occupy and use such properties and the related terminal, which could result in breaches of one or more permits or contracts that we have entered into with respect to such terminal. In addition, our ability to convert the ECA LNG terminal into an export facility may be hindered by these disputes, and they could make project financing such a facility and finding suitable partners and customers very difficult. If we are unable to occupy and use such properties and the related terminal, it could have a material adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and/or prospects. We rely on transportation assets and services, much of which we do not own or control, to deliver electricity and natural gas. We depend on electric transmission lines, natural gas pipelines, and other transportation facilities owned and operated by third parties to: ▪ deliver the electricity and natural gas we sell to wholesale markets, ▪ supply natural gas to our gas storage and electric generation facilities, and ▪ provide retail energy services to customers. Sempra Mexico and Sempra LNG & Midstream also depend on natural gas pipelines to interconnect with their ultimate source or customers of the commodities they are transporting. Sempra Mexico and Sempra LNG & Midstream also rely on specialized ships to transport LNG to their facilities and on natural gas pipelines to transport natural gas for customers of the facilities. Sempra Renewables, Sempra South American Utilities and Sempra Mexico rely on transmission lines to sell electricity to their customers. If transportation is disrupted, or if capacity is inadequate, we may be unable to sell and deliver our commodities, electricity and other services to some or all of our customers. As a result, we may be responsible for damages incurred by our customers, such as the additional cost of acquiring alternative electricity, natural gas supplies and LNG at then-current spot market rates, which could have a material adverse effect on our businesses, financial condition, cash flows, results of operations and/or prospects. Our international businesses are exposed to different local, regulatory and business risks and challenges. In Mexico, we own or have interests in natural gas distribution and transportation, LPG storage and transportation facilities, ethane transportation, electricity generation, and LNG and liquid fuels marine and inland terminals. In Peru and Chile, we own or have interests in electricity generation, transmission and distribution facilities and operations. Developing infrastructure projects, owning energy assets, and operating businesses in foreign jurisdictions subject us to significant security, political, legal, regulatory and financial risks that vary by country, including: ▪ changes in foreign laws and regulations, including tax and environmental laws and regulations, and U.S. laws and regulations, in each case, that are related to foreign operations ▪ governance by and decisions of local regulatory bodies, including setting of rates and tariffs that may be earned by our businesses ▪ adverse changes in market conditions and inadequate enforcement of regulations ▪ high rates of inflation ▪ volatility in exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and currencies of the countries in which we operate, as we discuss below ▪ foreign cash balances that may be unavailable to fund U.S. operations, or available only at unfavorable U.S. and/or foreign tax rates upon repatriation of such amounts or changes in tax law ▪ changes in government policies or personnel ▪ trade restrictions ▪ limitations on U.S. company ownership in foreign countries ▪ permitting and regulatory compliance ▪ changes in labor supply and labor relations ▪ adverse rulings by foreign courts or tribunals, challenges to permits and approvals, difficulty in enforcing contractual and property rights, and unsettled property rights and titles in Mexico and other foreign jurisdictions ▪ expropriation of assets ▪ destruction of property or assets ▪ adverse changes in the stability of the governments in the countries in which we operate ▪ general political, social, economic and business conditions ▪ compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar laws ▪ valuation of goodwill ▪ theft of assets Our international businesses also are subject to foreign currency risks. These risks arise from both volatility in foreign currency exchange and inflation rates and devaluations of foreign currencies. In such cases, an appreciation of the U.S. dollar against a local currency could materially reduce the amount of cash and income received from those foreign subsidiaries. We may or may not choose to hedge these risks, and any hedges entered into may or may not be effective. Fluctuations in foreign currency exchange and inflation rates may result in significantly increased taxes in foreign countries and materially adversely affect our cash flows, financial condition, results of operations and/or prospects. We discuss litigation related to Sempra Mexico’s international energy projects in Note 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. Risks Related to the Pending Acquisition of Energy Future Holdings Corp. In this “Risk Factors” section, we sometimes refer to Sempra Energy, after giving effect to the assumed completion of the Merger, as the “combined company.” Our pending acquisition of EFH, including EFH’s 80.03 percent indirect interest in Oncor, is subject to various conditions, including the receipt of governmental and regulatory approvals, which approvals may impose onerous conditions, and is subject to other risks and uncertainties that could cause the Merger to be abandoned, delayed or restructured and/or materially adversely affect Sempra Energy. Sempra Energy, EFH and Oncor have not obtained all the governmental and regulatory consents, approvals and rulings required to complete the Merger, including approval from the PUCT, among others. These and other governmental and regulatory authorities may not provide the consents, approvals and rulings that are conditions to the Merger or that are otherwise necessary for Oncor’s operations after the Merger, could seek to block or challenge the Merger, or may impose certain requirements or obligations as conditions to their approval. The agreements governing the Merger may require us to accept conditions from these regulators that could materially adversely impact the results of operations, financial condition and prospects of the combined company. If the required governmental consents, approvals and rulings are not received, or if they are not received on terms that satisfy the conditions set forth in the agreements governing the Merger, then neither Sempra Energy, EFH nor Oncor will be obligated to complete the Merger. Sempra Energy and EFH have determined that the Merger is not subject to the premerger notification requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended (the HSR Act). Even though Sempra Energy and EFH have determined that the Merger is not subject to the HSR Act, governmental authorities could seek to block or challenge the Merger or compel divestiture of a portion of the combined company if they deem it necessary or desirable in the public interest to do so. In addition, in some jurisdictions, a private party could initiate an action under the antitrust laws challenging or seeking to enjoin the Merger, before or after it is completed. As a result, actions taken by governmental authorities or private parties, both before or after completion of the Merger, may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and prospects or may result in conditions or requirements that lead to abandonment, delay or restructuring of the Merger. We can provide no assurance that the various closing conditions will be satisfied and that the required governmental and other necessary approvals will be obtained, or that any required conditions to such approvals will not materially adversely affect the results of operations, financial condition or prospects of the combined company following the Merger. In addition, it is possible that any conditions to such approvals will result in the abandonment, delay or restructuring of the Merger. The occurrence of any of these events individually or in combination could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and prospects, whether or not the Merger is completed. Completion of the Merger is also subject to a number of other risks and uncertainties that, among other things, may alter the proposed structure and ultimate financing for the Merger, result in changes in or impose other limitations or conditions on the business of the combined company following the Merger or have other effects that may have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial condition and prospects of the combined company if the Merger is consummated or may lead to abandonment, delay or restructuring of the Merger. Failure to complete the Merger could negatively impact our results of operations, financial condition and prospects and the market value of our common stock, preferred stock and debt securities. Other parties may offer to acquire EFH or Oncor on terms that are more favorable to EFH than the terms of the Merger Agreement. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, EFH or its subsidiary EFIH may terminate the Merger Agreement in certain circumstances if either of their respective boards of directors determines in its sole discretion, after consultation with their independent financial advisors and outside legal counsel, that the failure to terminate the Merger Agreement is inconsistent with their fiduciary duties, which may allow them to terminate the Merger Agreement in order to accept an offer from another party. If the Merger is not completed, we will not realize the potential benefits of the Merger, but will still be required to pay the substantial costs incurred in connection with pursuing the Merger. If the Merger is not completed, these and other factors could materially adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition and prospects and the market value of our common stock, preferred stock and debt securities. EFH could incur substantial tax liabilities related to its 2016 spin-off of Vistra from EFH, which would reduce and potentially eliminate the value of our investment in EFH. As part of its ongoing bankruptcy proceedings, in 2016 EFH distributed all of the outstanding shares of common stock of its subsidiary Vistra Energy Corp. (formerly TCEH Corp. and referred to herein as Vistra) to certain creditors of TCEH LLC (the spinoff), and Vistra became an independent, publicly traded company. Vistra’s spin-off from EFH was intended to qualify for partially tax-free treatment to EFH and its stockholders under Sections 368(a)(1)(G), 355 and 356 (collectively referred to as the Intended Tax Treatment) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. In connection with and as a condition to the spin-off, EFH received a private letter ruling from the IRS regarding certain issues relating to the Intended Tax Treatment of the spin-off, as well as tax opinions from counsel to EFH and Vistra regarding certain aspects of the spin-off not covered by the private letter ruling. IRS private letter rulings are generally binding on the IRS, but the continuing validity of that ruling, as well as the tax opinions received, are subject to the accuracy of factual representations and assumptions, as well as the performance by EFH and Vistra of certain undertakings, made to the IRS in connection with obtaining the ruling and to counsel in connection with their opinions. If any of the factual representations or assumptions in the IRS private letter ruling or tax opinions (which will not impact the IRS position on the transactions) were untrue or incomplete, any such undertaking is not complied with, or the facts upon which the IRS private letter ruling or tax opinions were based are different from the actual facts relating to the spin-off, the tax opinions and/or IRS private letter ruling may not be valid and as a result, could be successfully challenged by the IRS. If it is determined that the spin-off did not qualify for the Intended Tax Treatment, EFH could incur substantial tax liabilities, which would materially reduce and potentially eliminate the value of our investment in EFH if the Merger is completed and could have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial condition and prospects of the combined company and on the market value of our common stock, preferred stock and debt securities. Due to the risks posed by the spin-off not qualifying for the Intended Tax Treatment, we have required, as an express condition to closing of the Merger, that EFH must receive a supplemental private letter ruling from the IRS as well as tax opinions of counsel to Sempra Energy and EFH that generally provide that the Merger will not affect the conclusions reached in, respectively, the IRS private letter ruling and tax opinions issued with respect to the spin-off described above. In November 2017, EFH received the supplemental private letter ruling from the IRS that provides that the Merger will not affect the tax-free treatment of the spinoff. Similar to the IRS private letter ruling and opinions issued with respect to the spin-off, the supplemental private letter ruling and any opinions issued with respect to the Merger are and will be based on factual representations and assumptions, as well as certain undertakings, made by Sempra Energy and EFH. If such representations and assumptions are untrue or incomplete, any such undertakings are not complied with, or the facts upon which the IRS supplemental private letter ruling or tax opinions (which will not impact the IRS position on the transactions) are based are different from the actual facts relating to the Merger, the tax opinions and/or supplemental private letter ruling may not be valid and as a result, could be successfully challenged by the IRS. If it is determined that the Merger causes the spin-off not to qualify for the Intended Tax Treatment, EFH could incur substantial tax liabilities, which would materially reduce and potentially eliminate the value of our investment in EFH if the Merger is completed and could have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial condition and prospects of the combined company and on the market value of our common stock, preferred stock and debt securities. Should the IRS invalidate the private letter ruling and/or the supplemental private letter ruling, EFH has administrative appeal rights including the right to challenge any adverse IRS position in court. Failure by Oncor to successfully execute its business strategy and objectives may materially adversely affect the future results of the combined company and, consequently, the market value of our common stock, preferred stock and debt securities. The success of the Merger will depend, in part, on the ability of Oncor to successfully execute its business strategy, including delivering electricity in a safe and reliable manner, minimizing service interruptions and investing in its transmission and distribution infrastructure to maintain its system, serve its growing customer base with a modernized grid, and support energy production. These objectives are capital intensive. See below under “-Oncor’s operations are capital intensive and it could have liquidity needs that may require us to make additional investments in Oncor.” If Oncor is not able to achieve these objectives, is not able to achieve these objectives on a timely basis, or otherwise fails to perform in accordance with our expectations, the anticipated benefits of the Merger may not be realized fully or at all, and the Merger may materially adversely affect the results of operations, financial condition and prospects of the combined company and, consequently, the market value of our common stock, preferred stock and debt securities. We will continue to incur significant costs in connection with the Merger, and the combined company could continue to incur substantial costs as a result of the Merger. We will continue to incur significant costs in connection with the Merger, whether or not the Merger is completed, including fees paid to legal, financial, accounting and other advisors. Moreover, if the Merger is completed, the combined company will incur substantial costs in connection with the Merger, including fees paid to legal, financial, accounting and other advisors. Many of the expenses that will be incurred, by their nature, are difficult to estimate accurately. These expenses may adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations prior to completion of the Merger and of the combined company following the completion of the Merger. We have issued equity securities to fund a significant portion of the Merger Consideration and may issue additional equity securities after the Merger to reduce our indebtedness, which may dilute the economic and voting interests of our current shareholders and may adversely affect the market value of our common stock and preferred stock. Under the Merger Agreement, we are required to pay Merger Consideration of $9.45 billion, payable in cash. In January 2018, we completed the offering of 23,364,486 shares of our common stock pursuant to forward sale agreements (the forward sale agreements) and directly issued 3,504,672 shares of our common stock to the underwriters in the offering to raise proceeds to fund a portion of the Merger Consideration. We did not initially receive any proceeds from the sale of our common stock pursuant to the forward sale agreements. We expect to settle a portion of the forward sale agreements and receive cash proceeds, subject to certain adjustments, from the sale of shares of our common stock concurrently with, or prior to, the closing of the Merger. We expect to settle the remaining portion of the forward sale agreements after the Merger, if completed, in multiple settlements on or prior to December 15, 2019, in each case entirely by physical delivery of shares of our common stock in exchange for cash proceeds. In addition, in January 2018, we issued 17,250,000 shares of our 6% mandatory convertible preferred stock, series A (the “mandatory convertible preferred stock”), which we expect will ultimately convert into common stock. Some of these equity issuances, including common stock issued upon settlement of the forward sale agreements, will likely occur following the Merger to repay outstanding indebtedness, including indebtedness we have incurred and expect to incur in connection with the Merger. See below under “-We have incurred significant indebtedness in connection with the Merger and will likely incur additional indebtedness related the Merger. As a result, it may be more difficult for us to pay or refinance our debts or take other actions, and we may need to divert cash to fund debt service payments.” Although the issuance of any equity securities is subject to market conditions and other factors, many of which are beyond our control, and we may in fact issue fewer shares of any equity securities than anticipated, the issuance of a substantial number of additional shares of our common stock (including shares issued upon conversion of our mandatory convertible preferred stock) will have the effect, and the issuance of additional equity securities may have the effect, of diluting the economic and voting interests of our shareholders. In addition, the issuance of additional shares of common stock (including shares issued upon conversion of our mandatory convertible preferred stock) without a commensurate increase in our consolidated earnings would dilute, and the issuance of additional equity securities could dilute, our earnings per common share. Any of the foregoing may have a material adverse effect on the market value of our common stock. We have incurred significant indebtedness in connection with the Merger and will likely incur additional indebtedness related to the Merger. As a result, it may be more difficult for us to pay or refinance our debts or take other actions, and we may need to divert cash to fund debt service payments. We have incurred significant additional indebtedness to finance a portion of the Merger Consideration and associated transaction costs. In January 2018, we issued $5 billion aggregate principal amount of fixed and floating rate notes in various series that mature between 2019 and 2048, and we expect to issue up to $2.7 billion aggregate principal amount of commercial paper, although we may reduce the amount of commercial paper by borrowings under our revolving credit facilities and cash from operations, to initially fund the Merger Consideration and associated transaction costs. Moreover, although we intend to use equity financing after completion of the Merger to repay a portion of the indebtedness incurred to finance the Merger and associated transaction costs, to the extent we are unable to do so, the amount of indebtedness we have incurred to finance the Merger and associated transaction costs will be higher than currently anticipated. Accordingly, our debt service obligations resulting from such additional indebtedness could have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial condition and prospects of the combined company. Our increased indebtedness could ▪ make it more difficult and/or costly for us to pay or refinance our debts as they become due, particularly during adverse economic and industry conditions, because a decrease in revenues or increase in costs could cause cash flow from operations to be insufficient to make scheduled debt service payments; ▪ limit our flexibility to pursue other strategic opportunities or react to changes in our business and the industry sectors in which we operate and, consequently, put us at a competitive disadvantage to our competitors that have less debt; ▪ require a substantial portion of our available cash to be used for debt service payments, thereby reducing the availability of our cash to fund working capital, capital expenditures, development projects, acquisitions, dividend payments and other general corporate purposes, which could hinder our prospects for growth and the market price of our common stock, preferred stock and debt securities, among other things; ▪ result in a downgrade in the credit ratings on our indebtedness (including as discussed above under “Risks Related to Sempra Energy - Certain credit rating agencies may downgrade our credit ratings or place those ratings on negative outlook, which may adversely affect the market price of our common stock, preferred stock and debt securities.”), which could limit our ability to borrow additional funds, increase the interest rates under our credit facilities and under any new indebtedness we may incur, and reduce the trading prices of our outstanding debt securities, common stock and preferred stock; ▪ make it more difficult for us to raise capital to fund working capital, make capital expenditures, pay dividends, pursue strategic initiatives or for other purposes; ▪ result in higher interest expense in the event of increases in interest rates on our current or future borrowings subject to variable rates of interest; ▪ require that additional materially adverse terms, conditions or covenants be placed on us under our debt instruments, which covenants might include, for example, limitations on additional borrowings; and ▪ result in specific restrictions on uses of our assets, as well as prohibitions or limitations on our ability to create liens, pay dividends, receive distributions from our subsidiaries, redeem or repurchase our stock or make investments, any of which could hinder our access to capital markets and limit or delay our ability to carry out our capital expenditure program. Based on the current and expected results of operations and financial condition of Sempra Energy and our subsidiaries and the currently anticipated financing structure for the Merger, we believe that our cash flow from operations, together with the proceeds from borrowings, issuances of equity and debt securities, distributions from our equity method investments, project financing and equity sales (including tax equity and partnering in joint ventures) will generate sufficient cash on a consolidated basis to make all of the principal and interest payments when such payments are due under Sempra Energy’s and our current subsidiaries’ existing credit facilities, indentures and other instruments governing their outstanding indebtedness and under the indebtedness that we have incurred and that we may incur to fund the Merger Consideration and associated transaction costs. However, our expectation is subject to numerous estimates, assumptions and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that we will be able to make such payments of principal and interest or repay or refinance such borrowings and obligations when due. Oncor and its subsidiaries will not guarantee any indebtedness of Sempra Energy or any of our other subsidiaries, nor will any of them have any obligation to provide funds (nor will we have any ability to require them to provide funds), whether in the form of dividends, loans or otherwise, to enable Sempra Energy to pay dividends on its common stock or mandatory convertible preferred stock or to enable our other subsidiaries to make required debt service payments, particularly in light of the ring-fencing arrangements described below under “-Certain “ring-fencing” measures and other existing governance mechanisms will limit our ability to influence the management and policies of Oncor.” As a result, the Merger will substantially increase our debt service obligations without any assurance that we will receive any cash from Oncor or any of its subsidiaries to assist us in servicing our indebtedness, paying dividends on our common stock and mandatory convertible preferred stock or meeting our other cash needs. We are committed to maintaining our credit ratings at investment grade. To maintain these credit ratings, we may consider it appropriate to reduce the amount of our indebtedness outstanding following the Merger. We may seek to reduce this indebtedness with the proceeds from the issuance of additional shares of common stock and, possibly, other equity securities, and the settlement of sales of our common stock pursuant to our forward sale agreements, cash from operations and proceeds from asset sales, which may dilute the voting rights and economic interests of holders of our common stock. However, our ability to raise additional equity financing after completion of the Merger will be subject to market conditions and a number of other risks and uncertainties, including whether the results of operations of the combined company meet the expectations of investors and securities analysts. There can be no assurance that we will be able to issue additional shares of our common stock or other equity securities after the Merger on terms that we consider acceptable or at all, or that we will be able to reduce the amount of our outstanding indebtedness after the Merger, should we elect to do so, to a level that permits us to maintain our investment grade credit ratings. The Merger may not positively affect our results of operations and may cause a decrease in our earnings per share, which may negatively affect the market price of our common stock, preferred stock and debt securities. We anticipate that the Merger, if consummated on the terms and under our financing structure, will have a positive impact on our consolidated results of operations. This expectation is based on current market conditions and is subject to a number of assumptions, estimates, projections and other uncertainties, including assumptions regarding the results of operations of the combined company after the Merger and the relative mix and timing of debt and equity financing necessary to ultimately fund the Merger Consideration and associated transaction costs. This expectation also assumes that Oncor will perform in accordance with our expectations, and there can be no assurance that this will occur. In addition, we may encounter additional transaction costs and costs to manage our investment in Oncor, may fail to realize some or any of the benefits anticipated in the Merger, may be subject to currently unknown liabilities as a result of the Merger, or may be subject to other factors that affect preliminary estimates. As a result, there can be no assurance that the Merger will positively impact our results of operations, and it is possible that the Merger may have an adverse effect, which could be material, on our results of operations, financial condition and prospects or may cause our earnings per share to decrease, any of which may materially adversely affect the market price of our common stock, preferred stock and debt securities. Certain “ring-fencing” measures and other existing governance mechanisms will limit our ability to influence the management and policies of Oncor. EFH and Oncor implemented various “ring-fencing” measures in 2007 to enhance Oncor’s separateness from its owners and to mitigate the risk that Oncor would be negatively impacted in the event of a bankruptcy or other adverse financial developments affecting its owners. This ring-fence has created both legal and financial separation between Oncor Holdings, Oncor and their subsidiaries, on the one hand, and EFH and its affiliates and other subsidiaries, on the other hand. Pursuant to the agreements related to the Merger, existing governance mechanisms, and commitments that we made as part of our application to the PUCT for approval of the Merger and the related Stipulation with key stakeholders in the proceeding, we have committed to certain “ring-fencing” measures and will be subject to certain restrictions following the Merger. These measures, governance mechanisms and restrictions include the following, among other things: ▪ Following consummation of the Merger, the board of directors of Oncor will consist of thirteen members, seven of which will be independent directors in all material respects under the rules of the New York Stock Exchange in relation to Sempra Energy and its subsidiaries and affiliated entities and any entity with a direct or indirect ownership interest in Oncor or Oncor Holdings (and those directors must have no material relationship with Sempra Energy or its affiliates, or any other entity with a direct or indirect ownership interest in Oncor or Oncor Holdings, at the time of the Merger or within the previous 10 years), two of which will be designated by Sempra Energy, two of which will be appointed by Oncor’s minority owner, TTI, which is an investment vehicle owned by third parties unaffiliated with EFH and Sempra Energy and that owns approximately 19.75 percent of the outstanding membership interests in Oncor, and two of which will be members of Oncor management, initially Robert S. Shapard and E. Allen Nye, Jr., who no later than the closing of the Merger will be the Chair of the Oncor board and chief executive officer of Oncor, respectively. In addition, Oncor Holdings will also continue to have a majority of independent directors following the consummation of the Merger; ▪ If the credit rating on Oncor’s senior secured debt by any of the three major rating agencies falls below BBB (or the equivalent), Oncor will suspend dividends and other distributions (except for contractual tax payments), unless otherwise allowed by the PUCT; ▪ We have agreed to make, within 60 days after the Merger, our proportionate share of the aggregate equity investment in Oncor in an amount necessary for Oncor to achieve a capital structure consisting of 57.5 percent long-term debt and 42.5 percent equity, as calculated for regulatory purposes; ▪ Oncor may not pay dividends or make any other distributions (except for contractual tax payments) to its owners, including Sempra Energy, if a majority of its independent directors or a minority member director determines that it is in the best interests of Oncor to retain such amounts to meet expected future requirements (including continuing compliance with its debt-to-equity ratio required by the PUCT described above); ▪ Certain transactions, including certain mergers and sales of substantially all assets, changes to the dividend policy and declarations of bankruptcy and liquidation, require the approval of all, or in certain circumstances a majority, of the independent directors of Oncor and at least one, or in certain circumstances both, of the directors appointed by Oncor’s minority owner, TTI; and ▪ There must be maintained certain “separateness measures” that reinforce the financial separation of Oncor from EFH and EFH’s owners, such as a prohibition on Oncor providing guarantees or security for debt of EFH or Sempra Energy. Pursuant to the Stipulation, the current independent directors for Oncor and Oncor Holdings will continue to serve for three years following the closing of the Merger, and thereafter two of these independent directors will cease to be members of their respective boards every two years. Each subsequent independent director will be elected for a term of four years. The Stipulation also provides that Oncor Holdings will have a nominating committee comprised entirely of independent directors, who will nominate the independent director board member candidates of Oncor and Oncor Holdings, subject to approval by a majority of the remaining independent directors of Oncor Holdings. If any independent director is removed, retires or is unable to serve, the Stipulation provides that a replacement independent director must be chosen by the nominating committee of Oncor Holdings and approved by a majority of the remaining independent directors of Oncor Holdings. Under the Stipulation, the duties of the board members of Oncor and Oncor Holdings will be to act in the best interests of Oncor consistent with the approved ring-fence and Delaware law. Any future changes to the size, composition, structure or rights of the boards of Oncor and Oncor Holdings must first be approved by the PUCT. Accordingly, we will not control Oncor or Oncor Holdings and will have only a limited ability to direct the management, policies and operations of Oncor, including the deployment or disposition of Oncor assets, declarations of dividends, strategic planning and other important corporate actions and issues. The existence of these ring-fencing measures may increase our costs of financing and operating EFH and its subsidiaries. Further, the Oncor directors have considerable autonomy and, as described in our commitments, have a duty to act in the best interest of Oncor consistent with the approved ring-fence and Delaware law, which may be contrary to our best interests or be in opposition to our preferred strategic direction for Oncor. To the extent they take actions that are not in our interests, the financial condition, results of operations and prospects of the combined company may be materially adversely affected. Certain key personnel at Oncor may choose to depart Oncor prior to, upon completion of or shortly after the Merger, and any loss of key personnel may materially adversely affect the future business and operations of Oncor and the anticipated benefits of the Merger. If, despite efforts to retain certain key personnel at Oncor, any key personnel depart or fail to continue employment as a result of the Merger, the loss of the services of such personnel and their experience and knowledge could adversely affect Oncor’s results of operations, financial condition and prospects and the successful ongoing operation of its business, which could also have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial condition and prospects of the combined company after completion of the Merger. If Oncor fails to respond to challenges in the electric utility industry, including changes in regulation, its results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected, and this could materially adversely affect the combined company. Because Oncor is regulated by both U.S. federal and Texas state authorities, it has been and will continue to be affected by legislative and regulatory developments. The costs and burdens associated with complying with these regulatory requirements and adjusting Oncor’s business to legislative and regulatory developments may have a material adverse effect on Oncor. Moreover, potential legislative changes, regulatory changes or other market or industry changes may create greater risks to the predictability of utility earnings generally. If Oncor does not successfully respond to these changes, it could suffer a deterioration in its results of operations, financial condition and prospects, which could materially adversely affect the results of operations, financial condition and prospects of the combined company after the Merger. Oncor’s operations are capital intensive and it could have liquidity needs that may require us to make additional investments in Oncor. Oncor’s business is capital intensive, and it relies on external financing as a significant source of liquidity for its capital requirements. In the past, Oncor has financed a substantial portion of its cash needs with the proceeds from indebtedness. In the event that Oncor fails to meet its capital requirements or if its credit ratings at closing by any one of the three major rating agencies are below the ratings as of June 30, 2017, we may be required to make additional investments in Oncor or if Oncor is unable to access sufficient capital to finance its ongoing needs, we may elect to make additional investments in Oncor which could be substantial and which would reduce the cash available to us for other purposes, could increase our indebtedness and could ultimately materially adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition and prospects after the Merger. In that regard, our commitments to the PUCT prohibit us from making loans to Oncor. As a result, if Oncor requires additional financing and cannot obtain it from other sources, we may be required to make a capital contribution, rather than a loan, to Oncor. The market value of our common stock could decline if our existing shareholders sell large amounts of our common stock in anticipation of or following the Merger, and the market prices of our common stock, preferred stock and debt securities may be affected by factors following the Merger that are different from those affecting the market prices for our common stock, preferred stock and debt securities prior to the Merger. Following the Merger, shareholders of Sempra Energy will own interests in a combined company operating an expanded business with more assets and more indebtedness. Current shareholders of Sempra Energy may not wish to continue to invest in the combined company, or may wish to reduce their investment in the combined company, for a number of reasons, which may include loss of confidence in the ability of the combined company to execute its business strategies, to comply with institutional investing guidelines, to increase diversification or to track any rebalancing of stock indices in which Sempra Energy common stock is included. If, before or following the Merger, large amounts of Sempra Energy common stock are sold, the market price of our common stock could decline. In addition, we are more exposed to rising interest rates due to our use of floating rate notes and significant increase in the amount of debt outstanding to finance the Merger. If the Merger is consummated, the risks associated with the combined company may affect the results of operations of the combined company and the market prices of our common stock, preferred stock and debt securities following the Merger differently than they affected such results of operations and market prices prior to the Merger. Additionally, the results of operations of the combined company may be affected by additional or different risks than those that currently affect the results of operations of Sempra Energy. Any of the foregoing matters could materially adversely affect the market prices of our common stock, preferred stock and debt securities following the Merger. Settlement provisions contained in our equity forward sale agreements subject us to certain risks. In January 2018, we completed the offering of 23,364,486 shares of our common stock pursuant to forward sale agreements (the forward sale agreements) to raise proceeds to fund a portion of the Merger Consideration. The counterparties to the forward sale agreements (the forward purchasers) will have the right to accelerate the forward sale agreements (or, in certain cases, the portion thereof that they determine is affected by the relevant event) and require us to physically settle the forward sale agreements on a date specified by the forward purchasers if: ▪ they are unable to establish, maintain or unwind their hedge position with respect to the forward sale agreements; ▪ they determine that they are unable to, or it is commercially impracticable for them to, continue to borrow a number of shares of our common stock equal to the number of shares of our common stock underlying the forward sale agreements or that, with respect to borrowing such number of shares of our common stock, they would incur a rate that is greater than the borrow cost specified in the forward sale agreements, subject to a prior notice requirement; ▪ we declare or pay cash dividends on shares of our common stock in an amount in excess of amounts, or at a time before, those prescribed by the forward sale agreements or declare or pay certain other types of dividends or distributions on shares of our common stock; ▪ an event is announced that, if consummated, would result in an extraordinary event (including certain mergers and tender offers, our nationalization, our insolvency and the delisting of the shares of our common stock); ▪ an ownership event (as such term is defined in the forward sale agreements) occurs; or ▪ certain other events of default, termination events or other specified events occur, including, among other things, a change in law. The forward purchasers’ decision to exercise their right to accelerate the forward sale agreements (or, in certain cases, the portion thereof that they determine is affected by the relevant event) and to require us to settle the forward sale agreements will be made irrespective of our interests, including our need for capital. In such cases, we could be required to issue and deliver our common stock under the terms of the physical settlement provisions of the forward sale agreements irrespective of our capital needs, which would result in dilution to our earnings per share and may adversely affect the market price of our common stock, our mandatory convertible preferred stock, any other equity that we may issue, and our debt securities. The forward sale agreements provide for settlement on a settlement date or dates to be specified at our discretion, but which we expect to occur in multiple settlements on or prior to December 15, 2019. Subject to the provisions of the forward sale agreements, delivery of our shares upon physical or net share settlement of the forward sale agreements will result in dilution to our earnings per share and may adversely affect the market price of our common stock, mandatory convertible preferred stock and any other equity that we may issue. We may elect, subject to certain conditions, cash settlement or net share settlement for all or a portion of our obligations under the forward sale agreements if we conclude that it is in our interest to do so. For example, we may conclude that it is in our interest to cash settle or net share settle the forward sale agreements if the Merger does not close or if we otherwise have no current use for all or a portion of the net proceeds due upon physical settlement of the forward sale agreements. If we elect to cash or net share settle all or a portion of the shares of our common stock underlying the forward sale agreements, we would expect the forward purchasers or one of their affiliates to purchase the number of shares necessary, based on the number of shares with respect to which we have elected cash or net share settlement, in order to satisfy their obligation to return the shares of our common stock they had borrowed in connection with sales of our common stock related to our January 2018 common stock offering and, if applicable in connection with net share settlement, to deliver shares of our common stock to us or take into account shares of our common stock to be delivered by us, as applicable. The purchase of our common stock by the forward purchasers or their affiliates to unwind the forward purchasers’ hedge positions could cause the price of our common stock to increase over time, thereby increasing the amount of cash or the number of shares of our common stock that we would owe to the forward purchasers upon cash settlement or net share settlement, as the case may be, of the forward sale agreements, or decreasing the amount of cash or the number of shares of our common stock that the forward purchasers owe us upon cash settlement or net share settlement, as the case may be, of the forward sale agreements. Dividend requirements associated with the mandatory convertible preferred stock Sempra Energy issued to finance a portion of the Merger Consideration subject us to certain risks. In January 2018, Sempra Energy issued 17,250,000 shares of its mandatory convertible preferred stock. Any future payments of cash dividends, and the amount of any cash dividends we pay, on the mandatory convertible preferred stock will depend on, among other things, our financial condition, capital requirements and results of operations, and the ability of our subsidiaries and investments to distribute cash to us, as well as other factors that our board of directors (or an authorized committee thereof) may consider relevant. Any failure to pay scheduled dividends on the mandatory convertible preferred stock when due would likely have a material adverse impact on the market price of the mandatory convertible preferred stock, our common stock and our debt securities and would prohibit us, under the terms of the mandatory convertible preferred stock, from paying cash dividends on or repurchasing shares of our common stock (subject to limited exceptions) until such time as we have paid all accumulated and unpaid dividends on the mandatory convertible preferred stock. The terms of the mandatory convertible preferred stock further provide that if dividends on any shares of the mandatory convertible preferred stock (i) have not been declared and paid, or (ii) have been declared but a sum of cash or number of shares of our common stock sufficient for payment thereof has not been set aside for the benefit of the holders thereof on the applicable record date, in each case, for the equivalent of six or more dividend periods, whether or not for consecutive dividend periods, the holders of shares of mandatory convertible preferred stock, voting together as a single class with holders of any and all other classes or series of our preferred stock ranking equally with the mandatory convertible preferred stock either as to dividends or the distribution of assets upon liquidation, dissolution or winding-up and having similar voting rights, will be entitled to elect a total of two additional members of our board of directors, subject to certain terms and limitations described in the certificate of determination applicable to the mandatory convertible preferred stock. Other Risks Sempra Energy has substantial investments in and obligations arising from businesses that it does not control or manage or in which it shares control. Sempra Energy makes investments in entities that we do not control or manage or in which we share control. As described above, SDG&E holds a 20-percent ownership interest in SONGS, which is in the process of being decommissioned by Edison, its majority owner. Sempra LNG & Midstream accounts for its investment in the Cameron LNG JV under the equity method, which investment is $997 million at December 31, 2017. At December 31, 2017, Sempra Renewables had investments totaling $813 million in several joint ventures to operate renewable generation facilities. Sempra Mexico has a 40-percent interest in a joint venture with a subsidiary of TransCanada to build, own and operate the Sur de Texas-Tuxpan natural gas marine pipeline in Mexico, a 50-percent interest in a renewables wind project in Baja California, and a 50-percent interest in the Los Ramones Norte pipeline in Mexico. At December 31, 2017, these various joint venture investments by Sempra Mexico totaled $624 million. Sempra Energy has an investment balance of $67 million at December 31, 2017 that reflects remaining distributions expected to be received from the RBS Sempra Commodities partnership as it is dissolved. The timing and amount of distributions may be impacted by the matters we discuss related to RBS Sempra Commodities in Note 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. The failure to collect all or a substantial portion of our remaining investment in the RBS Sempra Commodities partnership could have a corresponding impact on our cash flows, financial condition and results of operations. Sempra Mexico, Sempra Renewables and Sempra LNG & Midstream have provided guarantees related to joint venture financing agreements, and Sempra South American Utilities and Sempra Mexico have provided loans to joint ventures in which they have investments and to other affiliates. We discuss the guarantees in Note 4 and affiliate loans in Note 1 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. We have limited influence over these ventures and other businesses in which we do not have a controlling interest. In addition to the other risks inherent in these businesses, if their management were to fail to perform adequately or the other investors in the businesses were unable or otherwise failed to perform their obligations to provide capital and credit support for these businesses, it could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and/or prospects. We discuss our investments further in Notes 3, 4 and 10 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. Market performance or changes in other assumptions could require Sempra Energy, SDG&E and/or SoCalGas to make significant unplanned contributions to their pension and other postretirement benefit plans. Sempra Energy, SDG&E and SoCalGas provide defined benefit pension plans and other postretirement benefits to eligible employees and retirees. A decline in the market value of plan assets may increase the funding requirements for these plans. In addition, the cost of providing pension and other postretirement benefits is also affected by other factors, including the assumed rate of return on plan assets, employee demographics, discount rates used in determining future benefit obligations, rates of increase in health care costs, levels of assumed interest rates and future governmental regulation. An adverse change in any of these factors could cause a material increase in our funding obligations which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and/or prospects. Impairment of goodwill would negatively impact our consolidated results of operations and net worth. As of December 31, 2017, Sempra Energy had approximately $2.4 billion of goodwill, which represented approximately 4.8 percent of the total assets on its Consolidated Balance Sheet, primarily related to the acquisitions of IEnova Pipelines and Ventika in Mexico, Chilquinta Energía in Chile and Luz Del Sur in Peru. Goodwill is not amortized, but we test it for impairment annually on October 1 or whenever events or changes in circumstances necessitate an evaluation, which could result in our recording a goodwill impairment loss. We discuss our annual goodwill impairment testing process and the factors considered in such testing in “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates” and in Note 1 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. A goodwill impairment loss could materially adversely affect our results of operations for the period in which such charge is recorded. ITEM 1B.